Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark (2019) in Movies
Aug 21, 2019
Too scary for kids - not scary enough for teenagers
SCARY STORIES TO TELL IN THE DARK is a good "starter" horror film. A step up from fair like Goosebumps but not quite to the level (in intensity, gore and violence) of a "real" Horror film like HEREDITY, PARANORMAL ACTIVITY or the SAW franchise - and that just might be it's downfall for it is stuck in a very narrow band of viewers who will enjoy this (too intense for younger kids, to "kidd-ish" for teenagers and above).
And that's too bad, for SCARY STORIES is a pretty well put together film. Telling...well...a series of scary stories that come true (to the detriment of the teens that these stories are written about).
Based on the YA series of novels of the same name, Director Andre Overdal stitches together (in some instances quite literally) a creepy (enough) tale of teens in danger by things that go bump into the night. There are good (enough) scares, some real (enough) spine-tingling chills and just (enough) death and destruction to keep things interesting.
And that's good for the cast is pretty bland. Zoe Margaret Coletti, Michael Garza, Gabriel Rush and Austin Zajur are "fine" (but interchangeable) as the 4 teens caught in the crossfire of these stories. Their performances/characters are almost good enough to sustain things, but, ultimately, brought nothing new or interesting to their roles. Neither do Lorraine Toussaint, Gil Bellows and Dean Norris, 3 usually dependable actors that just sort of drift in and out of this film with not much to do.
But that doesn't really matter for the special effects, scares and story threads are what you are there to see and the special effects are good (enough), the scares are scary (enough) and the story is just interesting (enough) to let you have a decent (enough) time at the theater.
Letter Grade: B-
6 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And that's too bad, for SCARY STORIES is a pretty well put together film. Telling...well...a series of scary stories that come true (to the detriment of the teens that these stories are written about).
Based on the YA series of novels of the same name, Director Andre Overdal stitches together (in some instances quite literally) a creepy (enough) tale of teens in danger by things that go bump into the night. There are good (enough) scares, some real (enough) spine-tingling chills and just (enough) death and destruction to keep things interesting.
And that's good for the cast is pretty bland. Zoe Margaret Coletti, Michael Garza, Gabriel Rush and Austin Zajur are "fine" (but interchangeable) as the 4 teens caught in the crossfire of these stories. Their performances/characters are almost good enough to sustain things, but, ultimately, brought nothing new or interesting to their roles. Neither do Lorraine Toussaint, Gil Bellows and Dean Norris, 3 usually dependable actors that just sort of drift in and out of this film with not much to do.
But that doesn't really matter for the special effects, scares and story threads are what you are there to see and the special effects are good (enough), the scares are scary (enough) and the story is just interesting (enough) to let you have a decent (enough) time at the theater.
Letter Grade: B-
6 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Banner Saga
Games
App
Embark on your own epic journey in Banner Saga, the critically acclaimed tactical RPG where your...
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Things You Save in a Fire in Books
Aug 5, 2019
Cassie Hanwell is a great firefighter. She loves her job in Austin, Texas and her friendly crew. Cassie's life is shaped by a series of events that occurred on her sixteenth birthday, including her mother leaving her and her father. Now she stays clearly in her comfort zone. That zone includes work, work, and more work. No relationships, no real attachments to anyone, a strong resistance to forgiving her mother, and definitely not love. But when her mom calls Cassie and asks her to move to Boston to help her--due to an illness--Cassie has to leave that comfort zone. Big time. She has to go live with her mother, whom she barely knows anymore. She has to leave behind her progressive Austin crew and work with a group of guys in Boston who are appalled at the thought of a "lady" on their crew. Except for one guy, the new rookie, who has no problem with Cassie. And Cassie doesn't mind being around him. At all. In fact she even likes it. But love isn't in Cassie's vocabulary, and even if it was, everyone knows firefighters don't date other firefighters. Right?
"I'd structured my life around routine, and safety, and order. Feelings were a lot of trouble. I avoided them as much as possible."
I really enjoyed Katherine Center's previous book, How to Walk Away, so I was excited to read this one. I didn't enjoy this one quite as much (though I enjoyed the little link between the two), but it is a cute read. I have to admit, there were times in this one when things seemed a little too saccharine for my cynical self. I know, I know, that's terrible, especially when things aren't always light and breezy for Cassie and friends in this book. I think it's something only sarcastic folks like myself will understand.
In fact, this book is a really interesting blend between dark and quite light and fluffy. Cassie has a dark past, as does the rookie, Owen, but a lot of the book is Cassie just repeating that she won't ever love anyone or date a firefighter. I think we all know where this is leading...
However, the book is really funny at times, and it's very easy to like Cassie. She's incredibly tough and brave, and she gives all the guys a run for their money. The book makes some great points on sexism, and I always enjoy a chance to watch a tough girl beat some boys at their own game. And I have to admit I enjoyed (okay, identified with) some of her anti-social tendencies.
"Human connection had its upsides, but it sure was a lot of work. The risk-reward ratio was low, at best."
There's also a good supporting cast from Cassie's mom and her mom's best friend. For me, this one picked up in the last fourth or so, when everything seemed to really come together. There's a moment when it all just clicks, and I found myself laughing and grinning a lot. That part made it all worth reading for me.
Overall, it took me some time to warm up to this book--much like it took Cassie a while to warm up to Massachusetts. But she's an engaging, tough character, and her story is one of resilience, even if there are a lot of really sweet, almost too-perfect moments too. You can pretty much tell how the story is going to play out, but it's a fun, cute read. 3.5 stars.
"I'd structured my life around routine, and safety, and order. Feelings were a lot of trouble. I avoided them as much as possible."
I really enjoyed Katherine Center's previous book, How to Walk Away, so I was excited to read this one. I didn't enjoy this one quite as much (though I enjoyed the little link between the two), but it is a cute read. I have to admit, there were times in this one when things seemed a little too saccharine for my cynical self. I know, I know, that's terrible, especially when things aren't always light and breezy for Cassie and friends in this book. I think it's something only sarcastic folks like myself will understand.
In fact, this book is a really interesting blend between dark and quite light and fluffy. Cassie has a dark past, as does the rookie, Owen, but a lot of the book is Cassie just repeating that she won't ever love anyone or date a firefighter. I think we all know where this is leading...
However, the book is really funny at times, and it's very easy to like Cassie. She's incredibly tough and brave, and she gives all the guys a run for their money. The book makes some great points on sexism, and I always enjoy a chance to watch a tough girl beat some boys at their own game. And I have to admit I enjoyed (okay, identified with) some of her anti-social tendencies.
"Human connection had its upsides, but it sure was a lot of work. The risk-reward ratio was low, at best."
There's also a good supporting cast from Cassie's mom and her mom's best friend. For me, this one picked up in the last fourth or so, when everything seemed to really come together. There's a moment when it all just clicks, and I found myself laughing and grinning a lot. That part made it all worth reading for me.
Overall, it took me some time to warm up to this book--much like it took Cassie a while to warm up to Massachusetts. But she's an engaging, tough character, and her story is one of resilience, even if there are a lot of really sweet, almost too-perfect moments too. You can pretty much tell how the story is going to play out, but it's a fun, cute read. 3.5 stars.
Mike Wilder (20 KP) rated The Expendables (2010) in Movies
May 30, 2018
Action movies really don't get any better than this.
Contains spoilers, click to show
When I first heard about this film I had really high expectations. Sylvester Stallone writing, directing and starring in an action film. He was trying to bring together some of the greatest stars of action films past and present, it sounded too good to be true. As the months went by I kept hearing rumours as to who was in it. Pretty much every name from action films was mentioned. Then the biggest rumour of them all, it was going to star Sylvester Stallone, Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwarzenegger! Never gonna happen I thought. I was never so glad to be wrong. The scene they appeared in may only be a few minutes long but it was perfect.
I went to see this film the week it came out. The cinema was fairly full, and as the film started I noticed something about the audience, they were loving the movie. As the film continued it started to feel like I was seeing this in my living room with a large group of friends. Everyone was laughing, gasping and really getting into the spirit of the film. This really added something special to the film. I have not experienced this during a normal screening of a film.
The film itself follows a very basic formula, big characters, big explosions, big guns and lots of bad guys dying. But what makes this one stand out from modern action films is it doesn't try to be anything more. It is a throw back to the great action films from the 80's and 90's like Commando, Predator, Die Hard and Rambo: First Blood Part II. Films that are so over the top but so very entertaining.
The cast is an action movie fans wet dream. Action movie legends Sylvester Stallone, Bruce Willis, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Dolph Lundgren Gary Daniels and Mickey Rourke star alongside modern day action stars Jason Statham, Jet Li, Steve Austin, Randy Couture and Terry Crews. Add to the cast Eric Roberts, David Zayas and Charisma Carpenter and you have probably the greatest cast assembled since Ocean's Eleven was remade in 2001. The cast works well. I always believe that if the cast had a good time making a movie then it will show in their performance. They must have had the time of their lives filming this.
A film like this will never get any major awards (it did win awards for the stunt work), but then again you don't go to see this looking for award winning performances. You go to see this to escape from the reality of life and to just be entertained. I am a major action movie fan and it really doesn't get any better than this.
I went to see this film the week it came out. The cinema was fairly full, and as the film started I noticed something about the audience, they were loving the movie. As the film continued it started to feel like I was seeing this in my living room with a large group of friends. Everyone was laughing, gasping and really getting into the spirit of the film. This really added something special to the film. I have not experienced this during a normal screening of a film.
The film itself follows a very basic formula, big characters, big explosions, big guns and lots of bad guys dying. But what makes this one stand out from modern action films is it doesn't try to be anything more. It is a throw back to the great action films from the 80's and 90's like Commando, Predator, Die Hard and Rambo: First Blood Part II. Films that are so over the top but so very entertaining.
The cast is an action movie fans wet dream. Action movie legends Sylvester Stallone, Bruce Willis, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Dolph Lundgren Gary Daniels and Mickey Rourke star alongside modern day action stars Jason Statham, Jet Li, Steve Austin, Randy Couture and Terry Crews. Add to the cast Eric Roberts, David Zayas and Charisma Carpenter and you have probably the greatest cast assembled since Ocean's Eleven was remade in 2001. The cast works well. I always believe that if the cast had a good time making a movie then it will show in their performance. They must have had the time of their lives filming this.
A film like this will never get any major awards (it did win awards for the stunt work), but then again you don't go to see this looking for award winning performances. You go to see this to escape from the reality of life and to just be entertained. I am a major action movie fan and it really doesn't get any better than this.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Trumbo (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
What is it that makes, not a great, but even a good biopic? It is certainly no enviable task, trying to condense decades of a person’s life into a mere two hours. Choosing what to keep and what to leave, stringing events together so that they feel as though they are one complete narrative opposed to a series of vignettes. And then there are the inevitable purists who will write off the entire product based on a single detail either left out or composited due to running time or budgetary restrictions. Over the years, I have found myself wrestling with my opinion of Braveheart. Do I enjoy it for its epic qualities, or do I cast it aside as the wretched historical inaccuracies fly in the face of what is one of the most important times in a country’s past?
The answer is simply, and stolen from another great historical epic, are you not entertained? Film can and should be powerful and informative. It can and should influence our thinking and encourage an emotional response, but above all, it should entertain. Trumbo does all of the above, ticks all the necessary boxes on the list of what makes a great biopic and whatever historical inaccuracies lie within be damned. Director Jay Roach, writer John McNamara and an ensemble so good it has to be seen to be believed have made, if not the best biopic of the year (that distinction still stays with Steve Jobs for now), then certainly the most enjoyable.
Where I find myself in reviewing Trumbo is trying not to sound monotonous in singing its high praises. Whether you’re interested in a message or not, because there is a good one in there, it’s a film that demands to be seen just on the strength of the cohesiveness that comes from the writing, the acting and (I still can’t believe I’m about to write this about the man who made all three Austin Powers movies) the directing.
I could prattle on endlessly about how overwhelmingly good this cast is, but the names speak for themselves. Bryan Cranston showcases that he is not just the best thing on television, but also a big-screen powerhouse. Helen Mirren, in her inimitable fashion and with beautiful understatement, is a force to be reckoned with, seething venom and self-righteousness. Louis C.K. finally breaks out of his stand-up comic persona to give a truly heartfelt performance played with surprisingly restrained vulnerability. The chemistry between him and Bryan Cranston will no doubt leave you wanting more. And John Goodman… well, it’s John Goodman. He continues to prove that no matter how small a part he has to play, it will stay with you long after you’ve left the theater. Hands down, and these are only four out of a dozen terrific performances, there hasn’t been an ensemble this stunning since L.A. Confidential.
It should also be mentioned that Michael Stuhlbarg, David James Elliott and Dean O’Gorman, who portray Edward G. Robinson, John Wayne and Kirk Douglas respectively, are unquestionably destined to go down as the unsung heroes of Trumbo. Their efforts, not just to imitate but to fully realize these Hollywood stars of a by-gone era, are a further complement to inspired casting and commitment to honoring the lives of the people portrayed on screen.
In short (and well done for making it this far through monotonous and truly well-deserved praise), if you have to see one film this Thanksgiving season that doesn’t star Tom Hardy as England’s notorious Kray brothers, see Trumbo.
The answer is simply, and stolen from another great historical epic, are you not entertained? Film can and should be powerful and informative. It can and should influence our thinking and encourage an emotional response, but above all, it should entertain. Trumbo does all of the above, ticks all the necessary boxes on the list of what makes a great biopic and whatever historical inaccuracies lie within be damned. Director Jay Roach, writer John McNamara and an ensemble so good it has to be seen to be believed have made, if not the best biopic of the year (that distinction still stays with Steve Jobs for now), then certainly the most enjoyable.
Where I find myself in reviewing Trumbo is trying not to sound monotonous in singing its high praises. Whether you’re interested in a message or not, because there is a good one in there, it’s a film that demands to be seen just on the strength of the cohesiveness that comes from the writing, the acting and (I still can’t believe I’m about to write this about the man who made all three Austin Powers movies) the directing.
I could prattle on endlessly about how overwhelmingly good this cast is, but the names speak for themselves. Bryan Cranston showcases that he is not just the best thing on television, but also a big-screen powerhouse. Helen Mirren, in her inimitable fashion and with beautiful understatement, is a force to be reckoned with, seething venom and self-righteousness. Louis C.K. finally breaks out of his stand-up comic persona to give a truly heartfelt performance played with surprisingly restrained vulnerability. The chemistry between him and Bryan Cranston will no doubt leave you wanting more. And John Goodman… well, it’s John Goodman. He continues to prove that no matter how small a part he has to play, it will stay with you long after you’ve left the theater. Hands down, and these are only four out of a dozen terrific performances, there hasn’t been an ensemble this stunning since L.A. Confidential.
It should also be mentioned that Michael Stuhlbarg, David James Elliott and Dean O’Gorman, who portray Edward G. Robinson, John Wayne and Kirk Douglas respectively, are unquestionably destined to go down as the unsung heroes of Trumbo. Their efforts, not just to imitate but to fully realize these Hollywood stars of a by-gone era, are a further complement to inspired casting and commitment to honoring the lives of the people portrayed on screen.
In short (and well done for making it this far through monotonous and truly well-deserved praise), if you have to see one film this Thanksgiving season that doesn’t star Tom Hardy as England’s notorious Kray brothers, see Trumbo.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Cruella (2021) in Movies
Jun 13, 2021
Fights to find the right tone - but succeeds more than it fails
The new Disney live action film CRUELLA (telling the origin story of one of the most well known villains in Disney animation history) is one of those strange films that is trying to walk a thin line between “G” rated “kid” entertainment and an “R” rated film intended for a more “mature” audience.
An that, ultimately, is the issue with this film, it bounces around tonally - sometimes bumping up against the “G” rating and often times landing closer to the “R”, so that, in the end, it will not be a totally satisfying experience for either the “G” or the “R” crowd.
Emma Stone takes on the title role of CRUELLA and in this film you watch her become the Cruella DeVille that you see in the Disney Animated Film (and the Glenn Close live action remake). Stone is very good in this role - almost a perfect fit. However, it looks to me that she is having a much better time playing the evil “R” rated version of Cruella rather then the comic-bookish “G” rated version, so her performance is, at times, brilliant and at other times, not as brillaint.
Emma Thompson steals just about every scene she is in as Cruella’s nemesis “The Baroness”. It’s good to see this terrific actress getting a role that she can really sink her teeth in. I hope this leads to other, strong important roles for this actress “of a certain age”.
The supporting players are strong…or should I say…Mark Strong (hehehehe). He brings his usual gravitas to the role of The Baroness’ right-hand man. But the players who impressed me the most were Joel Fry (YESTERDAY) and Paul Walter Hauser (RICHARD JEWELL) as Cruella’s 2 best friends/henchmen. They both were able to flesh out these characters (who are usually portrayed as bumbling buffoons) and both were able to find the line between “G” and “R” very well - and stay on it the entire film.
Director Craig Gillespie (I, TONYA) finds the correct tone for this film more often than not, but it is in the “not” portion of this that he fails this movie. The shifts in tone (often on a dime) are often jarring and the blame for this would have to be put right at the Director’s feet, though the look of this film (sort of a 1960’s Austin Powers meets SteamPunk look) succeeds VERY well and is as much a character in this film as the performers.
One final thing, the soundtrack used in CRUELLA is an interesting touch. Gillespie and Composer Nicholas Britell eschews (for the most part) a conventional score and highlights most of the scenes with a Pop song - though here Gillespie whips us around tonally as well. For, since the film is set in 1960’s London, a good many of the tunes used are ‘60 (and early ‘70’s) rock hits. But….every now and then…he will drop in a ‘80’s number.
But…as I sit and write this review, I am finding myself falling more and more on the side of “I Liked It”, so…set aside the tonal shifts…and you will be entertained by CRUELLA much more than you would expect.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
An that, ultimately, is the issue with this film, it bounces around tonally - sometimes bumping up against the “G” rating and often times landing closer to the “R”, so that, in the end, it will not be a totally satisfying experience for either the “G” or the “R” crowd.
Emma Stone takes on the title role of CRUELLA and in this film you watch her become the Cruella DeVille that you see in the Disney Animated Film (and the Glenn Close live action remake). Stone is very good in this role - almost a perfect fit. However, it looks to me that she is having a much better time playing the evil “R” rated version of Cruella rather then the comic-bookish “G” rated version, so her performance is, at times, brilliant and at other times, not as brillaint.
Emma Thompson steals just about every scene she is in as Cruella’s nemesis “The Baroness”. It’s good to see this terrific actress getting a role that she can really sink her teeth in. I hope this leads to other, strong important roles for this actress “of a certain age”.
The supporting players are strong…or should I say…Mark Strong (hehehehe). He brings his usual gravitas to the role of The Baroness’ right-hand man. But the players who impressed me the most were Joel Fry (YESTERDAY) and Paul Walter Hauser (RICHARD JEWELL) as Cruella’s 2 best friends/henchmen. They both were able to flesh out these characters (who are usually portrayed as bumbling buffoons) and both were able to find the line between “G” and “R” very well - and stay on it the entire film.
Director Craig Gillespie (I, TONYA) finds the correct tone for this film more often than not, but it is in the “not” portion of this that he fails this movie. The shifts in tone (often on a dime) are often jarring and the blame for this would have to be put right at the Director’s feet, though the look of this film (sort of a 1960’s Austin Powers meets SteamPunk look) succeeds VERY well and is as much a character in this film as the performers.
One final thing, the soundtrack used in CRUELLA is an interesting touch. Gillespie and Composer Nicholas Britell eschews (for the most part) a conventional score and highlights most of the scenes with a Pop song - though here Gillespie whips us around tonally as well. For, since the film is set in 1960’s London, a good many of the tunes used are ‘60 (and early ‘70’s) rock hits. But….every now and then…he will drop in a ‘80’s number.
But…as I sit and write this review, I am finding myself falling more and more on the side of “I Liked It”, so…set aside the tonal shifts…and you will be entertained by CRUELLA much more than you would expect.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
VoiceMap: GPS Audio Tours with Offline Maps
Travel and Entertainment
App
Experience the magic of GPS audio walks, cycles, drives and even boat rides with VoiceMap tours in...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Battle of the Sexes (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Tennis and sex, but without the grunting.
Here’s a good test of someone’s age…. ask the question “Billie-Jean?”. Millennials will probably come back with “Huh?”; those in their 30’s or 40’s might come back with “Michael Jackson!”; those older than that will probably reply “King!”.
“Battle of the Sexes” (which I just managed to catch before it left cinemas) tells the true-life story of US tennis star Billie-Jean King (Emma Stone, “La La Land“). The year is 1973 and Billie-Jean is riding high as the Number 1 female tennis player. She is a feminist; she is married (to hunk Larry – no not that one – King played by Austin Stowell (“Whiplash“, “Bridge of Spies“)); …. and she is also attracted to women, not something she has yet acted on. That all changes when her path crosses with LA-hairdresser Marilyn (Andrea Riseborough, “Birdman“, “Oblivion”).
But this is a side story: the main event is a bet made by aging ex-star Bobby Riggs (Steve Carell, “Foxcatcher“); that – even at his age – as a man he could beat the leading female tennis player of the day.
The film is gloriously retro, starting with the old-school 20th Century Fox production logo. And it contains breathtakingly sexist dialogue by writer Simon Beaufoy (“Everest“, “The Full Monty”). Surely men couldn’t have been so crass and outrageous in the 70’s? Sorry ladies, but the answer is yes, and the film is testament to how far women’s rights have come in 50 years.
This is a tour de force in acting from both Emma Stone and Steve Carell, particularly the latter: a scene where Carell tries to re-engage with his estranged wife (Elisabeth Shue, “Leaving Las Vegas”) is both nuanced and heart-breaking. Stone’s performance is also praiseworthy, although it feels slightly less so as it is an impersonation of a (relatively) well-known figure: this is extremely well-studied though, right down to her strutting walk around the court which I had both forgotten and was immediately again reminded of.
One of my favourite movie awards are the Screen Actor’s Guild (SAG) “cast” awards that celebrate ensemble performances, and here is a film that should have been nominated (it unfortunately wasn’t). Andrea Riseborough; Natalie Morales (as fellow tennis player Rosie Casals); comedian Sarah Silverman (“A Million Ways to Die in the West“), almost unrecognisable as the brash publicist Gladys Heldman; Bill Pullman as LTA head Jack Kramer; the great Alan Cumming (“The Good Wife”) as the team’s flamboyant, gay, costume designer; Lewis Pullman as Riggs’s son Larry; Jessica McNamee (magnetic eyes!) as King’s Australian tennis nemesis Margaret Court. All bounce off the leads, and each other, just beautifully.
Cinematography by Linus Sandgren (“La La Land“) and editing by Pamela Martin (“Little Miss Sunshine”) unite to deliver one of the most sexually charged haircuts you are ever likely to see on the screen. For those put off by this aspect of the storyline, the “girl-on-girl action” is pretty tastefully done and not overly graphic: it’s mostly “first-base” stuff rather than “third-base”!
“What a waste of a lovely night”. Marilyn (Andrea Riseborough) and Billie-Jean (Emma Stone) get serious.
Directed with panache by the co-directors of the 2006 smash “Little Miss Sunshine” – Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris – all in all it’s a delight, especially for older audiences who will get a blast of nostalgia from days when sports were still played at a slightly more leisurely pace… and definitely without the grunting.
“Battle of the Sexes” (which I just managed to catch before it left cinemas) tells the true-life story of US tennis star Billie-Jean King (Emma Stone, “La La Land“). The year is 1973 and Billie-Jean is riding high as the Number 1 female tennis player. She is a feminist; she is married (to hunk Larry – no not that one – King played by Austin Stowell (“Whiplash“, “Bridge of Spies“)); …. and she is also attracted to women, not something she has yet acted on. That all changes when her path crosses with LA-hairdresser Marilyn (Andrea Riseborough, “Birdman“, “Oblivion”).
But this is a side story: the main event is a bet made by aging ex-star Bobby Riggs (Steve Carell, “Foxcatcher“); that – even at his age – as a man he could beat the leading female tennis player of the day.
The film is gloriously retro, starting with the old-school 20th Century Fox production logo. And it contains breathtakingly sexist dialogue by writer Simon Beaufoy (“Everest“, “The Full Monty”). Surely men couldn’t have been so crass and outrageous in the 70’s? Sorry ladies, but the answer is yes, and the film is testament to how far women’s rights have come in 50 years.
This is a tour de force in acting from both Emma Stone and Steve Carell, particularly the latter: a scene where Carell tries to re-engage with his estranged wife (Elisabeth Shue, “Leaving Las Vegas”) is both nuanced and heart-breaking. Stone’s performance is also praiseworthy, although it feels slightly less so as it is an impersonation of a (relatively) well-known figure: this is extremely well-studied though, right down to her strutting walk around the court which I had both forgotten and was immediately again reminded of.
One of my favourite movie awards are the Screen Actor’s Guild (SAG) “cast” awards that celebrate ensemble performances, and here is a film that should have been nominated (it unfortunately wasn’t). Andrea Riseborough; Natalie Morales (as fellow tennis player Rosie Casals); comedian Sarah Silverman (“A Million Ways to Die in the West“), almost unrecognisable as the brash publicist Gladys Heldman; Bill Pullman as LTA head Jack Kramer; the great Alan Cumming (“The Good Wife”) as the team’s flamboyant, gay, costume designer; Lewis Pullman as Riggs’s son Larry; Jessica McNamee (magnetic eyes!) as King’s Australian tennis nemesis Margaret Court. All bounce off the leads, and each other, just beautifully.
Cinematography by Linus Sandgren (“La La Land“) and editing by Pamela Martin (“Little Miss Sunshine”) unite to deliver one of the most sexually charged haircuts you are ever likely to see on the screen. For those put off by this aspect of the storyline, the “girl-on-girl action” is pretty tastefully done and not overly graphic: it’s mostly “first-base” stuff rather than “third-base”!
“What a waste of a lovely night”. Marilyn (Andrea Riseborough) and Billie-Jean (Emma Stone) get serious.
Directed with panache by the co-directors of the 2006 smash “Little Miss Sunshine” – Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris – all in all it’s a delight, especially for older audiences who will get a blast of nostalgia from days when sports were still played at a slightly more leisurely pace… and definitely without the grunting.
NL
No Life Without You
Book
Dr Nixon has BA, MA. M.Sc. and Ph.D. degrees. In view of the diversity of his commitments and...
Search for Cheap Flights by SkyRadar
Navigation and Travel
App
Find and book cheap air tickets with no fees. Cheap flights Pro App will compare airfares from...