Search
Search results
MasterSolace (19 KP) rated Aladdin (2019) in Movies
Jun 15, 2019
The Music(it's Disney) (4 more)
The Special Effects(it's Disney)
The Atmosphere
The Cast & Characters
One last bit... in the review
Live-Action Magic
Contains spoilers, click to show
Disney has been on a kick of redoing their animated masterpieces into live action masterpieces. It worked with Cinderella... Jungle Book was flawed, but still wild... and Beauty and the Beast was simply Beautiful. So... was this reimagining of Aladdin up to par...
You are damn right it was.
Let's get this out of the way first. Live action musicals still make me feel awkward. Granted, this is Disney... but animated musicals feel just fine. That being said, the numbers were spot on for the most part, while still being slightly altered for the cast in the present. Yes, that includes slight tweaks due to Will Smith being an actual musician(as much as I love Robin Williams, he was not). And those were made(dammit... sorry for the pun)... Fresh.
Acting on point. Because Disney. Sorry, but it's true.
Was the movie perfect? No. It does have some flaws, but nothing that hinders the movie overall. And most of them for me where solely because of the musical numbers. That being said, "Speechless"... bravo Alan Menken.
There is one part of this version that does IMPROVE over the original. The City of Agrabah. The animated version felt nothing more than a backdrop, but this City felt like it was organic. Like an ACTUAL city they were fighting for.
Other changes were proper... made it more modern. Including Jasmine motivation(instead of marrying who she wants, she is made Sultan... so she can protect and serve her people... she marries Aladdin anyway)... and Jafar's true plans(he didn't just want Agrabah, he wanted to conquer the neighboring nations, as well). Jafar in the original was DRAWN menacing... live action Jafar was devious due to his ambitions. Good job, Disney.
How about the Genie? How did Will Smith do? Well... he was great. BUT Disney did something different this time. In the original, because Robin was the star, it put extra focus on how outrageous he was. Will Smith was the billed star, but they put more focus on who the story was really about... Aladdin. Will Smith served a purpose. He might've been the bigger name, but he did NOT play the biggest part. At least, that is what I feel happened.... and it was for the better.
Was it as good as the original? No. Because there is no true comparison. If you haven't seen it... please... erase the original from your mind for a moment... go see this one... then go back and watch the original. While we KNOW the comparison... there shouldn't be one. This live-action version isn't exactly the same, and it shouldn't be. Askewed focus... different delivery... it maybe Disney's remake, but this version should be approached as if you were watching it from a different perspective......
Treat it as if it were it's own movie.
And know this... the best positive of all...
Robin would've loved it.
You are damn right it was.
Let's get this out of the way first. Live action musicals still make me feel awkward. Granted, this is Disney... but animated musicals feel just fine. That being said, the numbers were spot on for the most part, while still being slightly altered for the cast in the present. Yes, that includes slight tweaks due to Will Smith being an actual musician(as much as I love Robin Williams, he was not). And those were made(dammit... sorry for the pun)... Fresh.
Acting on point. Because Disney. Sorry, but it's true.
Was the movie perfect? No. It does have some flaws, but nothing that hinders the movie overall. And most of them for me where solely because of the musical numbers. That being said, "Speechless"... bravo Alan Menken.
There is one part of this version that does IMPROVE over the original. The City of Agrabah. The animated version felt nothing more than a backdrop, but this City felt like it was organic. Like an ACTUAL city they were fighting for.
Other changes were proper... made it more modern. Including Jasmine motivation(instead of marrying who she wants, she is made Sultan... so she can protect and serve her people... she marries Aladdin anyway)... and Jafar's true plans(he didn't just want Agrabah, he wanted to conquer the neighboring nations, as well). Jafar in the original was DRAWN menacing... live action Jafar was devious due to his ambitions. Good job, Disney.
How about the Genie? How did Will Smith do? Well... he was great. BUT Disney did something different this time. In the original, because Robin was the star, it put extra focus on how outrageous he was. Will Smith was the billed star, but they put more focus on who the story was really about... Aladdin. Will Smith served a purpose. He might've been the bigger name, but he did NOT play the biggest part. At least, that is what I feel happened.... and it was for the better.
Was it as good as the original? No. Because there is no true comparison. If you haven't seen it... please... erase the original from your mind for a moment... go see this one... then go back and watch the original. While we KNOW the comparison... there shouldn't be one. This live-action version isn't exactly the same, and it shouldn't be. Askewed focus... different delivery... it maybe Disney's remake, but this version should be approached as if you were watching it from a different perspective......
Treat it as if it were it's own movie.
And know this... the best positive of all...
Robin would've loved it.
DisneyLife
Entertainment and Lifestyle
8.0
Rate It
App
Experience the Disney magic together with one easy monthly subscription and no contract. Start...
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Ralph Breaks the Internet: Wreck-It Ralph 2 (2018) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
Kids growing up today don’t have the experience of a true arcade like some of us old folks do. Arcades as I knew them were loud (often smoke filled) establishments lined from one end to the other with all types of video games. Arcades these days reside mainly in pizza parlors with giant animatronic mice and consist mostly of ticket giving, skill-based games like skeeball and flippy coin games. Well, we now get a little bit of a nostalgic flashback as the Disney juggernaut does it again with Ralph Breaks the Internet, a delightful story about friendship, self-confidence and of course arcade games.
Ralph (John C. Reilly) has come a long way from his time as an arcade villain. He now spends his days working in his video game “Fix-It Felix Jr.” and his nights having fun with his adorable and talented bestie Vanellope (Sarah Silverman). Life just couldn’t be better, and Ralph is completely content living a structured and simple life. Vanellope, on the other hand, dreams of excitement and a change of pace, as she is growing tired of working in her game “Sugar Rush” since it’s always the same tracks and she wins every race. As the saying goes…be careful what you wish for. Things soon take a turn for the worse when Vanellope’s Sugar Rush game cabinet breaks causing mass upheaval in the world behind Litwak’s Arcade. The friends discover that the part to fix it can only be found on E-bay, so the two embark on a journey on the newly installed internet to find E-bay and get the part to fix the game.
Ralph and Vanellope find out that the internet is a vast and strange place and they quickly learn there is a much larger world outside their little arcade. On the internet there are new places to explore, new games to play and friends whose hearts are as large as the internet itself. The way the writers and animators portrayed how the actual websites work within the internet was simply spectacular. They nailed exactly how I believe E-bay works when I’m bidding on all those hard to find Disney items and I’m happy they finally confirmed that there is a Mr. KnowsMore behind the all-knowing Google search bar. They even gave purpose and heart to the ever-annoying internet pop-up ads and if that isn’t storytelling at its finest, I don’t know what is. The inner workings of the internet are brought to life in only a way that Disney could, and I loved every minute of it.
Not only did they superbly animate the World Wide Web, Ralph Breaks the Internet is also full of as much heart and charm as any Disney movie. The bond between Ralph and Vanellope is so strong that it sweetly radiates off the screen. There is also depth to the story as we get to see their relationship go through all the struggles and triumphs that form a true and lasting friendship. In pure Disney fashion, in the end there is a moral to the story where Ralph learns that a true friend is someone who is willing to let go, even when you don’t want to. The story was sweet as sugar and showed that things can always be fixed as long as you are true friends.
The animation is top-notch, with so many little nuances that I’m certain I didn’t catch them all the first time around. The animation in the scenes with the “casual” princesses and the little bit in the credits (you absolutely 100% must stay for the credits) with Fun Bun and Puddles make everything even more perfect. They also added little extra touches like when the friends go to Tapper’s bar to have a drink of Root Beer, the bartender’s movements are jerky and react exactly as he did in the actual arcade game. Speaking of characters there are so many represented, you may want to see this movie a couple of times just to see them all.
Ralph Breaks the Internet takes modern technology and blends it with memorable characters, an incredible story, and more Easter Eggs than you can shake a joystick at. Everyone from video game fans to Disney movie lovers will find something to enjoy. Disney definitely has another blockbuster on their hands and it will have no problem sitting proudly next to the likes of Beauty and the Beast or the epic Toy Story films. In Ralph Breaks the Internet, you will be laughing one minute and crying the next and it once again shows us how Disney can take any topic and turn it into a timeless classic. Make sure to race to your nearest theater on November 21, 2018 when Ralph Breaks the Internet comes crashing into theaters everywhere. You’ll be happy that you did.
Ralph (John C. Reilly) has come a long way from his time as an arcade villain. He now spends his days working in his video game “Fix-It Felix Jr.” and his nights having fun with his adorable and talented bestie Vanellope (Sarah Silverman). Life just couldn’t be better, and Ralph is completely content living a structured and simple life. Vanellope, on the other hand, dreams of excitement and a change of pace, as she is growing tired of working in her game “Sugar Rush” since it’s always the same tracks and she wins every race. As the saying goes…be careful what you wish for. Things soon take a turn for the worse when Vanellope’s Sugar Rush game cabinet breaks causing mass upheaval in the world behind Litwak’s Arcade. The friends discover that the part to fix it can only be found on E-bay, so the two embark on a journey on the newly installed internet to find E-bay and get the part to fix the game.
Ralph and Vanellope find out that the internet is a vast and strange place and they quickly learn there is a much larger world outside their little arcade. On the internet there are new places to explore, new games to play and friends whose hearts are as large as the internet itself. The way the writers and animators portrayed how the actual websites work within the internet was simply spectacular. They nailed exactly how I believe E-bay works when I’m bidding on all those hard to find Disney items and I’m happy they finally confirmed that there is a Mr. KnowsMore behind the all-knowing Google search bar. They even gave purpose and heart to the ever-annoying internet pop-up ads and if that isn’t storytelling at its finest, I don’t know what is. The inner workings of the internet are brought to life in only a way that Disney could, and I loved every minute of it.
Not only did they superbly animate the World Wide Web, Ralph Breaks the Internet is also full of as much heart and charm as any Disney movie. The bond between Ralph and Vanellope is so strong that it sweetly radiates off the screen. There is also depth to the story as we get to see their relationship go through all the struggles and triumphs that form a true and lasting friendship. In pure Disney fashion, in the end there is a moral to the story where Ralph learns that a true friend is someone who is willing to let go, even when you don’t want to. The story was sweet as sugar and showed that things can always be fixed as long as you are true friends.
The animation is top-notch, with so many little nuances that I’m certain I didn’t catch them all the first time around. The animation in the scenes with the “casual” princesses and the little bit in the credits (you absolutely 100% must stay for the credits) with Fun Bun and Puddles make everything even more perfect. They also added little extra touches like when the friends go to Tapper’s bar to have a drink of Root Beer, the bartender’s movements are jerky and react exactly as he did in the actual arcade game. Speaking of characters there are so many represented, you may want to see this movie a couple of times just to see them all.
Ralph Breaks the Internet takes modern technology and blends it with memorable characters, an incredible story, and more Easter Eggs than you can shake a joystick at. Everyone from video game fans to Disney movie lovers will find something to enjoy. Disney definitely has another blockbuster on their hands and it will have no problem sitting proudly next to the likes of Beauty and the Beast or the epic Toy Story films. In Ralph Breaks the Internet, you will be laughing one minute and crying the next and it once again shows us how Disney can take any topic and turn it into a timeless classic. Make sure to race to your nearest theater on November 21, 2018 when Ralph Breaks the Internet comes crashing into theaters everywhere. You’ll be happy that you did.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Belfort in Tabletop Games
Jun 10, 2021
I don’t know if I have ever just come out and said it before, but I love worker placement games. I just adore the mechanic and if a game includes it, the chances of me liking it are quite good. Belfort is an older game now (almost 10 years old!) so does it still excite and deliver the goods when so many other great worker placement games have been produced since it debuted?
The winner of Belfort is the player who, at the end of seven rounds of play, earns the most Victory Points (VP). Players will earn victory points by having majority of buildings claimed within the five districts of Belfort. To claim a building, players will be shrewdly sending workers to mines, the forest, and various buildings and guilds of Belfort to recruit more workers and earn the ever-important buck to finance these buildings.
Setup is kind of a beast, so I won’t detail everything here. Similarly, I will not be detailing every rule in the book, as there are just too many. But, I will give a general flow of the game so readers may be able to decide if this is a game they must add to their collections.
Once the game is setup and player order is established, each player will complete their entire turn in player order. Players will have many choices available to them on their turn: place workers on various buildings they had previously built, place workers on guild tiles to access powerful abilities, recruit more workers, hire gnomes to unlock certain portions of buildings, gaining more building plans, visiting the trading post to exchange resources, transform normal workers into master workers, and lastly assign workers to gather resources (wood, stone, metal, and gold) in the forests and mines surrounding Belfort.
At certain times during the game players will score their efforts to move up (and down) the VP track. It is at the end of the third and final scoring that the game ends and a victor is crowned.
While this is a very broad and general description of the rules of Belfort, each option listed contains layers of strategic depth that, like all good worker placement games, limits the players’ abilities to go everywhere they like as workers are in limited supply. For those gamers who have never played a worker placement game, this is both excruciating and delicious.
Components. This game boasts way too many components for the box in which is barely contained. I say this with one complete expansion and the promo set of guild tiles included, and the latest expansion on the way. All of the components in this game are stellar. The cards are great. All the cardboard play mats and tiles are great. The worker components and all the wooden bits are super great, AND I didn’t even mind having to sticker my own workers. The best part about the components in Belfort is definitely the art. The team designed an excellent art style for this one, and seeing little hidden jokes within the art makes it all that more interesting to me.
So DOES it hold up after all these years? I think it does. Though I would not consider Belfort an “easy” game to learn, teach, or play at first, after a few rounds players generally catch on and begin to really weigh all their options. This is a great game for think-hungry gamers. This game is conversely a bane for all AP-prone players. I fall right in the middle, but lean towards faster play at the expense of my final score. But that’s the beauty of Belfort and of all worker placement games: there are so many choices that one could easily just try to play so that they visit every location at least once. Now, by doing this the players are also ignoring the true goal of the game: area majority within the districts of Belfort, but if a player isn’t as aggressive or victory-crazed, that’s not a bad thing.
For me, I love Belfort. A lot. Unfortunately for me, during this crazy COVID time, I will not be able to play it much, and was lucky to be able to pull it out recently again after not playing it for several years. But, I always look upon the box fondly and wish I could just bust it out any time I want. Maybe someday someone will create solo rules for it and I can enjoy it that way. My wife is not a fan, but also she’s not really a fan of games that are longer than an hour generally. I cherish this game, and am quite happy to have it in my collection.
The winner of Belfort is the player who, at the end of seven rounds of play, earns the most Victory Points (VP). Players will earn victory points by having majority of buildings claimed within the five districts of Belfort. To claim a building, players will be shrewdly sending workers to mines, the forest, and various buildings and guilds of Belfort to recruit more workers and earn the ever-important buck to finance these buildings.
Setup is kind of a beast, so I won’t detail everything here. Similarly, I will not be detailing every rule in the book, as there are just too many. But, I will give a general flow of the game so readers may be able to decide if this is a game they must add to their collections.
Once the game is setup and player order is established, each player will complete their entire turn in player order. Players will have many choices available to them on their turn: place workers on various buildings they had previously built, place workers on guild tiles to access powerful abilities, recruit more workers, hire gnomes to unlock certain portions of buildings, gaining more building plans, visiting the trading post to exchange resources, transform normal workers into master workers, and lastly assign workers to gather resources (wood, stone, metal, and gold) in the forests and mines surrounding Belfort.
At certain times during the game players will score their efforts to move up (and down) the VP track. It is at the end of the third and final scoring that the game ends and a victor is crowned.
While this is a very broad and general description of the rules of Belfort, each option listed contains layers of strategic depth that, like all good worker placement games, limits the players’ abilities to go everywhere they like as workers are in limited supply. For those gamers who have never played a worker placement game, this is both excruciating and delicious.
Components. This game boasts way too many components for the box in which is barely contained. I say this with one complete expansion and the promo set of guild tiles included, and the latest expansion on the way. All of the components in this game are stellar. The cards are great. All the cardboard play mats and tiles are great. The worker components and all the wooden bits are super great, AND I didn’t even mind having to sticker my own workers. The best part about the components in Belfort is definitely the art. The team designed an excellent art style for this one, and seeing little hidden jokes within the art makes it all that more interesting to me.
So DOES it hold up after all these years? I think it does. Though I would not consider Belfort an “easy” game to learn, teach, or play at first, after a few rounds players generally catch on and begin to really weigh all their options. This is a great game for think-hungry gamers. This game is conversely a bane for all AP-prone players. I fall right in the middle, but lean towards faster play at the expense of my final score. But that’s the beauty of Belfort and of all worker placement games: there are so many choices that one could easily just try to play so that they visit every location at least once. Now, by doing this the players are also ignoring the true goal of the game: area majority within the districts of Belfort, but if a player isn’t as aggressive or victory-crazed, that’s not a bad thing.
For me, I love Belfort. A lot. Unfortunately for me, during this crazy COVID time, I will not be able to play it much, and was lucky to be able to pull it out recently again after not playing it for several years. But, I always look upon the box fondly and wish I could just bust it out any time I want. Maybe someday someone will create solo rules for it and I can enjoy it that way. My wife is not a fan, but also she’s not really a fan of games that are longer than an hour generally. I cherish this game, and am quite happy to have it in my collection.
BookwormMama14 (18 KP) rated High As the Heavens in Books
Jan 2, 2019
Kate Breslin's new book is FINALLY here! I have been waiting for this day since the moment I finished Not by Sight. And I am so excited to share my review with you. Filled with raw emotion that will grip your heart, this is not a light read, but it is an AMAZING story!
"How in the midst of all this sorrow"...Can hope possibly be found?*
Kate's books continue to elicit emotions in me that I have rarely felt on such an excruciating level. Set in Belgium during WWI we live through the memories of our heroine. We walk with her through the heartache, the pain, the suffering, but also the joy. Evelyn Marche has seen her fair share of evil and sorrows, but as a nurse she is able to bring peace and comfort to those who are also suffering. Through her work, she is making a difference in more people's lives than she knows. I don't want to say TOO much about Eve's story, because I want you to read it! Be warned though...I was not even half way through and I thought I was going to puke, cry, and throw the book across the room.** THAT is how powerful Kate's words are. There were many times of laugh out loud moments, but this is a book set in a WAR ZONE.
While in the middle of reading this book, I had the opportunity to hear a WWII survivor speak. (I know, I know...different war...but a hero is a hero.) Her name is Marthe Cohn, she is 97 years old. Marthe is a French Jew who served as a spy in Nazi Germany during WWII. She was a nurse. She is a HERO. There are SO MANY PARALLELS to Eve in Marthe's story that it was kind of weird. Marthe was instrumental in bringing about the end of the war. I share this with you because I want to honor those who have served...in any war. Those who would risk their lives daily so that my family may live in peace. The heros who, without them, things could have ended so very different.
Evelyn is a strong and powerful representation of the many women who served in WWI. The heroes who cared for the wounded. The heroes that changed history one day at a time. Eve's independent spirit and tenacity has been an asset throughout the war. But living in "survival mode" can wear a person down. Will she continue fighting in her own strength or will she open her heart to God, and allow Him to carry her burdens? Although I have not seen the same horrors that Evelyn (and Marthe) were faced with, I hope that in the midst of chaos I will stand strong, be a light and do what I can to make the world a better place. To bring hope to those who have none.
*Quotation is from the song Days in the Sun found on the 2017 release of Disney's Beauty and the Beast.
** No books were harmed during the process of reading this book and writing the review.
I received a complimentary copy of High as the Heavens from Bethany House Publishers I was not required to write a positive review. All opinions expressed are mine alone.
"How in the midst of all this sorrow"...Can hope possibly be found?*
Kate's books continue to elicit emotions in me that I have rarely felt on such an excruciating level. Set in Belgium during WWI we live through the memories of our heroine. We walk with her through the heartache, the pain, the suffering, but also the joy. Evelyn Marche has seen her fair share of evil and sorrows, but as a nurse she is able to bring peace and comfort to those who are also suffering. Through her work, she is making a difference in more people's lives than she knows. I don't want to say TOO much about Eve's story, because I want you to read it! Be warned though...I was not even half way through and I thought I was going to puke, cry, and throw the book across the room.** THAT is how powerful Kate's words are. There were many times of laugh out loud moments, but this is a book set in a WAR ZONE.
While in the middle of reading this book, I had the opportunity to hear a WWII survivor speak. (I know, I know...different war...but a hero is a hero.) Her name is Marthe Cohn, she is 97 years old. Marthe is a French Jew who served as a spy in Nazi Germany during WWII. She was a nurse. She is a HERO. There are SO MANY PARALLELS to Eve in Marthe's story that it was kind of weird. Marthe was instrumental in bringing about the end of the war. I share this with you because I want to honor those who have served...in any war. Those who would risk their lives daily so that my family may live in peace. The heros who, without them, things could have ended so very different.
Evelyn is a strong and powerful representation of the many women who served in WWI. The heroes who cared for the wounded. The heroes that changed history one day at a time. Eve's independent spirit and tenacity has been an asset throughout the war. But living in "survival mode" can wear a person down. Will she continue fighting in her own strength or will she open her heart to God, and allow Him to carry her burdens? Although I have not seen the same horrors that Evelyn (and Marthe) were faced with, I hope that in the midst of chaos I will stand strong, be a light and do what I can to make the world a better place. To bring hope to those who have none.
*Quotation is from the song Days in the Sun found on the 2017 release of Disney's Beauty and the Beast.
** No books were harmed during the process of reading this book and writing the review.
I received a complimentary copy of High as the Heavens from Bethany House Publishers I was not required to write a positive review. All opinions expressed are mine alone.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Lucy in the Sky (2019) in Movies
Mar 9, 2020
Natalie Portman and Jon Hamm together (1 more)
Interesting premise
Mind. Blown - A thoughtful film that's hard to like.
Natalie Portman plays the eponymous Lucy Cola, a NASA astronaut who has achieved her ambition of reaching space and experienced the enormity of the universe first hand. Her mind is officially blown. Such that, on returning to earth, nothing seems ‘enough’ any more. Her family; her comfortable home; her life.
She becomes desperate to be selected for the next program… to get that literal) ‘high’ all over again. So desperate that her mind and morals burn up on trying to re-enter.
You look at the career choices of Natalie Portman, and they have often revolved around cool and detached woman: “Black Swan” and “Jackie” for example. Here, looking incredibly fit and strong (as you would expect from an astronaut at the peak of her powers) , she again plays something of an ice queen. She is – of course – brilliant at it.
Starring with her here is the ever-watchable Jon Hamm as fellow astronaut Mark Goodwin, the omni-present – at the moment – Zazie Beetz as a fellow program competitor and Dan Stevens (from “Downton”) as her exasperated colleague and husband Drew. (Stevens was COMPLETELY UNRECOGNISABLE to me in this movie…. just like in “Beauty and the Beast“! To the extent that I had to wind back the film from the end-titles after seeing his name to check!).
This was always a film that was going to struggle to identify its audience. Yes, it starts in space, but it is in NO WAY a “Sci-Fi” movie (which is one of its tags on IMDB. Shameful!). This is a drama about a woman progressively losing her grip on reality: almost a PTSD movie, but without the “S” being “T” in the normal sense of things.
Lucy’s ‘other-worldliness’ is reflected in the aspect ratio of the movie, which varies from a claustrophobic ‘old-TV’ format 4:3 ratio to a ratio bordering on ‘Cinemascope’. (This makes for a very challenging watch on a small airline TV screen, as I was doing!). It’s a motif that’s obviously meant to reflect Lucy’s drifting grip on reality. But it eventually gets irritating…. I had the sense that first-time feature director Noah Hawley was ‘trying too hard’ for something quirky and different.
Far more successful is a ‘green-screened’ trippy sequence seeing Lucy being transported to a hospital bedside to the rendition of The Beatles iconic song, performed by Lucy Hannigan (listen here). It’s dreamlike and unsettling. In fact, one of the high-spots of the movie for me was Jeff Russo‘s score, which I have made a mental note to make sure to listen to again on Spotify. It’s more electronica than orchestral but matches the mood of the film really well.
But, here’s the thing. I didn’t enjoy it. The problem is (and no spoilers here) that Portman’s Lucy is such a downright BITCH that it is impossible to warm to her as the movie’s star. There is, in fact, only one of the characters that you really side with, and she’s the one doing the most damage to them.
This shouldn’t be a problem to the story, since the film is reflecting (loosely) true events: the astronauts in question were Lisa Nowak and William Oefelein. And there are lots of ‘feel-bad’ films about mental illness (“One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest”, for example) that stand on their own merits. But this one just seemed to be a fairly miserable and destructive story that didn’t have enough of a payoff – either positive or negative – to merit the journey.
This was disappointing, since after hearing the premise, I’d been looking forward to this one.
For those who love movies, and the way movies are structured, it is an interesting watch. But it is not by any stretch an entertaining mainstream movie. The director Noah Hawley will need to do better in the “commercially-appealing” stakes for his next film: since he’s been (rather surprisingly) given the helm for the sequel to “Star Trek: Beyond“.
(For the full graphical review, check out the review on One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/03/09/one-manns-movies-dvd-review-lucy-in-the-sky-2019/ ).
She becomes desperate to be selected for the next program… to get that literal) ‘high’ all over again. So desperate that her mind and morals burn up on trying to re-enter.
You look at the career choices of Natalie Portman, and they have often revolved around cool and detached woman: “Black Swan” and “Jackie” for example. Here, looking incredibly fit and strong (as you would expect from an astronaut at the peak of her powers) , she again plays something of an ice queen. She is – of course – brilliant at it.
Starring with her here is the ever-watchable Jon Hamm as fellow astronaut Mark Goodwin, the omni-present – at the moment – Zazie Beetz as a fellow program competitor and Dan Stevens (from “Downton”) as her exasperated colleague and husband Drew. (Stevens was COMPLETELY UNRECOGNISABLE to me in this movie…. just like in “Beauty and the Beast“! To the extent that I had to wind back the film from the end-titles after seeing his name to check!).
This was always a film that was going to struggle to identify its audience. Yes, it starts in space, but it is in NO WAY a “Sci-Fi” movie (which is one of its tags on IMDB. Shameful!). This is a drama about a woman progressively losing her grip on reality: almost a PTSD movie, but without the “S” being “T” in the normal sense of things.
Lucy’s ‘other-worldliness’ is reflected in the aspect ratio of the movie, which varies from a claustrophobic ‘old-TV’ format 4:3 ratio to a ratio bordering on ‘Cinemascope’. (This makes for a very challenging watch on a small airline TV screen, as I was doing!). It’s a motif that’s obviously meant to reflect Lucy’s drifting grip on reality. But it eventually gets irritating…. I had the sense that first-time feature director Noah Hawley was ‘trying too hard’ for something quirky and different.
Far more successful is a ‘green-screened’ trippy sequence seeing Lucy being transported to a hospital bedside to the rendition of The Beatles iconic song, performed by Lucy Hannigan (listen here). It’s dreamlike and unsettling. In fact, one of the high-spots of the movie for me was Jeff Russo‘s score, which I have made a mental note to make sure to listen to again on Spotify. It’s more electronica than orchestral but matches the mood of the film really well.
But, here’s the thing. I didn’t enjoy it. The problem is (and no spoilers here) that Portman’s Lucy is such a downright BITCH that it is impossible to warm to her as the movie’s star. There is, in fact, only one of the characters that you really side with, and she’s the one doing the most damage to them.
This shouldn’t be a problem to the story, since the film is reflecting (loosely) true events: the astronauts in question were Lisa Nowak and William Oefelein. And there are lots of ‘feel-bad’ films about mental illness (“One Flew over the Cuckoo’s Nest”, for example) that stand on their own merits. But this one just seemed to be a fairly miserable and destructive story that didn’t have enough of a payoff – either positive or negative – to merit the journey.
This was disappointing, since after hearing the premise, I’d been looking forward to this one.
For those who love movies, and the way movies are structured, it is an interesting watch. But it is not by any stretch an entertaining mainstream movie. The director Noah Hawley will need to do better in the “commercially-appealing” stakes for his next film: since he’s been (rather surprisingly) given the helm for the sequel to “Star Trek: Beyond“.
(For the full graphical review, check out the review on One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/03/09/one-manns-movies-dvd-review-lucy-in-the-sky-2019/ ).
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Colossal (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A Marvel-ous Indie Movie
Well!! I’ve been really surprised (in a good way) by two films this year, and both have involved monsters (the first being “A Monster Calls” back in January).
It’s really difficult to categorise “Colossal” – imdb classes it as a “Comedy, Action, Drama”. Comedy? Yes, but it’s a very dark comedy indeed. Action? Hmm, not really… if you go to this expecting ‘Godzilla 2’ or some polished Marvel-style film (not that I was!) you will be sorely disappointed. Drama? This is probably the nearest match, since at its heart this is a clever study on the people and relationships at the heart of a bizarre Sci-Fi event.
Anne Hathaway (“Les Miserables”) stars as Gloria, a borderline alcoholic-waster sponging off the good-natured but controlling Tim (Dan Stevens, “Beauty and the Beast”) in his New York apartment. When Tim’s patience finally runs out, Gloria returns to her hometown to an empty house and the attentions of a former school friend, bar owner Oscar (Jason Sudeikis), who clearly holds an unhealthy fascination with her. Borrowing an idea from “A Monster Calls”, at a specific time in the US morning a huge monster appears from thin air in Seoul, South Korea, killing people and smashing buildings in a seemingly uncoordinated and random way. Bizarrely, this only happens when Gloria is standing at a particular spot in a particular kid’s playground. Could the two events possibly be related?
I always like to categorize films in my head as being “like” others, but this one’s really difficult to pin down. It borrows its main premise from a famous scene in “E.T.” (indeed one also involving alcohol) but the film’s fantasy elements and dark undertones have more similarities in style to “Jumanji”. Then again, there are elements of the Kaufman about it in that it is as weird in some places as “Being John Malkovich”.
The film stays on ‘Whimsical Street’ for the first half of the film, but then takes a sharp left turn into ‘Dark Avenue’ (and for “dark” read “extremely black and sinister”). It then becomes a far more uncomfortable watch for the viewer. The metaphor of the monster for Gloria’s growing addiction is clear, but emerging themes of control, jealousy, violent bullying and small-town social entrapment also emerge.
Here the acting talents of Hathaway and Sudeikis really come to the fore: heavyweight Hollywood talent adding some significant ‘oomph’ to what is a fairly modest indie project. Hathaway is in kooky mode here, gurning to great comic effect, and this adds warmth to a not particularly likeable character. And Sudeikis (more commonly seen in lighter and frothier comedies like “We’re the Millers” and “Horrible Bosses”) is a surprise in the role delivering some real acting grit.
The writer and director is Spaniard Nacho Vigalondo. No, me neither. But he seems to have come from nowhere to deliver this high profile cinema release, and it would not be a surprise for me to see this nominated as an original screenplay come the awards season. His quirky style is refreshing. (Hell, delivering ANY novel new summer movie that is not part of a franchise or TV re-boot is refreshing!)
The film’s not perfect, and its disjointed style can be unsettling. While the lead characters are quite well defined, others are less so. Joel in particular, played by Austin Stowell (“Whiplash“, “Bridge of Spies“), is such an irritating doormat of a character that you just want to thump him yelling “Do Something you wimp” to his face!
I am normally the first to pick scientific holes in a story, but here the story is so “out there” that the details become irrelevant, and – like “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2” – the film revels in its absurdity. (There is however a jumbo jet sized hole in the plot if you think about it!) But some of the moments of revelation (particularly one set in a wood) are brilliantly done and you are never quite sure where the film is going to go next. I was concerned that the ending would not live up to the promise of the film, but I was not disappointed.
Like “A Monster Calls” the film will probably suffer at the box office by its marketing confusing the audience. People will assume it’s possibly a “monster movie” or maybe a piece of comedy fluff (particularly with Sudeikis in the cast), but in reality it’s neither of these. It won’t be to everyone’s tastes for sure, but in the bland desert of mainstream movie releases, here is an oasis of something interesting and novel and in my book definitely worthy of your movie dollar. Recommended.
It’s really difficult to categorise “Colossal” – imdb classes it as a “Comedy, Action, Drama”. Comedy? Yes, but it’s a very dark comedy indeed. Action? Hmm, not really… if you go to this expecting ‘Godzilla 2’ or some polished Marvel-style film (not that I was!) you will be sorely disappointed. Drama? This is probably the nearest match, since at its heart this is a clever study on the people and relationships at the heart of a bizarre Sci-Fi event.
Anne Hathaway (“Les Miserables”) stars as Gloria, a borderline alcoholic-waster sponging off the good-natured but controlling Tim (Dan Stevens, “Beauty and the Beast”) in his New York apartment. When Tim’s patience finally runs out, Gloria returns to her hometown to an empty house and the attentions of a former school friend, bar owner Oscar (Jason Sudeikis), who clearly holds an unhealthy fascination with her. Borrowing an idea from “A Monster Calls”, at a specific time in the US morning a huge monster appears from thin air in Seoul, South Korea, killing people and smashing buildings in a seemingly uncoordinated and random way. Bizarrely, this only happens when Gloria is standing at a particular spot in a particular kid’s playground. Could the two events possibly be related?
I always like to categorize films in my head as being “like” others, but this one’s really difficult to pin down. It borrows its main premise from a famous scene in “E.T.” (indeed one also involving alcohol) but the film’s fantasy elements and dark undertones have more similarities in style to “Jumanji”. Then again, there are elements of the Kaufman about it in that it is as weird in some places as “Being John Malkovich”.
The film stays on ‘Whimsical Street’ for the first half of the film, but then takes a sharp left turn into ‘Dark Avenue’ (and for “dark” read “extremely black and sinister”). It then becomes a far more uncomfortable watch for the viewer. The metaphor of the monster for Gloria’s growing addiction is clear, but emerging themes of control, jealousy, violent bullying and small-town social entrapment also emerge.
Here the acting talents of Hathaway and Sudeikis really come to the fore: heavyweight Hollywood talent adding some significant ‘oomph’ to what is a fairly modest indie project. Hathaway is in kooky mode here, gurning to great comic effect, and this adds warmth to a not particularly likeable character. And Sudeikis (more commonly seen in lighter and frothier comedies like “We’re the Millers” and “Horrible Bosses”) is a surprise in the role delivering some real acting grit.
The writer and director is Spaniard Nacho Vigalondo. No, me neither. But he seems to have come from nowhere to deliver this high profile cinema release, and it would not be a surprise for me to see this nominated as an original screenplay come the awards season. His quirky style is refreshing. (Hell, delivering ANY novel new summer movie that is not part of a franchise or TV re-boot is refreshing!)
The film’s not perfect, and its disjointed style can be unsettling. While the lead characters are quite well defined, others are less so. Joel in particular, played by Austin Stowell (“Whiplash“, “Bridge of Spies“), is such an irritating doormat of a character that you just want to thump him yelling “Do Something you wimp” to his face!
I am normally the first to pick scientific holes in a story, but here the story is so “out there” that the details become irrelevant, and – like “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2” – the film revels in its absurdity. (There is however a jumbo jet sized hole in the plot if you think about it!) But some of the moments of revelation (particularly one set in a wood) are brilliantly done and you are never quite sure where the film is going to go next. I was concerned that the ending would not live up to the promise of the film, but I was not disappointed.
Like “A Monster Calls” the film will probably suffer at the box office by its marketing confusing the audience. People will assume it’s possibly a “monster movie” or maybe a piece of comedy fluff (particularly with Sudeikis in the cast), but in reality it’s neither of these. It won’t be to everyone’s tastes for sure, but in the bland desert of mainstream movie releases, here is an oasis of something interesting and novel and in my book definitely worthy of your movie dollar. Recommended.
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) rated The Company of Wolves (1984) in Movies
Apr 19, 2017
Very Different from most films (3 more)
Transformation Sequences
Great Cast
Brilliant lore
May seem confusing (1 more)
Rosaleen younger than originally planned
Of Wolves and Men
Where do I begin when reviewing a film as obscure and brilliant as, The Company of Wolves. Well for starters I should probably introduce it as it's not a film a lot of people are aware of.
The Company of Wolves is a British Gothic Horror movie adapted from an Anthology of short stories called The Curious Room, written by Angela Carter, and the short story that the film was adapted from was in fact of the same name, The Company of Wolves.
Angela Carter worked with Neil Jordan to write the screenplay and whilst it has some differences (I've not yet read the original story so I couldn't tell you the differences....just google it) the movie is still pretty close to the source material from what I have heard.
One thing I can tell you about this film is that it is brilliant and unlike anything you will ever watch (at least its unlike anything I have seen as of writing this). When I first watched this film, my initial thought was "What on earth did I just watch?" and after viewing it several more times I understood more and more and each viewing was like a new experience.
It's cast add to the creepy dark tone of the film whilst still feeling like a light fantasy film, but with gore and death. The soundtrack is certainly the creepiest element of the film, and it creates an eerily uncomfortable atmosphere. To add to this atmosphere we have a cast that includes the likes of famous names such as Angela Lansbury (Bedknobs and Broomsticks, Beauty and the Beast, Murder She Wrote etc.), Stephen Rea (V for Vendetta, The Crying Game, Underworld: Awakening etc.), David Warner (Titanic, Tron, The Omen etc.) and Brian Glover (An American Werewolf in London, Alien 3, KES etc.) just to name a few, but we also have brilliant talent from lesser known actors\actresses such as Micha Bergese (Interview With A Vampire) and the lead role of young Rosaleen, portrayed by Sarah Patterson who only ever starred in 3 more films after The Company of Wolves.
So why do I love this movie? I have a love for werewolf lore and the subtle messages about reality the legends may be formed from and this film explores some of that. With Angela Lansbury as Granny telling young Rosaleen stories about how she shouldn't trust men who's eyebrows meet, and how she shouldn't stray from the path when walking through the forest. Tradition superstition that were actual beliefs many years ago. The Company of Wolves is a combination of stories, but with an overall plot similar in many ways to that of Little Red Riding Hood, including Granny knitting Rosaleen a red shoal, and being challenged by a huntsman to a race to Granny's house, which concludes with SPOILERS!!!!
Granny is murdered, and the huntsman is discovered by Rosaleen who them puts the pieces of the puzzle together and comes to the truthful conclusion that the huntsman is in fact a werewolf.
However, my only issue with the film is not being able to explore the story properly, as the casting of Rosaleen was actually too young for the original script. The film is a somewhat coming of age movie for Rosaleen and a young boy who is infatuated with her (known only in the credits as Amerous Boy, portrayed by Shane Johnstone. Never heard of him? That's because this was his only movie). The original script was essentially going to explore more of the sexuality between a young girl and the handsome stranger known as The Huntsman. However, during casting, Sarah Patterson shined above the other young performers and was chosen for the role, but due to her being so young (only 12/13 years old) they had to change the script and so their interaction was reduced to nothing more than a bet which would lead to a kiss, but the kiss is then a simple peck on the lips as the Rosaleen jumps back with the line "My what big teeth you have!".
Here's a tip when you watch this movie. Look around Rosaleens room at the beginning and pay attention to her dolls etc. Some of the props will help the film make more sense because one thing I should have mentioned at the start is that this story takes place in a young girls dream (Also portrayed by Sarah Patterson) and the finale is spectacular.
The wolves for the majority of their appearances are easily noticeable as being nothing more than domestic German Shepherds, but that makes sense when you think about this being a girl's dream, and this girl in fact owns a pet German Shepherd.
The best part and the most horrific part of this movie, is the transformations of two of the characters. Stephen Rea's character is a young groom in one of Granny's stories that she tells to Rosaleen, and his transformation into wolf form is one of the most graphic transformations I have ever seen in a film, and despite the use of an animatronic dog, which in part takes away some of the magic, you have to remember this was 1984 and these kinds of films were not going to have the amazing technology we have today and you have to give so much credit and respect to Neil Jordan for using practical effects.
The Huntsmans transformation is less gory but definitely not any less creepier, as we see an extended tongue, and a lot of physical body transformation before a wolf snout comes bursting out of his mouth and fur rips through his skin. Both of these portrayals of the transformation were a representation of the running theme that men have beasts inside of them, that only appear when they are angry or upset.
I highly recommend this film, but I have warned you beforehand. If you do watch this film, feel free to discuss it with me because as I said it is one of my favourites and is lesser known to many audiences.
The Company of Wolves is a British Gothic Horror movie adapted from an Anthology of short stories called The Curious Room, written by Angela Carter, and the short story that the film was adapted from was in fact of the same name, The Company of Wolves.
Angela Carter worked with Neil Jordan to write the screenplay and whilst it has some differences (I've not yet read the original story so I couldn't tell you the differences....just google it) the movie is still pretty close to the source material from what I have heard.
One thing I can tell you about this film is that it is brilliant and unlike anything you will ever watch (at least its unlike anything I have seen as of writing this). When I first watched this film, my initial thought was "What on earth did I just watch?" and after viewing it several more times I understood more and more and each viewing was like a new experience.
It's cast add to the creepy dark tone of the film whilst still feeling like a light fantasy film, but with gore and death. The soundtrack is certainly the creepiest element of the film, and it creates an eerily uncomfortable atmosphere. To add to this atmosphere we have a cast that includes the likes of famous names such as Angela Lansbury (Bedknobs and Broomsticks, Beauty and the Beast, Murder She Wrote etc.), Stephen Rea (V for Vendetta, The Crying Game, Underworld: Awakening etc.), David Warner (Titanic, Tron, The Omen etc.) and Brian Glover (An American Werewolf in London, Alien 3, KES etc.) just to name a few, but we also have brilliant talent from lesser known actors\actresses such as Micha Bergese (Interview With A Vampire) and the lead role of young Rosaleen, portrayed by Sarah Patterson who only ever starred in 3 more films after The Company of Wolves.
So why do I love this movie? I have a love for werewolf lore and the subtle messages about reality the legends may be formed from and this film explores some of that. With Angela Lansbury as Granny telling young Rosaleen stories about how she shouldn't trust men who's eyebrows meet, and how she shouldn't stray from the path when walking through the forest. Tradition superstition that were actual beliefs many years ago. The Company of Wolves is a combination of stories, but with an overall plot similar in many ways to that of Little Red Riding Hood, including Granny knitting Rosaleen a red shoal, and being challenged by a huntsman to a race to Granny's house, which concludes with SPOILERS!!!!
Granny is murdered, and the huntsman is discovered by Rosaleen who them puts the pieces of the puzzle together and comes to the truthful conclusion that the huntsman is in fact a werewolf.
However, my only issue with the film is not being able to explore the story properly, as the casting of Rosaleen was actually too young for the original script. The film is a somewhat coming of age movie for Rosaleen and a young boy who is infatuated with her (known only in the credits as Amerous Boy, portrayed by Shane Johnstone. Never heard of him? That's because this was his only movie). The original script was essentially going to explore more of the sexuality between a young girl and the handsome stranger known as The Huntsman. However, during casting, Sarah Patterson shined above the other young performers and was chosen for the role, but due to her being so young (only 12/13 years old) they had to change the script and so their interaction was reduced to nothing more than a bet which would lead to a kiss, but the kiss is then a simple peck on the lips as the Rosaleen jumps back with the line "My what big teeth you have!".
Here's a tip when you watch this movie. Look around Rosaleens room at the beginning and pay attention to her dolls etc. Some of the props will help the film make more sense because one thing I should have mentioned at the start is that this story takes place in a young girls dream (Also portrayed by Sarah Patterson) and the finale is spectacular.
The wolves for the majority of their appearances are easily noticeable as being nothing more than domestic German Shepherds, but that makes sense when you think about this being a girl's dream, and this girl in fact owns a pet German Shepherd.
The best part and the most horrific part of this movie, is the transformations of two of the characters. Stephen Rea's character is a young groom in one of Granny's stories that she tells to Rosaleen, and his transformation into wolf form is one of the most graphic transformations I have ever seen in a film, and despite the use of an animatronic dog, which in part takes away some of the magic, you have to remember this was 1984 and these kinds of films were not going to have the amazing technology we have today and you have to give so much credit and respect to Neil Jordan for using practical effects.
The Huntsmans transformation is less gory but definitely not any less creepier, as we see an extended tongue, and a lot of physical body transformation before a wolf snout comes bursting out of his mouth and fur rips through his skin. Both of these portrayals of the transformation were a representation of the running theme that men have beasts inside of them, that only appear when they are angry or upset.
I highly recommend this film, but I have warned you beforehand. If you do watch this film, feel free to discuss it with me because as I said it is one of my favourites and is lesser known to many audiences.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Circle (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Social Media involvement in political manipulation? Don’t be ridiculous!
Set in the near future “The Circle” tells a horror story of the social media age involving an omnipotent American corporate, pitched somewhere between being Facebook-like and Google-like (note, lawyers, I just said “like”!) Emma Watson (“Beauty and the Beast“) plays young intern Mae who, partly through the aid of family friend Annie (Karen Gillan, “Guardians of the Galaxy“, “Doctor Who”) but mostly through her own aptitude, lands a foothold job in customer services for the company. With the lush corporate campus fast becoming home, Mae is quickly singled out as having “executive potential” by the charismatic CEO Bailey (Tom Hanks, “Bridge of Spies“) and his more taciturn sidekick Stenton (US comedian Patton Oswalt).
Progressively brainwashed into believing the company’s intrusive snooping (a favourite motto is “Secrets are Lies”) is all for ‘the greater good’, Mae champions the cause until a tragedy rocks her world and her company beliefs to the core.
Whenever I watch a film I tend to form my own opinion first before checking out what the ‘general public’ on IMDB think. In this case, I must confess to being a bit surprised at our divergence of views: a lot of people clearly hated this movie whereas I confess that I found it very entertaining. Certainly with the alleged role of Russia in influencing elections around the world via social media, the film is most certainly topical! Many reviewers seemed quite upset that Watson’s character is such a ‘doormat’, in that her views are so easily manipulated by the corporate machine. But not every woman – as indeed every man – can or should be a Joan of Arc style role model in every film: why should they be?
I actually found her indoctrination into “the Circle way” as quite convincing, especially a creepy scene where two corporate lackies (Cho Smith and Amir Talai) say that they’re not checking up on Mae’s social life, but…. Watson enjoys extending her post-Potter repertoire well, but the talented John Boyega (“Star Wars: The Force Awakens“) is completely wasted in his role as Ty; the Wozniak-like genious behind The Circle’s technology. The script gives him very little to do other than stand around and look grumpy.
A wasted John Boyega with Emma Watson.
The film is sad in being the last movie appearance of the great Bill Paxton (“Apollo 13”) who plays Mae’s sick father and who died of complications following heart surgery two months before the film’s release (the film is dedicated “For Bill”). Tragically, Mae’s mother in the film, actress Glenn Headly (“Dirty Rotten Scoundrels”) also died suddenly at the age of 62, also due to heart problems, a couple of months after the film’s release. It’s surprising the film doesn’t have a “curse of The Circle” tag on it.
The film was directed by James Ponsoldt, who also wrote the screenplay with novel-writer Dave Eggers (“Away We Go”). I particularly liked the on-screen use of captioning (posts) which was reminiscent to me of last year’s “Nerve“, a B-movie film I rated highly that also had a string social media theme.
While the ending of the film is a bit twee – a movie definition of “being hoisted by your own petard” – it’s overall a thought provoking piece sufficiently close to the truth as to where society is going to raise the hairs on your neck.
Progressively brainwashed into believing the company’s intrusive snooping (a favourite motto is “Secrets are Lies”) is all for ‘the greater good’, Mae champions the cause until a tragedy rocks her world and her company beliefs to the core.
Whenever I watch a film I tend to form my own opinion first before checking out what the ‘general public’ on IMDB think. In this case, I must confess to being a bit surprised at our divergence of views: a lot of people clearly hated this movie whereas I confess that I found it very entertaining. Certainly with the alleged role of Russia in influencing elections around the world via social media, the film is most certainly topical! Many reviewers seemed quite upset that Watson’s character is such a ‘doormat’, in that her views are so easily manipulated by the corporate machine. But not every woman – as indeed every man – can or should be a Joan of Arc style role model in every film: why should they be?
I actually found her indoctrination into “the Circle way” as quite convincing, especially a creepy scene where two corporate lackies (Cho Smith and Amir Talai) say that they’re not checking up on Mae’s social life, but…. Watson enjoys extending her post-Potter repertoire well, but the talented John Boyega (“Star Wars: The Force Awakens“) is completely wasted in his role as Ty; the Wozniak-like genious behind The Circle’s technology. The script gives him very little to do other than stand around and look grumpy.
A wasted John Boyega with Emma Watson.
The film is sad in being the last movie appearance of the great Bill Paxton (“Apollo 13”) who plays Mae’s sick father and who died of complications following heart surgery two months before the film’s release (the film is dedicated “For Bill”). Tragically, Mae’s mother in the film, actress Glenn Headly (“Dirty Rotten Scoundrels”) also died suddenly at the age of 62, also due to heart problems, a couple of months after the film’s release. It’s surprising the film doesn’t have a “curse of The Circle” tag on it.
The film was directed by James Ponsoldt, who also wrote the screenplay with novel-writer Dave Eggers (“Away We Go”). I particularly liked the on-screen use of captioning (posts) which was reminiscent to me of last year’s “Nerve“, a B-movie film I rated highly that also had a string social media theme.
While the ending of the film is a bit twee – a movie definition of “being hoisted by your own petard” – it’s overall a thought provoking piece sufficiently close to the truth as to where society is going to raise the hairs on your neck.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Miss Sloane (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“I never know where the line is”.
In a roller-coaster year for political intrigue on both sides of the Atlantic, and with all hell breaking loose again between Trump and ‘The Hill’, here comes “Miss Sloane”.
Jessica Chastain ( “The Martian“, “Interstellar“) plays the titular heroine (I use the term loosely): a pill-popping insomniac who is working herself into an early grave as a top-Washington lobbyist. The game of lobbying is, as she describes, staying one step of the competition and “playing your trump card just after your opponent has played theirs”. But all is not going well for Elizabeth Sloane. For the film opens with her being on trial for corruption in front of a congressional hearing, chaired by Senator Sperling (John Lithgow, “The Accountant“).
Through flashback we see how she got to that point, moving from one firm headed by George Dupont (Sam Waterston, “The Killing Fields”) to another headed by Rodolfo Schmidt (Mark Strong, “Kick Ass”, “Kingsman: The Secret Service“) against the backdrop of the high-stakes lobbying around a new gun-control bill. Her fanatical drive to ‘win at all costs’, and the trail of destruction, through her cutthroat work ethic, that she leaves behind her, digs her an ever-deeper hole as the political and legal net closes in around her.
Jessica Chastain has played strong and decisive women before, most notably in “Zero Dark Thirty”, but probably never to this extreme degree. Here she is like Miranda Priestly from “The Devil Wears Prada”, but not played for laughs. Miss Sloane is an emotionally and physically damaged woman, but a formidable one who takes charge both in the boardroom and in the bedroom, through the unashamed use of male escorts (in the well-muscled form of Jake Lacy, “Their Finest“). As such her character is not remotely likable, but one the I could certainly relate to from past business dealings I’ve had. (And no, I don’t mean as a male prostitute!)
I found Sloane to be one of the more fascinating characters in this year’s releases: I was never being sure whether her actions are being powered from a background of strong moral conviction (fuelled by a devastating childhood incident perhaps?) or through pure greed and lust for power. I thought Chastain excelled in the role, but for balance the illustrious Mrs Mann thought she rather overplayed her hand at times.
Outside of Chastain’s central performance though, this is a very strong ensemble cast. Mark Strong – not with an English accent for once and not playing a heavy – is great as the frustrated boss, as is the seldom-seen Sam Waterston (who, by the way, is the father of Katherine Waterston of current “Alien: Covenant” fame). Christine Baranski (so good in “The Good Wife” and now “The Good Fight”) pops up in a cameo as a flinty Senator. But the outstanding turn for me was Oxford-born Gugu Mbatha-Raw (“Belle”, “Beauty and the Beast” – and yes, I’m aware of the irony in this pairing!). Playing Sloane’s colleague Esme Manucharian – both a lady with a secret in her past as well as possessing a great name – Mbatha-Raw is just riveting and deserving of a Supporting Actress nomination in my book.
What binds the whole two hours together is an extraordinarily skillful script by debut writer Jonathan Perera, which has both a gripping and ever-twisting story as well as a host of quotable lines. Ladies and gentlemen, we may have a new Aaron Sorkin on the block! It’s a brave script, dealing as it does with 2nd amendment issues, since there seems to be nothing that stirs up American comment like gun-control. For those living in the UK (where gun deaths are over 50 times less per capita than in the US) the whole topic is both fascinating and perplexing and there were a lot of nodding heads during Sloane’s TV rant about it being an archaic ‘Wild West’ throwback that should no longer be set in stone. (But it’s not our country any more, so you Americans can do what you like!)
The marvelous Cinematography is by Sebastian Blenkov – the second time this gentleman has come to my attention within a month (the first time being “Their Finest“).
The director is Portsmouth-born Brit John Madden (“Shakespeare in Love”, “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel”) and he does a great job in sustaining the tension and energy throughout the running time. This all makes it a great shame that the film has not done well at the US box office, perhaps because ( the film was released in December 2016) the public had more than their fill of politics after a bruising and divisive election. (I’m not sure the UK release date now – just before our own General Election – is wise either).
But for me, this was a memorable film, and come the end of the year it might well be up there in my top 10 for the year. I’m a sucker for a good political thriller with “All the President’s Men” and “Primary Colors” in my personal list as some of my favourite ever films. If you like those films, “House of Cards” or remember fondly TV series like “The West Wing” or (for those with even longer memories) “Washington Behind Closed Doors” then I would strongly recommend you get out and watch this.
Jessica Chastain ( “The Martian“, “Interstellar“) plays the titular heroine (I use the term loosely): a pill-popping insomniac who is working herself into an early grave as a top-Washington lobbyist. The game of lobbying is, as she describes, staying one step of the competition and “playing your trump card just after your opponent has played theirs”. But all is not going well for Elizabeth Sloane. For the film opens with her being on trial for corruption in front of a congressional hearing, chaired by Senator Sperling (John Lithgow, “The Accountant“).
Through flashback we see how she got to that point, moving from one firm headed by George Dupont (Sam Waterston, “The Killing Fields”) to another headed by Rodolfo Schmidt (Mark Strong, “Kick Ass”, “Kingsman: The Secret Service“) against the backdrop of the high-stakes lobbying around a new gun-control bill. Her fanatical drive to ‘win at all costs’, and the trail of destruction, through her cutthroat work ethic, that she leaves behind her, digs her an ever-deeper hole as the political and legal net closes in around her.
Jessica Chastain has played strong and decisive women before, most notably in “Zero Dark Thirty”, but probably never to this extreme degree. Here she is like Miranda Priestly from “The Devil Wears Prada”, but not played for laughs. Miss Sloane is an emotionally and physically damaged woman, but a formidable one who takes charge both in the boardroom and in the bedroom, through the unashamed use of male escorts (in the well-muscled form of Jake Lacy, “Their Finest“). As such her character is not remotely likable, but one the I could certainly relate to from past business dealings I’ve had. (And no, I don’t mean as a male prostitute!)
I found Sloane to be one of the more fascinating characters in this year’s releases: I was never being sure whether her actions are being powered from a background of strong moral conviction (fuelled by a devastating childhood incident perhaps?) or through pure greed and lust for power. I thought Chastain excelled in the role, but for balance the illustrious Mrs Mann thought she rather overplayed her hand at times.
Outside of Chastain’s central performance though, this is a very strong ensemble cast. Mark Strong – not with an English accent for once and not playing a heavy – is great as the frustrated boss, as is the seldom-seen Sam Waterston (who, by the way, is the father of Katherine Waterston of current “Alien: Covenant” fame). Christine Baranski (so good in “The Good Wife” and now “The Good Fight”) pops up in a cameo as a flinty Senator. But the outstanding turn for me was Oxford-born Gugu Mbatha-Raw (“Belle”, “Beauty and the Beast” – and yes, I’m aware of the irony in this pairing!). Playing Sloane’s colleague Esme Manucharian – both a lady with a secret in her past as well as possessing a great name – Mbatha-Raw is just riveting and deserving of a Supporting Actress nomination in my book.
What binds the whole two hours together is an extraordinarily skillful script by debut writer Jonathan Perera, which has both a gripping and ever-twisting story as well as a host of quotable lines. Ladies and gentlemen, we may have a new Aaron Sorkin on the block! It’s a brave script, dealing as it does with 2nd amendment issues, since there seems to be nothing that stirs up American comment like gun-control. For those living in the UK (where gun deaths are over 50 times less per capita than in the US) the whole topic is both fascinating and perplexing and there were a lot of nodding heads during Sloane’s TV rant about it being an archaic ‘Wild West’ throwback that should no longer be set in stone. (But it’s not our country any more, so you Americans can do what you like!)
The marvelous Cinematography is by Sebastian Blenkov – the second time this gentleman has come to my attention within a month (the first time being “Their Finest“).
The director is Portsmouth-born Brit John Madden (“Shakespeare in Love”, “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel”) and he does a great job in sustaining the tension and energy throughout the running time. This all makes it a great shame that the film has not done well at the US box office, perhaps because ( the film was released in December 2016) the public had more than their fill of politics after a bruising and divisive election. (I’m not sure the UK release date now – just before our own General Election – is wise either).
But for me, this was a memorable film, and come the end of the year it might well be up there in my top 10 for the year. I’m a sucker for a good political thriller with “All the President’s Men” and “Primary Colors” in my personal list as some of my favourite ever films. If you like those films, “House of Cards” or remember fondly TV series like “The West Wing” or (for those with even longer memories) “Washington Behind Closed Doors” then I would strongly recommend you get out and watch this.