Search
Search results
Lee (2222 KP) rated Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark (2019) in Movies
Aug 21, 2019
Obviously I'm not familiar with the Scary Stories To Tell In The Dark books that this movie is based on - a series of three books containing short horror stories for children and drawing heavily on urban legend and folklore for it's subject matter, first published in 1981. Apparently, the series is listed by the American Library Association as being the most challenged series of books from the 1990s, with complaints relating to the violence and disturbing subject matter portrayed within them not being suitable for the children it was aimed at. The illustrations within the book also drew criticism, vividly portraying the nightmare creatures and scenes contained within the stories. Perfect material for a movie version!
That movie version comes from Troll Hunter director André Øvredal and producer/co-writer Guillermo del Toro and attempts a Goosebumps style movie, taking some of the better known stories from the 80+ contained within the books and weaving them into a larger narrative, set in Mill Valley Pennsylvania during the fall of 1968.
It's Halloween and a group of teens are preparing to go out for an evening of trick or treating - applying makeup, getting into their costumes, fishing in the toilet for turds in preparation for a Halloween trick. They head out on their bikes but it's not long before they run into some idiot jocks from their local school, and that turd trick suddenly comes in handy! We've already been introduced to the jocks earlier in the movie, out in a cornfield where they were hitting a creepy looking scarecrow about the head with a baseball bat. Yep, they're certainly going to regret that a little bit later on!
The teens manage to escape the jocks, working their way into a drive through movie that's showing "Night of the Living Dead" and into the car of another teen called Ramón. The group strike up a bond with Ramón after he helps them out and they all decide to go and break into an abandoned local house which is reportedly haunted. They find their way into the basement where legend has it that Sarah Bellows, the daughter of a prominent local family, was locked away in the late 1800s. Horror nerd Stella comes across a book containing short scary stories that were written in blood by Sarah, and she decides to take it with them. As Stella opens the book’s pages, she sees that Sarah’s stories are literally beginning to write themselves - stories that put her friends in some pretty unpleasant situations, stories which immediately become reality the moment they're written. As Stella later puts it, "You don't read the book, the book reads you".
The setup and the scenarios within each story are enjoyable enough and are certainly creepy, however the execution doesn't always work so well and the payoffs aren't quite as scary as I would have liked. The movie also suffers from some slightly dodgy CGI at times too, which doesn't help. That said, I thoroughly enjoyed the final story, and the return to the house in order to try and stop Sarah Bellows worked really well for me. It all ends with a definite opportunity for a sequel and with plenty more scary stories to choose from within the source material, I'm sure we'll be seeing another one soon. Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark taps nicely into the "It" and "Stranger Thing" vibe, with it's group of teens rising up together against evil, and despite it's faults I did have a lot of fun with it. I'm definitely interested in seeing more.
That movie version comes from Troll Hunter director André Øvredal and producer/co-writer Guillermo del Toro and attempts a Goosebumps style movie, taking some of the better known stories from the 80+ contained within the books and weaving them into a larger narrative, set in Mill Valley Pennsylvania during the fall of 1968.
It's Halloween and a group of teens are preparing to go out for an evening of trick or treating - applying makeup, getting into their costumes, fishing in the toilet for turds in preparation for a Halloween trick. They head out on their bikes but it's not long before they run into some idiot jocks from their local school, and that turd trick suddenly comes in handy! We've already been introduced to the jocks earlier in the movie, out in a cornfield where they were hitting a creepy looking scarecrow about the head with a baseball bat. Yep, they're certainly going to regret that a little bit later on!
The teens manage to escape the jocks, working their way into a drive through movie that's showing "Night of the Living Dead" and into the car of another teen called Ramón. The group strike up a bond with Ramón after he helps them out and they all decide to go and break into an abandoned local house which is reportedly haunted. They find their way into the basement where legend has it that Sarah Bellows, the daughter of a prominent local family, was locked away in the late 1800s. Horror nerd Stella comes across a book containing short scary stories that were written in blood by Sarah, and she decides to take it with them. As Stella opens the book’s pages, she sees that Sarah’s stories are literally beginning to write themselves - stories that put her friends in some pretty unpleasant situations, stories which immediately become reality the moment they're written. As Stella later puts it, "You don't read the book, the book reads you".
The setup and the scenarios within each story are enjoyable enough and are certainly creepy, however the execution doesn't always work so well and the payoffs aren't quite as scary as I would have liked. The movie also suffers from some slightly dodgy CGI at times too, which doesn't help. That said, I thoroughly enjoyed the final story, and the return to the house in order to try and stop Sarah Bellows worked really well for me. It all ends with a definite opportunity for a sequel and with plenty more scary stories to choose from within the source material, I'm sure we'll be seeing another one soon. Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark taps nicely into the "It" and "Stranger Thing" vibe, with it's group of teens rising up together against evil, and despite it's faults I did have a lot of fun with it. I'm definitely interested in seeing more.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Fences (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
The Last Post.
In “Fences” Denzel Washington plays Troy – a bitter, self-centred and selfish man in his mid-fifties who loves the sound of his own voice. They say “empty vessels make the most noise” and here is a case in point. Set in the early fifties, race plays a strong card in every aspect of life, and Troy feels betrayed by a failed baseball career that – in his eyes at least – looked over his skills to the colour of his skin. But Troy is also a stubborn cuss, and refuses to acknowledge that even in the 50’s “The times they are a changing’”. His cussedness puts him on a collision course with his teenage son Cory (Jovan Adepo), given his aspirations for a college football scholarship, and his mother (Viola Davis, “The Help”) tries to keep the peace between the two of them.
This is a film primarily about resistance to change. All those changes in the outside world are on the ‘other side of the fence’ that Troy habitually tries to finish but never seems to put his mind to. Fences keep things out; but they also keep things in, and Troy is in a cocoon of his own making. He justifies his actions as a ‘family provider’ with lengthy speeches but ultimately they deliver hollow words and assertions that don’t stand up to scrutiny.
This is a pressure cooker of family life that is primed to blow, and a revelation (which I didn’t see coming) sets that fuse alight.
This is a film worth watching for the acting performances of Denzel Washington and (particularly) Viola Davis, winner of the Best Supporting Actress BAFTA and a strong contender for the Oscar. Both give assured performances, although Troy is such an instantly dis-likable and pitiable character that I could feel my emotions influencing my judgement about his performance.
But this is also a strong ensemble cast, with Mykelti Williamson (famously appearing as Bubba of the ‘Bubba Gump Shrimp Factory’ fame) being effective as Troy’s disabled brother and English-born Jovan Adepo being particularly impressive in an extremely assured feature debut.
However, the Broadway roots of the piece are highly visible with 98% of the film set either in the back yard, in the house, or on the front steps (the set could clearly rotate!). For such a claustrophobic topic, this is perhaps apt. But as a feature film I longed for the action to go elsewhere. The film version of the story – with a few tweaks to the screenplay – has lots of opportunities for this, but these are never taken. This makes the whole piece feel ‘worthy but dull’. In particular, anyone looking for a useful tutorial on fence building needs to look elsewhere!
As for the recent “Moonlight” there is also excessive use of the “N” word and other outdated racial references that have the potential to offend.
Good luck to Viola Davis and Denzel Washington (who also directed this) for their Best Supporting Actress and Best Actor Oscars nominations. But “Best Film” Oscar? No, I don’t think so. In truth this is a film that I will struggle to remember or get excited about in a month’s time and it will not be on my re-watch list.
This is a film primarily about resistance to change. All those changes in the outside world are on the ‘other side of the fence’ that Troy habitually tries to finish but never seems to put his mind to. Fences keep things out; but they also keep things in, and Troy is in a cocoon of his own making. He justifies his actions as a ‘family provider’ with lengthy speeches but ultimately they deliver hollow words and assertions that don’t stand up to scrutiny.
This is a pressure cooker of family life that is primed to blow, and a revelation (which I didn’t see coming) sets that fuse alight.
This is a film worth watching for the acting performances of Denzel Washington and (particularly) Viola Davis, winner of the Best Supporting Actress BAFTA and a strong contender for the Oscar. Both give assured performances, although Troy is such an instantly dis-likable and pitiable character that I could feel my emotions influencing my judgement about his performance.
But this is also a strong ensemble cast, with Mykelti Williamson (famously appearing as Bubba of the ‘Bubba Gump Shrimp Factory’ fame) being effective as Troy’s disabled brother and English-born Jovan Adepo being particularly impressive in an extremely assured feature debut.
However, the Broadway roots of the piece are highly visible with 98% of the film set either in the back yard, in the house, or on the front steps (the set could clearly rotate!). For such a claustrophobic topic, this is perhaps apt. But as a feature film I longed for the action to go elsewhere. The film version of the story – with a few tweaks to the screenplay – has lots of opportunities for this, but these are never taken. This makes the whole piece feel ‘worthy but dull’. In particular, anyone looking for a useful tutorial on fence building needs to look elsewhere!
As for the recent “Moonlight” there is also excessive use of the “N” word and other outdated racial references that have the potential to offend.
Good luck to Viola Davis and Denzel Washington (who also directed this) for their Best Supporting Actress and Best Actor Oscars nominations. But “Best Film” Oscar? No, I don’t think so. In truth this is a film that I will struggle to remember or get excited about in a month’s time and it will not be on my re-watch list.
TheDefunctDiva (304 KP) rated The Cooler (2003) in Movies
Sep 26, 2017
C is for Cash Money
Contains spoilers, click to show
As a tribute to Sue Grafton, I shall use the alphabet to inspire catchy titles. Because I am a nerd like that. Caution, ye land lubbers: ahead be spoilers. Proceed at your own risk.
The Cooler is a tale of contrast: good luck is pitted against bad luck, and old is seen in stark contrast to new. We are immediately introduced to Bernie Lootz, an individual with such phenomenally bad luck that it is actually contagious. Bound by obligation and a misguided sense of loyalty to his boss, Shelly Kaplow, Bernie works at the Golden Shangri-La Casino as a “cooler.” His presence at a table can cause a winning streak to instantaneously turn sour. The unfortunate Bernie is no stranger to pain: his boss and supposed friend, Shelly, once shattered his kneecap with a baseball bat. Bernie also has great difficulty with his other personal relationships. His estranged son, with whom Bernie hopes for reconciliation, immediately swindles the hapless fellow.
To make matters worse for Bernie, who wants nothing more than to be done with Vegas, Shelly is battling his own brand of misfortune. New management is suggesting a re-haul of the establishment he helmed for 16 years. Shelly argues for the casino to limp along as it is, and maintain the traditions originated by the mafia. He desperately and unfairly clings to Bernie, who remains an unwilling symbol of these old practices.
William H. Macy breaks my heart in every movie that I've seen him in. This film, where Macy expertly depicts the "unluckiest man in Vegas," offers no exception to that rule. There is a familiar vulnerability he lends to each facial expression that simultaneously earns my respect and pity. Bernie Lootz is a human being with a seemingly supernatural ability to receive, harness, and project bad luck. This requires some suspension of disbelief on the part of the viewer, and Macy is one of the few actors capable of making such a concept convincing.
Maria Bello is cast alongside Macy as a waitress and Bernie's love interest, Natalie. As often mentioned in the script, she seems entirely out of Bernie's league. And yet, the skilled actors created a romance which seemed entirely natural after the first evening's awkwardness. And as the two progress to love, Lootz's luck begins to change, as it does for the Casino patrons he comes into contact with. His presence becomes a blessing instead of a curse, putting his unwanted career path and his lady love in danger.
The man pulling the strings (or breaking the kneecaps, as it were) at the Golden Shangri-La is no other than Jack Donaghy...er, Alec Baldwin. Baldwin's performance rightfully garnered several awards and nominations, including an Oscar nod. Shelly is handsome, old school, and at times, utterly terrifying. He is resistant to change, often violently so. He cannot reconcile his ideals with the Vegas brand of commercialized progress, and he takes out his frustrations on friend and foe alike.
This film also featured a small but powerful role played by Paul Sorvino. Buddy Stafford has the voice of an angel, but a demon of a drug habit, and he provided an excellent foil for Shelly's beliefs in maintaining tradition.
The Cooler is too gritty a film to call "cute," but that's currently the only word coming to mind. It has something for the mob-lover and the romantic in everyone. And you should watch this little love story lest I should make things uncomfortable for you in the future, you know what I'm sayin'???
The Cooler is a tale of contrast: good luck is pitted against bad luck, and old is seen in stark contrast to new. We are immediately introduced to Bernie Lootz, an individual with such phenomenally bad luck that it is actually contagious. Bound by obligation and a misguided sense of loyalty to his boss, Shelly Kaplow, Bernie works at the Golden Shangri-La Casino as a “cooler.” His presence at a table can cause a winning streak to instantaneously turn sour. The unfortunate Bernie is no stranger to pain: his boss and supposed friend, Shelly, once shattered his kneecap with a baseball bat. Bernie also has great difficulty with his other personal relationships. His estranged son, with whom Bernie hopes for reconciliation, immediately swindles the hapless fellow.
To make matters worse for Bernie, who wants nothing more than to be done with Vegas, Shelly is battling his own brand of misfortune. New management is suggesting a re-haul of the establishment he helmed for 16 years. Shelly argues for the casino to limp along as it is, and maintain the traditions originated by the mafia. He desperately and unfairly clings to Bernie, who remains an unwilling symbol of these old practices.
William H. Macy breaks my heart in every movie that I've seen him in. This film, where Macy expertly depicts the "unluckiest man in Vegas," offers no exception to that rule. There is a familiar vulnerability he lends to each facial expression that simultaneously earns my respect and pity. Bernie Lootz is a human being with a seemingly supernatural ability to receive, harness, and project bad luck. This requires some suspension of disbelief on the part of the viewer, and Macy is one of the few actors capable of making such a concept convincing.
Maria Bello is cast alongside Macy as a waitress and Bernie's love interest, Natalie. As often mentioned in the script, she seems entirely out of Bernie's league. And yet, the skilled actors created a romance which seemed entirely natural after the first evening's awkwardness. And as the two progress to love, Lootz's luck begins to change, as it does for the Casino patrons he comes into contact with. His presence becomes a blessing instead of a curse, putting his unwanted career path and his lady love in danger.
The man pulling the strings (or breaking the kneecaps, as it were) at the Golden Shangri-La is no other than Jack Donaghy...er, Alec Baldwin. Baldwin's performance rightfully garnered several awards and nominations, including an Oscar nod. Shelly is handsome, old school, and at times, utterly terrifying. He is resistant to change, often violently so. He cannot reconcile his ideals with the Vegas brand of commercialized progress, and he takes out his frustrations on friend and foe alike.
This film also featured a small but powerful role played by Paul Sorvino. Buddy Stafford has the voice of an angel, but a demon of a drug habit, and he provided an excellent foil for Shelly's beliefs in maintaining tradition.
The Cooler is too gritty a film to call "cute," but that's currently the only word coming to mind. It has something for the mob-lover and the romantic in everyone. And you should watch this little love story lest I should make things uncomfortable for you in the future, you know what I'm sayin'???
JT (287 KP) rated The Raid 2 (2014) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
Stop….pause….take a breath, you’ll need to catch it after witnessing one of the finest action films made for some time.
The follow up to The Raid packs an even harder punch, with our hero Rama (Iko Uwais) sent undercover to bring down a crime family and uncover yet more police corruption.
The first film was simplistic enough, a SWAT team enter a building and (without the use of an elevator) must navigate their way up to the top floor to bring down a powerful but mediocre drug lord. Praised for its gritty no holds barred fight sequences, and perfectly timed action it was nothing short of a hit.
Part 2 follows practically from where the last ended, Rama is hurried away to a secluded location and given the rundown explaining that all his efforts were for nothing, but that he still has a big part to play. Although he doesn’t have much of a choice in the matter.
The-Raid-2-Gareth-Evans
To keep his family safe he has to get close to the arrogant son of a mob boss, Ucok (Arifin Putra), and to do this must infiltrate a prison by committing a high profile crime that will get him noticed by the mafia top brass. What is only supposed to be a few months turns into a couple of years, giving Rama more than enough time to get right under the skin of Ucok.
The storyline isn’t anything unique with shades of Infernal Affairs about it, police corruption, undercover cops and feuding mafia families probably seem all too familiar but director Gareth Evans lays it out in such a way that the similarities end right there.
The story delves deeper into several subplots all of which trail off on their own, but they don’t hamper the overall narrative or confuse things in a way which will make the film harder to follow and at an ass numbing 150 minutes that might be easier said than done.
Then there is the inclusion of three of the badest characters you’re ever likely to see. Hammer Girl, whose special moves entail ripping people in two with claw hammers, Baseball Bat Man, you can probably guess his unique ability and then The Assassin, who armed with a pair of kerambits’ is a silent but very much a deadly force.
There’s returning actor Yayan Ruhian who played Mad Dog in the first film but who has reappeared here as an ass-kicking hobo aiding one of the families, but ends up in the crosshairs of an instigated war were blood hasn’t been spilt in over ten years.
Evans cuts from the action with dramatic undertones, of which the performances are very good, its the gratuitous violence that Raid fans will have shelled out their money for. It’s wince-inducing on another level, whether it’s getting an arm snapped in half, a pelvis dislocated or a hammer ripped through someone’s cheek you’ll probably find yourself twisting and turning in your seat.
the-raid-2-berandal-26
The choreography is mesmerising as Evans interlocks a Godfather-like tale with action that doesn’t give you enough time to look away from the screen. From a mass prison yard scrap, an epic car chase where back seat driving takes on a whole different meaning and a jaw-dropping kitchen fight finale, it’s a film that will live long in the action memory.
Leaving the confines of a tower block behind the action and story run riot through lush green marshes, back streets and bars to city streets. The editing is short and sharp like a punch to the head, moving gracefully enough that it doesn’t judder the explosive action or disjoint the scenes of real drama.
It’s thoroughly entertaining which has justified all the hype beforehand, wonderfully shot and exhilarating throughout Evans will have his work cut out to make sure that The Raid 3 caps an action trilogy masterclass.
The follow up to The Raid packs an even harder punch, with our hero Rama (Iko Uwais) sent undercover to bring down a crime family and uncover yet more police corruption.
The first film was simplistic enough, a SWAT team enter a building and (without the use of an elevator) must navigate their way up to the top floor to bring down a powerful but mediocre drug lord. Praised for its gritty no holds barred fight sequences, and perfectly timed action it was nothing short of a hit.
Part 2 follows practically from where the last ended, Rama is hurried away to a secluded location and given the rundown explaining that all his efforts were for nothing, but that he still has a big part to play. Although he doesn’t have much of a choice in the matter.
The-Raid-2-Gareth-Evans
To keep his family safe he has to get close to the arrogant son of a mob boss, Ucok (Arifin Putra), and to do this must infiltrate a prison by committing a high profile crime that will get him noticed by the mafia top brass. What is only supposed to be a few months turns into a couple of years, giving Rama more than enough time to get right under the skin of Ucok.
The storyline isn’t anything unique with shades of Infernal Affairs about it, police corruption, undercover cops and feuding mafia families probably seem all too familiar but director Gareth Evans lays it out in such a way that the similarities end right there.
The story delves deeper into several subplots all of which trail off on their own, but they don’t hamper the overall narrative or confuse things in a way which will make the film harder to follow and at an ass numbing 150 minutes that might be easier said than done.
Then there is the inclusion of three of the badest characters you’re ever likely to see. Hammer Girl, whose special moves entail ripping people in two with claw hammers, Baseball Bat Man, you can probably guess his unique ability and then The Assassin, who armed with a pair of kerambits’ is a silent but very much a deadly force.
There’s returning actor Yayan Ruhian who played Mad Dog in the first film but who has reappeared here as an ass-kicking hobo aiding one of the families, but ends up in the crosshairs of an instigated war were blood hasn’t been spilt in over ten years.
Evans cuts from the action with dramatic undertones, of which the performances are very good, its the gratuitous violence that Raid fans will have shelled out their money for. It’s wince-inducing on another level, whether it’s getting an arm snapped in half, a pelvis dislocated or a hammer ripped through someone’s cheek you’ll probably find yourself twisting and turning in your seat.
the-raid-2-berandal-26
The choreography is mesmerising as Evans interlocks a Godfather-like tale with action that doesn’t give you enough time to look away from the screen. From a mass prison yard scrap, an epic car chase where back seat driving takes on a whole different meaning and a jaw-dropping kitchen fight finale, it’s a film that will live long in the action memory.
Leaving the confines of a tower block behind the action and story run riot through lush green marshes, back streets and bars to city streets. The editing is short and sharp like a punch to the head, moving gracefully enough that it doesn’t judder the explosive action or disjoint the scenes of real drama.
It’s thoroughly entertaining which has justified all the hype beforehand, wonderfully shot and exhilarating throughout Evans will have his work cut out to make sure that The Raid 3 caps an action trilogy masterclass.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Parental Guidance (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
I don’t really know where to start with this review. I guess I’ll start with what I’m expecting to see when I see a preview. I’m really bad at assuming I know what’s going to happen. Sometimes I’m right, happily sometimes I’m wrong, and then there are times, like with this movie, where it’s half and half.
The movie starts out with Artie Decker (Billy Crystal) as ‘de voice’ of his local Grizzlies’ baseball team. He’s really good at commentating and he loves doing it but after the last game of the season he gets fired. It’s predictable why he’s fired, basically he doesn’t poke or tweet, and I think they thought they hit gold with that moment of comedy but for me, eh. When he gets home his wife Diane (Bette Midler) comforts him. He’s lost for a moment since he wasn’t ready to stop but then decides he should chase his dream to commentate for the Giants though he doesn’t know where to start.
We shoot over to Alice Simmons (Marisa Tomei) Artie and Diane’s daughter, and her husband Phil, (Tom Everett Scott) who live in such a modern electronic home that it’s actually all controlled by a beta system called Rlife. Rlife can be programmed for alarm times, music, food, pretty much everything for each family member. This Rlife is Phil’s dream he gets invited to a conference to get his Rlife hopefully in production. Alice is going to with him, kind of a semi work vacation and they need Artie and Diane to watch the kids for a week.
What makes the divide even greater between Alice and her kids from Artie is that Alice and Phil are raising their kids in a new school that is different from Artie’s old school, tough love and strict rules. They use phrases like ‘use your words’ or if you give a ‘put down’ you have to give ‘three ups’ and you can’t use the word ‘no’ you have to say ‘think about the consequences’.
Their oldest, a young teen, is their only daughter Harper, Bailee Madison, who is extremely uptight and carrying the weight of the world on her shoulders. Next we have the two boys, Turner, Joshua Rush, middle schooler, who stutters and is shy because of it, and the youngest Barker, Kyle Harrison Breitkopf, who is basically toddler with lots of energy, but seems to get away with a lot of bad behavior.
Diane realizes that they are the other grand parents, the ones that their grand kids don’t really like. Long story short, it’s supposed to be about being open to new ideas but it just feels like old school versus new school. Billy’s Crystal’s comedy and Bette Middler’s and Marisa Tomei’s acting can pull it out of the boredom for some laughs and good moments and there are a few situational laughs with the children as well, but that’s about it.
The truly redeeming quality to this movie, besides the three main actors is the ending, the last ten minutes. It’s a surprising heartwarming ending, and only slightly predictable. It sounds crazy but it actually brings the whole movie up from a two star to a three star for me. One last thing is that the guest I went with has two children of her own and tried to get me to change my rating from three to four. I really can’t do that but I think that means that if you have children of your own you might enjoy this a little bit more than I did.
Bottom line, renter, unless you love Bily Crystal.
The movie starts out with Artie Decker (Billy Crystal) as ‘de voice’ of his local Grizzlies’ baseball team. He’s really good at commentating and he loves doing it but after the last game of the season he gets fired. It’s predictable why he’s fired, basically he doesn’t poke or tweet, and I think they thought they hit gold with that moment of comedy but for me, eh. When he gets home his wife Diane (Bette Midler) comforts him. He’s lost for a moment since he wasn’t ready to stop but then decides he should chase his dream to commentate for the Giants though he doesn’t know where to start.
We shoot over to Alice Simmons (Marisa Tomei) Artie and Diane’s daughter, and her husband Phil, (Tom Everett Scott) who live in such a modern electronic home that it’s actually all controlled by a beta system called Rlife. Rlife can be programmed for alarm times, music, food, pretty much everything for each family member. This Rlife is Phil’s dream he gets invited to a conference to get his Rlife hopefully in production. Alice is going to with him, kind of a semi work vacation and they need Artie and Diane to watch the kids for a week.
What makes the divide even greater between Alice and her kids from Artie is that Alice and Phil are raising their kids in a new school that is different from Artie’s old school, tough love and strict rules. They use phrases like ‘use your words’ or if you give a ‘put down’ you have to give ‘three ups’ and you can’t use the word ‘no’ you have to say ‘think about the consequences’.
Their oldest, a young teen, is their only daughter Harper, Bailee Madison, who is extremely uptight and carrying the weight of the world on her shoulders. Next we have the two boys, Turner, Joshua Rush, middle schooler, who stutters and is shy because of it, and the youngest Barker, Kyle Harrison Breitkopf, who is basically toddler with lots of energy, but seems to get away with a lot of bad behavior.
Diane realizes that they are the other grand parents, the ones that their grand kids don’t really like. Long story short, it’s supposed to be about being open to new ideas but it just feels like old school versus new school. Billy’s Crystal’s comedy and Bette Middler’s and Marisa Tomei’s acting can pull it out of the boredom for some laughs and good moments and there are a few situational laughs with the children as well, but that’s about it.
The truly redeeming quality to this movie, besides the three main actors is the ending, the last ten minutes. It’s a surprising heartwarming ending, and only slightly predictable. It sounds crazy but it actually brings the whole movie up from a two star to a three star for me. One last thing is that the guest I went with has two children of her own and tried to get me to change my rating from three to four. I really can’t do that but I think that means that if you have children of your own you might enjoy this a little bit more than I did.
Bottom line, renter, unless you love Bily Crystal.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Sweetheart (2021) in Movies
Sep 20, 2021
Great ensemble cast (1 more)
Sensitive and moving writing by Marley Morrison
A Gregory's Girl for the 21st Century
When I was in my late teen's, Bill Forsyth's "Gregory's Girl" perfectly epitomised the angst of the school years' emotions I'd left behind me. And I was very much heterosexual. With "Sweetheart", Marley Morrison in an astonishing feature debut delivers a "Gregory's Girl" for today's much more sexually fluid times.
Positives:
- What a great ensemble cast! It's all headed up by Nell Barlow, amazingly in her feature debut. Nell manages to perfectly deliver the hair-pullingly frustrating unpredictability of a teenage girl: always planning to go off doing something worthy like "knitting jumpers for elephants in Indonesia". But she manages to keep the portrayal just the right side of parody, not straying into 'Kevin and Perry' territory. "What's wrong with you?" asks her mother. "I'm 17. Everything's wrong with me" she replies. It's an immaculate performance for someone so young.
- Jo Hartley is also fabulous as A. J.'s mum, a lost soul struggling with her own worries, without having those of AJ to add to them. It's not portrayed as a typical 'Mum v Teen' battle, but beautifully nuanced. "Just because you're a lesbian now, it doesn't mean you have to dress like a boy" she pleads with A. J.
- If you're trying to place her, Ella Rae-Smith was the striking girl in the baseball cap in Netflix's "The Stranger". She is also wonderful here, as the 'hot girl' who you think has it all but is underneath deeply troubled and conflicted. A sex scene (beautifully lit and filmed by Emily Almond Barr and Matthew Wicks) manages to show absolutely nothing but is deliciously erotic as a result.
- The writing by Marley Morrison feels very autobiographical. And, as I found through reading this Guardian article about Morrison's gender-journey, there is a lot of personal experience in here. It's clever that the film is claustrophobically set in the remote holiday park (actually the real Freshwater Beach Holiday Park near Bridport on the Dorset coast). If it had been set in a big city like London, AJ could have constantly fled from her feelings, never resolving them. Here, she is constantly running into Isla.... there is no escape.
- I also very much liked the relationship written between A. J. and Steve. Steve is almost the safety valve on the pressure cooker, always helpfully allowing some steam to escape. It adds warmth to the story.
- For such an indie picture, there's a range of great tunes on the soundtrack: mostly from bands I have never heard of (probably making it affordable). I'm not sure if there's to be a soundtrack album released, but it's worth a listen if so.
Negatives:
- I wasn't fond of the sound mix on the film. Some of the dialogue was indistinct.
- A. J. gives us an occasional running commentary of her thoughts as a voiceover. Regular readers of my blog will know my thoughts on this subject! I'm not sure if it added much to the story: a 'show-not-tell' approach would have been my preference.
Summary Thoughts on "Sweetheart": I likened this film to 1980's "Gregory's Girl", and that's a great compliment. That movie made stars out of John Gordon Sinclair and Clare Grogan. I'd predict similar great things for Nell Barlow, Ella Rae-Smith and particularly for writer/director Marley Morrison. I'll very much look forward to Marley's future projects.
It's a cracking little British film. It deserves a major cinema release, but I suspect this is one that you might need to hunt out at your less mainstream cinemas. But please do so - it's well worth it. Very much recommended.
(For the full graphical review and video, check out #onemannsmovies on the web, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks.)
Positives:
- What a great ensemble cast! It's all headed up by Nell Barlow, amazingly in her feature debut. Nell manages to perfectly deliver the hair-pullingly frustrating unpredictability of a teenage girl: always planning to go off doing something worthy like "knitting jumpers for elephants in Indonesia". But she manages to keep the portrayal just the right side of parody, not straying into 'Kevin and Perry' territory. "What's wrong with you?" asks her mother. "I'm 17. Everything's wrong with me" she replies. It's an immaculate performance for someone so young.
- Jo Hartley is also fabulous as A. J.'s mum, a lost soul struggling with her own worries, without having those of AJ to add to them. It's not portrayed as a typical 'Mum v Teen' battle, but beautifully nuanced. "Just because you're a lesbian now, it doesn't mean you have to dress like a boy" she pleads with A. J.
- If you're trying to place her, Ella Rae-Smith was the striking girl in the baseball cap in Netflix's "The Stranger". She is also wonderful here, as the 'hot girl' who you think has it all but is underneath deeply troubled and conflicted. A sex scene (beautifully lit and filmed by Emily Almond Barr and Matthew Wicks) manages to show absolutely nothing but is deliciously erotic as a result.
- The writing by Marley Morrison feels very autobiographical. And, as I found through reading this Guardian article about Morrison's gender-journey, there is a lot of personal experience in here. It's clever that the film is claustrophobically set in the remote holiday park (actually the real Freshwater Beach Holiday Park near Bridport on the Dorset coast). If it had been set in a big city like London, AJ could have constantly fled from her feelings, never resolving them. Here, she is constantly running into Isla.... there is no escape.
- I also very much liked the relationship written between A. J. and Steve. Steve is almost the safety valve on the pressure cooker, always helpfully allowing some steam to escape. It adds warmth to the story.
- For such an indie picture, there's a range of great tunes on the soundtrack: mostly from bands I have never heard of (probably making it affordable). I'm not sure if there's to be a soundtrack album released, but it's worth a listen if so.
Negatives:
- I wasn't fond of the sound mix on the film. Some of the dialogue was indistinct.
- A. J. gives us an occasional running commentary of her thoughts as a voiceover. Regular readers of my blog will know my thoughts on this subject! I'm not sure if it added much to the story: a 'show-not-tell' approach would have been my preference.
Summary Thoughts on "Sweetheart": I likened this film to 1980's "Gregory's Girl", and that's a great compliment. That movie made stars out of John Gordon Sinclair and Clare Grogan. I'd predict similar great things for Nell Barlow, Ella Rae-Smith and particularly for writer/director Marley Morrison. I'll very much look forward to Marley's future projects.
It's a cracking little British film. It deserves a major cinema release, but I suspect this is one that you might need to hunt out at your less mainstream cinemas. But please do so - it's well worth it. Very much recommended.
(For the full graphical review and video, check out #onemannsmovies on the web, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks.)
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated My One and Only in Books
Apr 27, 2018
I loved Kristin Higgins' last release, All I Ever Wanted. I loved that it was a good romance with good characters and no explicit sex scenes. I loved the dogs. I loved the quirks. I loved the family, I loved everything about it. I was psyched to get her new release.
Sadly, it was a huge disappointment.
There were a few things that stacked against her in the beginning and I figured they would be made up for later, but it didn't improve. First, the characters.
I didn't like the main character, Harper. She was pessimistic, nosey, had no filter from her brain to her mouth, and her view of marriage was slightly offensive to me (only because I'm a Christian and a romantic. Don't mess with me.). I figured by halfway through the story maybe she'd see things the way they were, or that at least someone would hit her over the head and tell her to get a grip, but nobody did. I didn't like her interior monologue either. She didn't swear, but she had a few expletives that were... raunchy. I don't mind the "d" word too much. But supplementing the word "Crotch" or other phrases of similar nature just doesn't sit well with me.
And her boyfriend had the mentality of a sixth grader. Not joking. We'll leave it at that. Moving on!
Then there was her Ex. He was hot stuff, and I could see how the two of them could make it work (their personalities played off each other) but I just didn't like him. He was totally ignorant of the mistakes he'd made, at the halfway through point where we finally learn the back-story of her and him I seriously wanted to beat him over the head with a baseball bat--or a Bible--and give him a lecture about what marriage meant because the guy didn't get it. I didn't want the two to get back together, because it would be a recipe for disaster all over again. By the looks of it, neither of them had learned from their mistakes!
Second, I knew what was going to happen. She broke up with her boyfriend, she was going to fall for Nick again, and they were going to get married. Again. And because I didn't give a rat's poo about the characters, I didn't really care what happened to them.
Third, there were editorial mistakes. Now I know it's rude to point those out because when you read something dozens of times, you miss stuff like that. I understand that. I'm a writer. But I'm also a Professional Writing major and an editor, and I proofread stuff and I write promotional material and I edit things. It's what I do. It's my job. When I read a published book and I find things like "/= in the middle of the paragraph, or a grammatical error that is definitely not dialect or part of the character's personality, it makes me angry.
Fourth: I don't remember Kristin Higgins being a poor writer, but this book was poorly written and full of fragments. Sentences go like this: Subject, Verb, Direct Object. Or, Actor, Action, Description. Rearranging this causes passive voice, which is never fun to read, even though it does raise the word count. Ellipses should be used sparingly. Two or three per book: not per page or per paragraph.
And, no offense, but the dog was retarded. I know I shouldn't complain about the dog because now I'm just being whiney. But really? Maybe I'm biased about dogs, but I can't stand anything that bounces when it barks, even when it is in a book.
So those are five reasons why I stopped halfway through the book. This one is going to PBS. Don't get me wrong, I will continue to read Kristin's books. I've got a few more of hers that I hope will be as great as All I Ever Wanted, but this book was not her best work.
Recommended: Ages 18+ (Please note I don't know what sort of content was in the second half of the book.)
Sadly, it was a huge disappointment.
There were a few things that stacked against her in the beginning and I figured they would be made up for later, but it didn't improve. First, the characters.
I didn't like the main character, Harper. She was pessimistic, nosey, had no filter from her brain to her mouth, and her view of marriage was slightly offensive to me (only because I'm a Christian and a romantic. Don't mess with me.). I figured by halfway through the story maybe she'd see things the way they were, or that at least someone would hit her over the head and tell her to get a grip, but nobody did. I didn't like her interior monologue either. She didn't swear, but she had a few expletives that were... raunchy. I don't mind the "d" word too much. But supplementing the word "Crotch" or other phrases of similar nature just doesn't sit well with me.
And her boyfriend had the mentality of a sixth grader. Not joking. We'll leave it at that. Moving on!
Then there was her Ex. He was hot stuff, and I could see how the two of them could make it work (their personalities played off each other) but I just didn't like him. He was totally ignorant of the mistakes he'd made, at the halfway through point where we finally learn the back-story of her and him I seriously wanted to beat him over the head with a baseball bat--or a Bible--and give him a lecture about what marriage meant because the guy didn't get it. I didn't want the two to get back together, because it would be a recipe for disaster all over again. By the looks of it, neither of them had learned from their mistakes!
Second, I knew what was going to happen. She broke up with her boyfriend, she was going to fall for Nick again, and they were going to get married. Again. And because I didn't give a rat's poo about the characters, I didn't really care what happened to them.
Third, there were editorial mistakes. Now I know it's rude to point those out because when you read something dozens of times, you miss stuff like that. I understand that. I'm a writer. But I'm also a Professional Writing major and an editor, and I proofread stuff and I write promotional material and I edit things. It's what I do. It's my job. When I read a published book and I find things like "/= in the middle of the paragraph, or a grammatical error that is definitely not dialect or part of the character's personality, it makes me angry.
Fourth: I don't remember Kristin Higgins being a poor writer, but this book was poorly written and full of fragments. Sentences go like this: Subject, Verb, Direct Object. Or, Actor, Action, Description. Rearranging this causes passive voice, which is never fun to read, even though it does raise the word count. Ellipses should be used sparingly. Two or three per book: not per page or per paragraph.
And, no offense, but the dog was retarded. I know I shouldn't complain about the dog because now I'm just being whiney. But really? Maybe I'm biased about dogs, but I can't stand anything that bounces when it barks, even when it is in a book.
So those are five reasons why I stopped halfway through the book. This one is going to PBS. Don't get me wrong, I will continue to read Kristin's books. I've got a few more of hers that I hope will be as great as All I Ever Wanted, but this book was not her best work.
Recommended: Ages 18+ (Please note I don't know what sort of content was in the second half of the book.)
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Deckscape: Crew vs Crew - The Pirate's Island in Tabletop Games
May 20, 2021
Who out there has ever gone to an escape room and not enjoyed themselves? I know nobody (though if that’s you, it’s okay). I have only been to one in my life (eek!) and I absolutely loved it! I have watched videos of celebrities tackling escape rooms and have been riveted. I like the shows you can now find streaming of similar type activities and am always glued to the screen. Heck, I have played the EXIT and Unlock systems of board games and enjoyed them as well. So having the experience I have and having played two other Deckscape games, how did this one fare for me? Much better. Read on.
These one-shot escape room style games are difficult to explain without major spoilers, so I will try to explain what I can as best I can. Please don’t flame me for being vague. I am protecting you.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more info, you may purchase a copy online or from your FLGS. -T
To setup, open the box and take out the cards. Done. Read Card 1.
This one is quite a bit different from previous Deckscape games I have played in several ways. First, this is a head-to-head game where two players (or teams of players) will be taking sides of two pirate captains and attempting to figure out the answers to puzzles offered on cards in the game. Each side will have equal time and opportunity to solve the puzzles, but the first side to claim that they have solved it will be able to flip over the puzzle card to check for accurate answers. If they have succeeded, they earn the booty. If they fail, the other team has a chance to complete the puzzle successfully.
Play continues through the deck of cards with each side engaging in battles of wits until the end of the game draws near. The side with the most booty earned will be the winner and the game can then be passed along to another group of players to enjoy.
Components. This is a box of cards. The cards are all bigger than normal playing cards and feature pretty great art and vivid colors. I totally dig the pirate theme, so I was already destined to enjoy to aesthetic, but I do believe this is the better-looking game of the ones I have tried in its family.
Gameplay is also so different from the other two games in the Deckscape system and that’s a great thing. Having this head-to-head style really suited my situation when I played it: my 10-year-old niece was bored while her twin brother was at baseball practice, so I invited her to play this with me. Long story short, she ended up beating me by one point in the end, so that made her incredibly happy. I also highly enjoyed my playthrough of it, even in defeat.
I wish I could speak more on the specifics why I liked this, but again, as River Song would say, “Spoilers.” Do know that of the three Deckscape games I have played, I believe this is the best of the group. The puzzles are all fantastic, and I feel like I had a good handle on the solutions, but my niece obviously beat me to them more often than I would have liked to have admitted. That said, I can recommend this one to anyone interested in the Deckscape system with one caveat: this is head-to-head instead of the typical cooperative experience in the series. So you have been warned. It’s very good, though, so do check it out. Purple Phoenix Games (with guest score from my niece Keira) gives this one a puzzly 10 / 12, If you are wanting a little different flavor in your bottle of rum, grab a copy of this and enjoy. Just play it with someone your own age, or prepare to BE owned.
These one-shot escape room style games are difficult to explain without major spoilers, so I will try to explain what I can as best I can. Please don’t flame me for being vague. I am protecting you.
DISCLAIMER: We were provided a copy of this game for the purposes of this review. This is a retail copy of the game, so what you see in these photos is exactly what would be received in your box. I will describe the overall game flow and major rule set so that our readers may get a sense of how the game plays. For more info, you may purchase a copy online or from your FLGS. -T
To setup, open the box and take out the cards. Done. Read Card 1.
This one is quite a bit different from previous Deckscape games I have played in several ways. First, this is a head-to-head game where two players (or teams of players) will be taking sides of two pirate captains and attempting to figure out the answers to puzzles offered on cards in the game. Each side will have equal time and opportunity to solve the puzzles, but the first side to claim that they have solved it will be able to flip over the puzzle card to check for accurate answers. If they have succeeded, they earn the booty. If they fail, the other team has a chance to complete the puzzle successfully.
Play continues through the deck of cards with each side engaging in battles of wits until the end of the game draws near. The side with the most booty earned will be the winner and the game can then be passed along to another group of players to enjoy.
Components. This is a box of cards. The cards are all bigger than normal playing cards and feature pretty great art and vivid colors. I totally dig the pirate theme, so I was already destined to enjoy to aesthetic, but I do believe this is the better-looking game of the ones I have tried in its family.
Gameplay is also so different from the other two games in the Deckscape system and that’s a great thing. Having this head-to-head style really suited my situation when I played it: my 10-year-old niece was bored while her twin brother was at baseball practice, so I invited her to play this with me. Long story short, she ended up beating me by one point in the end, so that made her incredibly happy. I also highly enjoyed my playthrough of it, even in defeat.
I wish I could speak more on the specifics why I liked this, but again, as River Song would say, “Spoilers.” Do know that of the three Deckscape games I have played, I believe this is the best of the group. The puzzles are all fantastic, and I feel like I had a good handle on the solutions, but my niece obviously beat me to them more often than I would have liked to have admitted. That said, I can recommend this one to anyone interested in the Deckscape system with one caveat: this is head-to-head instead of the typical cooperative experience in the series. So you have been warned. It’s very good, though, so do check it out. Purple Phoenix Games (with guest score from my niece Keira) gives this one a puzzly 10 / 12, If you are wanting a little different flavor in your bottle of rum, grab a copy of this and enjoy. Just play it with someone your own age, or prepare to BE owned.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Judy (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Neither a true biopic nor a musical, a very sad and sombre film worth seeing for a sure-fire nominee for Zellweger for the Oscars.
Decline and Fall (Part 1).
This is an extremely sombre film. I will go as far as saying that it is well-and-truly a “Father Ted” film (see glossary).
The Story.
Young Judy Garland is a starlet in the MGM studio system run by Louis B. Mayer (a villainous Richard Cordery). She doesn’t have a life outside of the movies; is fed diet pills and “pep-pills” that destroy her sleep; and she is starting to get fed up with it all. No wonder then that she grows up to be an alcoholic insomniac with a trail of failed marriages and a temperamental nature.
Thus, through flash-backs to the young Judy (the English Darci Shaw, in her movie debut) we track the older Judy (Renée Zellweger) through the last tragic years of her life. Unable to work, due to a reputation that proceeds her, she is forced to take up the offer from Bernard Delfont (Michael Gambon) of a residency at London’s “Talk of the Town”. This separates her from her older daughter (Liza Minnelli played by Gemma-Leah Devereux) and, crucially, her younger children Lorna (Bella Ramsey) and Joey (Lewin Lloyd). (Their Dad is Sidney Luft (“Victoria’s” Rufus Sewell): hence Lorna being Lorna Luft). This separation increases Judy’s mental decline.
Also in a constant state of stress is Rosalyn Wilder (Jessie Buckley) who has the unenviable job of trying to keep Garland on the straight and narrow to perform every night.
A Towering Performance.
Whatever I think about the film overall (and we’ll come to that), this is 100% the “Renée Zellweger show”. It’s an extraordinary performance, and is pitch perfect, both in terms of capturing Garland’s mannerisms and vocal style. If Zellweger doesn’t get an Oscar nomination for this then I’ll eat my favourite orange baseball hat! I’ll have to review the final short-list, but I would not be remotely surprised if she won for this.
Elsewhere is the cast, Michael Gambon gives a reliable performance as Delfont (his second depiction this year after the turn by Rufus Jones in “Stan and Ollie“!) and the rising star that is Jessie Buckley is also effective as Wilder in a much quieter role than we’re used to seeing her in.
Musical? Or biopic?
Is this a musical? Or a biopic? Or neither? Actually, I would suggest it’s neither. There’s been a curious split in the last year between films like “Bohemian Rhapsody“, which were biopics with music, to “Rocketman” which was very much a musical based around a biopic.
“Judy” can’t be classed as a musical since (and I checked my watch) the first musical number doesn’t come until FORTY MINUTES into the picture. Neither is it a true biopic, focusing only on a few short months of Garland’s extensive career, the ‘young Judy’ scenes being nothing but short flashbacks to set the scene. This probably makes sense, else a true biopic of the wonder that was Judy Garland would have turned into a 4 hour plus epic!
A rough ride, but could I care?
Above all, it’s a depressing watch, like seeing a sick animal in distress. But I never felt the film got to the heart of the matter to really make me CARE enough. The nearest it gets is with a moving portion where Judy makes the evening (if not the lifetime) of some super-fans – Dan (Andy Nyman) and Stan (Daniel Cerqueira). She goes home with them for omelettes and a sing-song: a strong nod towards Garland’s extensive following, even today, among the gay community. The finale, where the couple try to salvage an on-stage psychiatric session by Judy is touching but, for me, not tear-inducing.
The screenplay is by Tom Edge, from the stage play by Peter Quilter. The director is relative movie-newcomer Rupert Goold.
I liked this movie, but did I like it enough to rush and see it again? No, not really. Worth seeing though to appreciate the odds-on favourite (surely!) for the Best Actress Oscar of this year.
This is an extremely sombre film. I will go as far as saying that it is well-and-truly a “Father Ted” film (see glossary).
The Story.
Young Judy Garland is a starlet in the MGM studio system run by Louis B. Mayer (a villainous Richard Cordery). She doesn’t have a life outside of the movies; is fed diet pills and “pep-pills” that destroy her sleep; and she is starting to get fed up with it all. No wonder then that she grows up to be an alcoholic insomniac with a trail of failed marriages and a temperamental nature.
Thus, through flash-backs to the young Judy (the English Darci Shaw, in her movie debut) we track the older Judy (Renée Zellweger) through the last tragic years of her life. Unable to work, due to a reputation that proceeds her, she is forced to take up the offer from Bernard Delfont (Michael Gambon) of a residency at London’s “Talk of the Town”. This separates her from her older daughter (Liza Minnelli played by Gemma-Leah Devereux) and, crucially, her younger children Lorna (Bella Ramsey) and Joey (Lewin Lloyd). (Their Dad is Sidney Luft (“Victoria’s” Rufus Sewell): hence Lorna being Lorna Luft). This separation increases Judy’s mental decline.
Also in a constant state of stress is Rosalyn Wilder (Jessie Buckley) who has the unenviable job of trying to keep Garland on the straight and narrow to perform every night.
A Towering Performance.
Whatever I think about the film overall (and we’ll come to that), this is 100% the “Renée Zellweger show”. It’s an extraordinary performance, and is pitch perfect, both in terms of capturing Garland’s mannerisms and vocal style. If Zellweger doesn’t get an Oscar nomination for this then I’ll eat my favourite orange baseball hat! I’ll have to review the final short-list, but I would not be remotely surprised if she won for this.
Elsewhere is the cast, Michael Gambon gives a reliable performance as Delfont (his second depiction this year after the turn by Rufus Jones in “Stan and Ollie“!) and the rising star that is Jessie Buckley is also effective as Wilder in a much quieter role than we’re used to seeing her in.
Musical? Or biopic?
Is this a musical? Or a biopic? Or neither? Actually, I would suggest it’s neither. There’s been a curious split in the last year between films like “Bohemian Rhapsody“, which were biopics with music, to “Rocketman” which was very much a musical based around a biopic.
“Judy” can’t be classed as a musical since (and I checked my watch) the first musical number doesn’t come until FORTY MINUTES into the picture. Neither is it a true biopic, focusing only on a few short months of Garland’s extensive career, the ‘young Judy’ scenes being nothing but short flashbacks to set the scene. This probably makes sense, else a true biopic of the wonder that was Judy Garland would have turned into a 4 hour plus epic!
A rough ride, but could I care?
Above all, it’s a depressing watch, like seeing a sick animal in distress. But I never felt the film got to the heart of the matter to really make me CARE enough. The nearest it gets is with a moving portion where Judy makes the evening (if not the lifetime) of some super-fans – Dan (Andy Nyman) and Stan (Daniel Cerqueira). She goes home with them for omelettes and a sing-song: a strong nod towards Garland’s extensive following, even today, among the gay community. The finale, where the couple try to salvage an on-stage psychiatric session by Judy is touching but, for me, not tear-inducing.
The screenplay is by Tom Edge, from the stage play by Peter Quilter. The director is relative movie-newcomer Rupert Goold.
I liked this movie, but did I like it enough to rush and see it again? No, not really. Worth seeing though to appreciate the odds-on favourite (surely!) for the Best Actress Oscar of this year.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Mule (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Eastwood is back, but is he hero or anti-hero?
It’s delightful to see Clint Eastwood back in front of the camera on the big screen. His last starring film was “Trouble with the Curve” in 2012 – a baseball-themed film that I don’t remember coming out in the UK, let alone remember seeing. Before that was 2008’s excellent “Gran Torino”.
Based on a true story.
“The Mule” is based on a true New York Times story about Leo Sharp, a veteren recruited by a cartel to ship drugs from the southern border to Chicago.
Eastwood couldn’t cast Sharp in the movie as himself because he died back in 2016, so had to personally take the role. (This is #satire…. Eastwood’s last film was the terrible “The 15:17 to Paris” where his ‘actors’ were the real-life participants themselves: you won’t find a review on this site as I only review films I’ve managed to sit through…. and with this one I failed!).
The plot.
Eastwood plays Earl Stone, a self-centred horticulturist of award-winning daylily’s (whatever they are) who is estranged from wife Mary (Dianne Wiest) and especially from his daughter Iris (Alison Eastwood, Clint’s own daughter), who now refuses to speak to him. This is because Earl has let his family down at every turn. The only person willing to give him a chance is his grand-daughter Ginny (Taissa Farmiga, younger sister of Vera). With his affairs in financial freefall, a chance meeting at a wedding leads Earl into a money-making driving job for the cartel operated by Laton (Andy Garcia). (Laton doesn’t seem to have a first name….. Fernando perhaps?).
With has beat-up truck and aged manner, he is invisible to the cops and so highly effective in the role. Even when – as the money keeps rolling in – he upgrades his truck to a souped-up monster!
Loose Morals.
It’s difficult to know whether Eastwood is playing a hero or an anti-hero. You feel tense when Earl is at risk of being caught, but then again the law officers would be preventing hundreds of kilos of cocaine from reaching the streets of Chicago and through their actions saving the lives of probably hundreds of people. I felt utterly conflicted: the blood of those people, and the destruction of the families that addiction causes, was on Earl’s hands as much as his employer’s. But you can’t quite equate that to the affable old-man that Eastwood portrays, who uses much of the money for charitable good-works in his community.
Family values.
In parallel with the drug-running main plot is a tale of Earl’s attempted redemption: “family should always come first”. When the two storylines come together around a critical event then it feels like a sufficient trigger for Earl to turn his back on his life of selfishness. This also gives room for some splendid acting scenes between Eastwood and Wiest. It’s also interesting that Earl tries to teach the younger DEA enforcement agent not to follow in the sins of his past. Bradley Cooper, back in pretty-boy mode, plays the agent, but seemed to me to be coasting; to me he wasn’t convincing in the role. Michael Peña is better as his unnamed DEA-buddy.
Final thoughts.
The showing at my cinema was surprisingly well-attended for a Wednesday night, showing that Eastwood is still a star-draw for box-office even in his old age. And it’s the reason to see the film for sure. His gristled driving turn to camera (most fully seen in the trailer rather than the final cut) is extraordinary.
He even manages to turn in an “eyes in rearview-mirror” shot that is surely a tribute to his Dirty Harry days!
If you can park your moral compass for a few hours then its an enjoyable film of drug-running and redemption. I’d like to suggest it also illustrates that crime really doesn’t pay, but from the end titles scene I’m not even sure at that age if that even applies!
Based on a true story.
“The Mule” is based on a true New York Times story about Leo Sharp, a veteren recruited by a cartel to ship drugs from the southern border to Chicago.
Eastwood couldn’t cast Sharp in the movie as himself because he died back in 2016, so had to personally take the role. (This is #satire…. Eastwood’s last film was the terrible “The 15:17 to Paris” where his ‘actors’ were the real-life participants themselves: you won’t find a review on this site as I only review films I’ve managed to sit through…. and with this one I failed!).
The plot.
Eastwood plays Earl Stone, a self-centred horticulturist of award-winning daylily’s (whatever they are) who is estranged from wife Mary (Dianne Wiest) and especially from his daughter Iris (Alison Eastwood, Clint’s own daughter), who now refuses to speak to him. This is because Earl has let his family down at every turn. The only person willing to give him a chance is his grand-daughter Ginny (Taissa Farmiga, younger sister of Vera). With his affairs in financial freefall, a chance meeting at a wedding leads Earl into a money-making driving job for the cartel operated by Laton (Andy Garcia). (Laton doesn’t seem to have a first name….. Fernando perhaps?).
With has beat-up truck and aged manner, he is invisible to the cops and so highly effective in the role. Even when – as the money keeps rolling in – he upgrades his truck to a souped-up monster!
Loose Morals.
It’s difficult to know whether Eastwood is playing a hero or an anti-hero. You feel tense when Earl is at risk of being caught, but then again the law officers would be preventing hundreds of kilos of cocaine from reaching the streets of Chicago and through their actions saving the lives of probably hundreds of people. I felt utterly conflicted: the blood of those people, and the destruction of the families that addiction causes, was on Earl’s hands as much as his employer’s. But you can’t quite equate that to the affable old-man that Eastwood portrays, who uses much of the money for charitable good-works in his community.
Family values.
In parallel with the drug-running main plot is a tale of Earl’s attempted redemption: “family should always come first”. When the two storylines come together around a critical event then it feels like a sufficient trigger for Earl to turn his back on his life of selfishness. This also gives room for some splendid acting scenes between Eastwood and Wiest. It’s also interesting that Earl tries to teach the younger DEA enforcement agent not to follow in the sins of his past. Bradley Cooper, back in pretty-boy mode, plays the agent, but seemed to me to be coasting; to me he wasn’t convincing in the role. Michael Peña is better as his unnamed DEA-buddy.
Final thoughts.
The showing at my cinema was surprisingly well-attended for a Wednesday night, showing that Eastwood is still a star-draw for box-office even in his old age. And it’s the reason to see the film for sure. His gristled driving turn to camera (most fully seen in the trailer rather than the final cut) is extraordinary.
He even manages to turn in an “eyes in rearview-mirror” shot that is surely a tribute to his Dirty Harry days!
If you can park your moral compass for a few hours then its an enjoyable film of drug-running and redemption. I’d like to suggest it also illustrates that crime really doesn’t pay, but from the end titles scene I’m not even sure at that age if that even applies!