Search
Search results
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.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Lion King (2019) in Movies
Jun 20, 2020
It's difficult to know where to begin. I have strong feelings about Disney remakes in general, I was open to the idea until I saw some. I can understand remaking some that stand a chance of being mainly actual live-action like Cinderella and Beauty & The Beast, and I'm looking forward to Mulan despite its lack of Mushu... but... remaking something as "live-action" with realism when you have to include things that aren't realistic (talking animals) it seems pointless to me.
As the film started I was taken aback by the beautiful scenery shots, animation studios really have nailed realistic water. As the animals started to appear I was encouraged for the most part. The zebras and antelope looked wonderful and the movements were spot on, but the larger animals didn't quite have the same elegance. Watching it all was fine though until you noticed something, then it was difficult not to spot something else.
I really disliked the animation of Scar, I know he's supposed to look like the typical alpha male of the pride, but his look in the original and now has never been very in keeping to me.
The best piece of animation in the whole thing was Timon. That little meerkat was spot on through the whole thing for me, edgy and darting, it was perfect. The only drawback was the voiceover by Billy Eichner, he doesn't encapsulate the personality of Timon, but then he did have some big boots to fill.
With Timon as the best of animation, it was only fitting that Pumbaa filled in the other side by being the best of the voice cast. Seth Rogen was born for this role, he's fantastic. I absolutely loved him. Perfect comedic timing, maybe not the best singing voice but once it mixed in with everything else you couldn't tell.
Dare I say that I wasn't a fan of the songs? I didn't like the modern take on them... I'm not sure if I'd really classify it as a modern take, everything just seemed to be taken much more seriously than before. I actually quite enjoyed Be Prepared, while it wasn't really sung it probably plays better to Chiwetel Ejiofor's strengths done this way. The really dubious addition was the song "Spirit" by Beyoncé. It was barely included and if it was in there more then it really didn't stick out. The only bit I noticed was "spirit, spirit" being bellowed randomly. I've watched the video and full song on YouTube since the film, I can only assume that it's an attempt at best original song awards but I don't think it has that goosebump impact that Disney epics should. Those high notes should probably be left to Mariah.
It's difficult to know just how much my enjoyment of the original affected my feelings about the new one. It's not one that I grew up with, I rewatched it recently for what may have been the first time. Lion King is very much one of the Disney classics you can be aware of even without seeing it, that's the power of Disney.
Remaking a film as "live-action" when there's no human cast seems like the wrong choice to me. The realistic CGI will only work up to a point when you're trying to make animals speak. The films itself is still spectacular, and there are some amazing pieces of animation to see (I do love baby Simba, he's so cute), but I'm of the opinion that if it ain't broke don't fix it. When you look at it overall the voice cast isn't any better than the original, neither are the songs, with it being so incredibly similar with only the animation style being the major twist I'm left underwhelmed by the final cut.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/07/the-lion-king-movie-review.html
As the film started I was taken aback by the beautiful scenery shots, animation studios really have nailed realistic water. As the animals started to appear I was encouraged for the most part. The zebras and antelope looked wonderful and the movements were spot on, but the larger animals didn't quite have the same elegance. Watching it all was fine though until you noticed something, then it was difficult not to spot something else.
I really disliked the animation of Scar, I know he's supposed to look like the typical alpha male of the pride, but his look in the original and now has never been very in keeping to me.
The best piece of animation in the whole thing was Timon. That little meerkat was spot on through the whole thing for me, edgy and darting, it was perfect. The only drawback was the voiceover by Billy Eichner, he doesn't encapsulate the personality of Timon, but then he did have some big boots to fill.
With Timon as the best of animation, it was only fitting that Pumbaa filled in the other side by being the best of the voice cast. Seth Rogen was born for this role, he's fantastic. I absolutely loved him. Perfect comedic timing, maybe not the best singing voice but once it mixed in with everything else you couldn't tell.
Dare I say that I wasn't a fan of the songs? I didn't like the modern take on them... I'm not sure if I'd really classify it as a modern take, everything just seemed to be taken much more seriously than before. I actually quite enjoyed Be Prepared, while it wasn't really sung it probably plays better to Chiwetel Ejiofor's strengths done this way. The really dubious addition was the song "Spirit" by Beyoncé. It was barely included and if it was in there more then it really didn't stick out. The only bit I noticed was "spirit, spirit" being bellowed randomly. I've watched the video and full song on YouTube since the film, I can only assume that it's an attempt at best original song awards but I don't think it has that goosebump impact that Disney epics should. Those high notes should probably be left to Mariah.
It's difficult to know just how much my enjoyment of the original affected my feelings about the new one. It's not one that I grew up with, I rewatched it recently for what may have been the first time. Lion King is very much one of the Disney classics you can be aware of even without seeing it, that's the power of Disney.
Remaking a film as "live-action" when there's no human cast seems like the wrong choice to me. The realistic CGI will only work up to a point when you're trying to make animals speak. The films itself is still spectacular, and there are some amazing pieces of animation to see (I do love baby Simba, he's so cute), but I'm of the opinion that if it ain't broke don't fix it. When you look at it overall the voice cast isn't any better than the original, neither are the songs, with it being so incredibly similar with only the animation style being the major twist I'm left underwhelmed by the final cut.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/07/the-lion-king-movie-review.html
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Arctic (2019) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
This week has been one of the coldest on record across much of the United States. The “polar vortex” has brought with it sub-zero temps complete with snow and ice. It seems only fitting that Arctic a survival movie co-written and directed by YouTube star Joe Penna would be releasing the very same week. In his first feature film directorial debut Penna brings both the beauty and the dangers of the Arctic (Iceland in this case) to the big screen.
A lone man identified only as Overgård (Mads Mikkelsen) has crashed his cargo plane somewhere in the arctic. We don’t know how long he has been stranded there, but long enough for him to have carved out a giant S.O.S in the snow. He has converted his downed plane into his new home and goes about the same routine every day. He sets his watch alarm to keep his schedule, which involves catching fish through the ice, and setting out in a different direction each day to manually wind his transponder in the hopes that a rescue will finally come.
One day, a day like countless days before it, Overgård’s transponder turns from red to green and in the distance a helicopter appears. His lucky day soon turns into tragedy as the harsh winds of the Arctic toss the helicopter around like a kite in a hurricane, crashing it to the ground. Overgård quickly runs to the crash site only to find that one of the pilots has died in the crash, and the other (Maria Thelma Smáradôttir) is barely conscious and has a gaping wound in her side. In a scene that could almost be described as humorous (if it wasn’t for the dire situation itself), Overgård crafts a sled out of the helicopter’s sliding door to carry the woman back to the safety of his plane, only to find out the next day that inside the helicopter was an actual rescue sled.
Sadly, it isn’t long before the young pilot’s wound begins to fester that Overgård must make a choice. Stay in the little slice of heaven that he has carved up for himself or risk the forces of nature in an effort to save the woman’s life. With a map he recovered from the downed helicopter, Overgård is able to identify an outpost and carefully plots out the journey that will take them there. The journey he plans for will take several days and has numerous obstacles to overcome. Yet, with a heart that clearly is as large as the vastness of the arctic itself, he realizes he has no choice.
Arctic is a movie with very little dialog, other than an occasional comment to himself or an attempt to rouse his unconscious guest. For a movie that says so little it’s the atmosphere that says so much. The film attempts to capture the harsh conditions that Overgård faces along his journey and does it so brilliantly that you can almost feel the icy weight as it bears down. The audience struggles with every wintery step as if they are not only spectators, but active participants in the journey. The scenery is as awe inspiring as it is deadly. The music seamlessly blends into the environment to a point where you are aware it’s there but doesn’t break the immersion.
Arctic could almost be mistaken as a documentary, a film about one mans survival in one of the most inhospitable places on the planet. Its pacing is deliberate, even if it is a bit slow at times. There is little need to add extra flair or danger into the mix, because nature alone provides it in spades. Arctic is not a movie that will appeal to those looking for non-stop action. At its heart it is really a movie about man vs nature, and nature can be a beast all its own. Arctic is certainly a movie for those looking for something a bit different. For those who are looking for a survival movie that doesn’t take place on a deserted isle, then this is right up your alley. Arctic shows that sometimes realism is far more interesting than fiction.
A lone man identified only as Overgård (Mads Mikkelsen) has crashed his cargo plane somewhere in the arctic. We don’t know how long he has been stranded there, but long enough for him to have carved out a giant S.O.S in the snow. He has converted his downed plane into his new home and goes about the same routine every day. He sets his watch alarm to keep his schedule, which involves catching fish through the ice, and setting out in a different direction each day to manually wind his transponder in the hopes that a rescue will finally come.
One day, a day like countless days before it, Overgård’s transponder turns from red to green and in the distance a helicopter appears. His lucky day soon turns into tragedy as the harsh winds of the Arctic toss the helicopter around like a kite in a hurricane, crashing it to the ground. Overgård quickly runs to the crash site only to find that one of the pilots has died in the crash, and the other (Maria Thelma Smáradôttir) is barely conscious and has a gaping wound in her side. In a scene that could almost be described as humorous (if it wasn’t for the dire situation itself), Overgård crafts a sled out of the helicopter’s sliding door to carry the woman back to the safety of his plane, only to find out the next day that inside the helicopter was an actual rescue sled.
Sadly, it isn’t long before the young pilot’s wound begins to fester that Overgård must make a choice. Stay in the little slice of heaven that he has carved up for himself or risk the forces of nature in an effort to save the woman’s life. With a map he recovered from the downed helicopter, Overgård is able to identify an outpost and carefully plots out the journey that will take them there. The journey he plans for will take several days and has numerous obstacles to overcome. Yet, with a heart that clearly is as large as the vastness of the arctic itself, he realizes he has no choice.
Arctic is a movie with very little dialog, other than an occasional comment to himself or an attempt to rouse his unconscious guest. For a movie that says so little it’s the atmosphere that says so much. The film attempts to capture the harsh conditions that Overgård faces along his journey and does it so brilliantly that you can almost feel the icy weight as it bears down. The audience struggles with every wintery step as if they are not only spectators, but active participants in the journey. The scenery is as awe inspiring as it is deadly. The music seamlessly blends into the environment to a point where you are aware it’s there but doesn’t break the immersion.
Arctic could almost be mistaken as a documentary, a film about one mans survival in one of the most inhospitable places on the planet. Its pacing is deliberate, even if it is a bit slow at times. There is little need to add extra flair or danger into the mix, because nature alone provides it in spades. Arctic is not a movie that will appeal to those looking for non-stop action. At its heart it is really a movie about man vs nature, and nature can be a beast all its own. Arctic is certainly a movie for those looking for something a bit different. For those who are looking for a survival movie that doesn’t take place on a deserted isle, then this is right up your alley. Arctic shows that sometimes realism is far more interesting than fiction.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Greatest Showman (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
This IS the Greatest Show!
I sometimes wonder how “proper” UK film critics view films early for review. Is there a ‘special screening’ which all the film critics attend in London? The point I’m getting at is whether the collective critical opinion of a movie can be swayed by a critic leaping to their feet and wildly applauding a film like “Star Wars: The Last Jedi” or, alternatively, snorting in derision at a film like “The Greatest Showman”. For sometimes the critics seem to get it massively wrong across the board, panning a film that the general public will adore. Unfortunately, this has the effect of putting the general public off seeing it, especially in the lethargic post-Christmas period. I think here is a case in point. It’s not the best little film in the world, but as a musical crowd-pleaser it delivers in spades.
Will you like “The Greatest Showman”? This will be dictated almost entirely by whether you are a “musicals” person or not! For “The Greatest Showman” is a frothy, very loud, cheesy and high-energy musical, much more aligned, in fact, to the mainstream genre from the 40’s and 50’s than “La La Land” was.
Roll up, roll up. The circus cast entertain.
In a VERY loose interpretation of the early life of Phineas Taylor Barnum, the American huckster and impressario, we start the story with a pre-pubescent Barnum (Ellis Rubin, sung by Ziv Zaifman) as a young tailor’s assistant punching above his weight with young socialite Charity (Skylar Dunn), firmly against the wishes of her father. Spin forward (via song) and the hitched Barnum’s – now Hugh Jackman (“Logan“) and Michelle Williams (“Manchester By The Sea“) – are barely scraping a living. But Barnum has “A Million Dreams” and hits on the novel idea of opening an entertainment (coined “a circus” by journalist James Gordon Bennett (Paul Sparks)) where he offers both respect and a family to those of the city who are deformed, rejected and socially shunned. Barnum’s show is shockingly entertaining – as in both filling seats and shocking the morally-self-righteous upper classes. But never one to rest on his laurels, Barnum’s endless ambition drives him to break his social ceiling by importing the “Swedish songbird”, opera singer Jenny Lind (Rebecca Ferguson, “Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation“, “The Snowman“) ), for an ambitious and extravegant tour of the States. All does not exactly go to plan.
Washing day tunes. Hugh Jackman and Michelle Williams take to the rooftops.
As I’ve said, most critics have been making sniffy noises about this film. But I am not one of them…. I LOVED IT, have already bought the glorious soundtrack album and will be looking forwards to the DVD release. For this is joy in a box. Sure, the story is a bit weak, the characterisations of everyone (other than Barnum) pretty lightweight, but it’s a musical extravaganza! Live with it!
Hugh Jackman, who of course started his career in stage musicals, is marvellously charismatic as Barnum although his singing does tend to the “shouty” end of the scale in many of the numbers. He’s joined here by fellow musicals star Zac Efron (let’s forget “Dirty Grandpa“) as the fictitious Phillip Carlyle: a socialite playwright and partner.
But the acting and singing revelation for me was Zendaya (“Spider-Man: Homecoming“) as Efron’s (scandalous) inter-racial love interest, who has a fantastically athletic body, sings and dances wonderfully and has a magnetic stare. A marvellous trapeze routine between Efron and Zendaya (“Rewrite The Stars”) is one of the high-spots of the film for me.
An energetic dance. Zendaya and Efron take to the skies.
Elsewhere Williams proves she has a singing voice as well as being a top flight actress and the bearded lady (Broadway star Keala Settle) belts out one of the show-stopping numbers “This is Me” (although she is a little ‘shrill’ for my musical tastes).
It would be nice to extend that compliment to the wonderful Rebecca Ferguson as the “greatest singer in the world” – but she is (wisely I think) dubbed here by Loren Allred (a finalist on the US version of “The Voice”). It is a bit of a shock when “the great opera singer” opens her mouth and a modern love song comes out, but once you get over that then the combination of Ferguson’s acting and Allred’s singing makes “Never Enough” one of the standout songs in the movie. (It’s been described as “a bit Eurovision” by Kevin Maher, “The Times” critic, which I can see but I don’t care! I find it marvellously moving).
A dangerous songbird’s nest for the married Barnum. Rebecca Ferguson and Hugh Jackman.
If you haven’t guessed it, there are some fantastic songs in this movie, written by “La La Land” song composers Benj Pasek and Justin Paul and at least one of these surely must be Oscar nominated (I’m not sure what the cut-off would be for the 2018 Oscars?).
There’s also a lot of talent in the backroom with production design and memorable costumes. Where I’d single out particular praise though is in the choreography and the editing on show.
Firstly, the choreography of “beats” in the song to the action on screen is brilliantly done, done, probably at its most impressive in a shot-glass bar-room scene between Jackman and Efron. And never (hats off to the special effects guys and cinematographer Seamus McGarvey) have you seen washing on a washing line so cleverly in time with the music.
Secondly in terms of the film editing, I am a sucker for clever “transition” shots, and there are some in this movie that just took my breath away: a transition to a pregnant Charity; a transition from ballet practice to ballet performance; there are numerous others!
Inverted magnetism. Zendaya as the trapeze artist Anne Wheeler.
I have decided to park some of my minor criticisms within the greater joy of the whole: some of the dialogue (by Jenny Bicks and Bill Condon) is as cheesy as hell, but probably no more so than in some of the Judy Garland/Mickey Rooney musicals. Where I had my biggest problem is in some of the lip synching to the songs. This is an age where the live recording of songs in films like “Les Miserables” and “La La Land” has set the bar high, and returning to the norm (I had the same problem with “Beauty and the Beast“) becomes noticeable and irritating to me. (Perhaps this is just me!).
It’s certainly not a perfect film, but its energy and drive carry it through as a memorable movie musical that may well take on a life of its own as word-of-mouth gets it more widely viewed (outside of the rather difficult Christmas holiday season). It would also be a good film for youngsters, with a bit of judicious editing (there is one moment of violence in the first 10 minutes that I would choose to edit out). From my perspective it is certainly a truly impressive debut for advert director Michael Gracey. Recommended for musical fans.
Will you like “The Greatest Showman”? This will be dictated almost entirely by whether you are a “musicals” person or not! For “The Greatest Showman” is a frothy, very loud, cheesy and high-energy musical, much more aligned, in fact, to the mainstream genre from the 40’s and 50’s than “La La Land” was.
Roll up, roll up. The circus cast entertain.
In a VERY loose interpretation of the early life of Phineas Taylor Barnum, the American huckster and impressario, we start the story with a pre-pubescent Barnum (Ellis Rubin, sung by Ziv Zaifman) as a young tailor’s assistant punching above his weight with young socialite Charity (Skylar Dunn), firmly against the wishes of her father. Spin forward (via song) and the hitched Barnum’s – now Hugh Jackman (“Logan“) and Michelle Williams (“Manchester By The Sea“) – are barely scraping a living. But Barnum has “A Million Dreams” and hits on the novel idea of opening an entertainment (coined “a circus” by journalist James Gordon Bennett (Paul Sparks)) where he offers both respect and a family to those of the city who are deformed, rejected and socially shunned. Barnum’s show is shockingly entertaining – as in both filling seats and shocking the morally-self-righteous upper classes. But never one to rest on his laurels, Barnum’s endless ambition drives him to break his social ceiling by importing the “Swedish songbird”, opera singer Jenny Lind (Rebecca Ferguson, “Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation“, “The Snowman“) ), for an ambitious and extravegant tour of the States. All does not exactly go to plan.
Washing day tunes. Hugh Jackman and Michelle Williams take to the rooftops.
As I’ve said, most critics have been making sniffy noises about this film. But I am not one of them…. I LOVED IT, have already bought the glorious soundtrack album and will be looking forwards to the DVD release. For this is joy in a box. Sure, the story is a bit weak, the characterisations of everyone (other than Barnum) pretty lightweight, but it’s a musical extravaganza! Live with it!
Hugh Jackman, who of course started his career in stage musicals, is marvellously charismatic as Barnum although his singing does tend to the “shouty” end of the scale in many of the numbers. He’s joined here by fellow musicals star Zac Efron (let’s forget “Dirty Grandpa“) as the fictitious Phillip Carlyle: a socialite playwright and partner.
But the acting and singing revelation for me was Zendaya (“Spider-Man: Homecoming“) as Efron’s (scandalous) inter-racial love interest, who has a fantastically athletic body, sings and dances wonderfully and has a magnetic stare. A marvellous trapeze routine between Efron and Zendaya (“Rewrite The Stars”) is one of the high-spots of the film for me.
An energetic dance. Zendaya and Efron take to the skies.
Elsewhere Williams proves she has a singing voice as well as being a top flight actress and the bearded lady (Broadway star Keala Settle) belts out one of the show-stopping numbers “This is Me” (although she is a little ‘shrill’ for my musical tastes).
It would be nice to extend that compliment to the wonderful Rebecca Ferguson as the “greatest singer in the world” – but she is (wisely I think) dubbed here by Loren Allred (a finalist on the US version of “The Voice”). It is a bit of a shock when “the great opera singer” opens her mouth and a modern love song comes out, but once you get over that then the combination of Ferguson’s acting and Allred’s singing makes “Never Enough” one of the standout songs in the movie. (It’s been described as “a bit Eurovision” by Kevin Maher, “The Times” critic, which I can see but I don’t care! I find it marvellously moving).
A dangerous songbird’s nest for the married Barnum. Rebecca Ferguson and Hugh Jackman.
If you haven’t guessed it, there are some fantastic songs in this movie, written by “La La Land” song composers Benj Pasek and Justin Paul and at least one of these surely must be Oscar nominated (I’m not sure what the cut-off would be for the 2018 Oscars?).
There’s also a lot of talent in the backroom with production design and memorable costumes. Where I’d single out particular praise though is in the choreography and the editing on show.
Firstly, the choreography of “beats” in the song to the action on screen is brilliantly done, done, probably at its most impressive in a shot-glass bar-room scene between Jackman and Efron. And never (hats off to the special effects guys and cinematographer Seamus McGarvey) have you seen washing on a washing line so cleverly in time with the music.
Secondly in terms of the film editing, I am a sucker for clever “transition” shots, and there are some in this movie that just took my breath away: a transition to a pregnant Charity; a transition from ballet practice to ballet performance; there are numerous others!
Inverted magnetism. Zendaya as the trapeze artist Anne Wheeler.
I have decided to park some of my minor criticisms within the greater joy of the whole: some of the dialogue (by Jenny Bicks and Bill Condon) is as cheesy as hell, but probably no more so than in some of the Judy Garland/Mickey Rooney musicals. Where I had my biggest problem is in some of the lip synching to the songs. This is an age where the live recording of songs in films like “Les Miserables” and “La La Land” has set the bar high, and returning to the norm (I had the same problem with “Beauty and the Beast“) becomes noticeable and irritating to me. (Perhaps this is just me!).
It’s certainly not a perfect film, but its energy and drive carry it through as a memorable movie musical that may well take on a life of its own as word-of-mouth gets it more widely viewed (outside of the rather difficult Christmas holiday season). It would also be a good film for youngsters, with a bit of judicious editing (there is one moment of violence in the first 10 minutes that I would choose to edit out). From my perspective it is certainly a truly impressive debut for advert director Michael Gracey. Recommended for musical fans.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain in Video Games
Nov 2, 2017 (Updated Nov 2, 2017)
Gameplay (1 more)
Graphics
Characters (1 more)
Twist ending
A Review By A Disappointed Long Time Fan
Before this game was released, I was certain that it was going to be my Game Of The Year for 2015, and in a lot of ways it is a worthy contender. As an open world stealth game, it is groundbreaking. The gameplay is some of the best I’ve ever seen, the controls feel tight, the underlying systems and features, (such as reflex mode and the buddy system,) are solid and the AI is responsive and fair. This is KojiPro’s first attempt at an open world game, and as far as first attempts go, this is ‘pretty good.’ The world is breathtaking as well, the graphics that the Fox engine can produce are stunning in every way, the world feels alive, with both enemies and wildlife, the textures, the particle systems, the gun models, every visual in this game has been created with an insane amount of attention to detail and all of it really pays off. I experienced little to no glitches while making my way through the single player campaign and the presentation overall is great. Motherbase is also awesome, you genuinely feel as if you are assembling an army and even though the Fulton is daft, it is a nice touch. And the amount of variety this game provides is vast, you can take 4 different buddies with you, each with unique skills, you can infiltrate in the morning or at night, you can choose your guns and customise them to suit, you can also customise your buddy’s gear, your helicopter and to a small extent Motherbase too, although that could have went deeper. Now, if that is all that you are looking for, then seriously, stop reading this review right now and go buy the game, you will love it and there is so much to do, I sank a good 75+ hours into this game and my overall completion rate is still only at 75%. If however, like me, you are looking for something more than just great gameplay, you will be left feeling as empty as I do. Like I keep reiterating, the gameplay is phenomenal, but that’s the problem, I have never played MGS for the gameplay. It wasn’t the gameplay that made me fall in love with the series growing up and if anything you would always suffer through the stiff gameplay in order to experience the deep and complex story and that was okay, because it would always be so worth it. This game throws all of that out of the window.
The way that this game is structured is awful. You play a few main missions in a row, the story is beginning to hook you, but then OCD kicks in and you realise that you have 4 or 5 side missions building up to be completed, so you go and do them, but then you come back to the main story and forget what was going on in the last mission, but who cares when you can Fulton a goat, right?
The writing in this game is possibly the laziest it’s ever been, one example of this is the ‘controversial’ character known as Quiet. This character has been masterly debated over a lot (see what I did there?) and thrown more gasoline on the fire that is the over-sexualisation of women in video games. My stance on it is somewhere in between, the reason for her lack of clothes and speech is silly, however she is running around Afghanistan and Africa, which are very hot countries, so really they could have put her in a bikini top and a pair of cargo pants and I doubt anyone would have batted an eyelid. Now, the Metal Gear series has always been known for its odd Japanese perviness, but when it is a main character that has been sexualised, it’s always been for a justified narrative reason, such as EVA in MGS3 walking about with the front of her jacket unzipped showing off her bikini clad chest, but the whole point of her mission in that game, was to seduce Snake, so it made sense within the context of the story, in this game the reason for Quiet’s over exposure is much lazier and feels tacked on as a cheap excuse.
The worst part about all of this is the fact that, this is it, Kojima’s definite last Metal Gear game, there is no going back to redeem anything, like in MGS2 when everyone hated it, but because 4 solved some of the problems that were created in 2 people are now okay with 2, that can’t happen with this game because Kojima and Konami are no more. Now I could write a whole other paper on Konami vs Kojima and my stance on it but this is the jist, Kojima was spending too much money and taking too much time with this game, Konami demanded he finish it so they can make their money and add their microtransaction’s etc Kojima told them where they can stick it and the partnership was dead. This has had an effect on the game, there is clearly content missing, Konami has confirmed that at least one mission was cut, where Snake would have went to Africa to have another battle with Eli and Sahalanthropus, which is the Metal Gear in this game, which is unacceptable really. Also, I assume there was a lot of other content that was cut that we weren’t told about. Sahalanthropus is another problem I have, how is it that this Metal Gear created in the 80’s is more advanced than REX, which was created in the early 2000’s. Also, when you fight Sahalanthropus, there is no one in the thing, it is an empty robot being controlled by Mantis, who floats beside the giant mech. That is actually a decent metaphor for the lack of villains in this game. Skull Face is hardly in the game and his eventual death, like every other significant event in this game, just kind of happens with no build up and packing little punch. The team of bosses in the original Metal Gear, headed up by Liquid and Ocelot, were probably the best team of villains in any game ever, since then the bosses have gone slowly downhill. The Sons of Big Boss were great, Dead Cell were pretty cool, The Cobras were okay, The Beauty & The Beast Corps were pretty lame and The Skulls in this game are emotionless zombies who don’t even have individual names and Skull Face is such a disappointing antagonist, he is hardly in the main game and then he shows up at the end, gives some silly speech that we have heard before in the trailers and then just dies, no boss fight or anything. Also, no customisable Metal Gear, which I feel like is a huge missed opportunity and no Sims like Motherbase customisation, interior or exterior.
David Hayter was missed in this game, Keifer was fine on the rare occasion he did speak, but the phantom Snake twist was the perfect opportunity to reintroduce Hayter’s voice and they didn’t take it. Also no Campbell or EVA, not even a reference. And it is never explained why the last time we see the real Big Boss, he is rescuing a child and a young girl and the next time we see him he has become modern day Hitler. Ultimately, this game just makes me sad, it is hard not to focus on the fallout from the Konima debacle, P.T/Silent Hills is no more, that promisingly terrifying demo we were teased with will amount to nothing and this game is all we will ever get again in terms of the Metal Gear saga. This is the end of an era, and it’s an end that doesn’t sit perfectly with me.
The way that this game is structured is awful. You play a few main missions in a row, the story is beginning to hook you, but then OCD kicks in and you realise that you have 4 or 5 side missions building up to be completed, so you go and do them, but then you come back to the main story and forget what was going on in the last mission, but who cares when you can Fulton a goat, right?
The writing in this game is possibly the laziest it’s ever been, one example of this is the ‘controversial’ character known as Quiet. This character has been masterly debated over a lot (see what I did there?) and thrown more gasoline on the fire that is the over-sexualisation of women in video games. My stance on it is somewhere in between, the reason for her lack of clothes and speech is silly, however she is running around Afghanistan and Africa, which are very hot countries, so really they could have put her in a bikini top and a pair of cargo pants and I doubt anyone would have batted an eyelid. Now, the Metal Gear series has always been known for its odd Japanese perviness, but when it is a main character that has been sexualised, it’s always been for a justified narrative reason, such as EVA in MGS3 walking about with the front of her jacket unzipped showing off her bikini clad chest, but the whole point of her mission in that game, was to seduce Snake, so it made sense within the context of the story, in this game the reason for Quiet’s over exposure is much lazier and feels tacked on as a cheap excuse.
The worst part about all of this is the fact that, this is it, Kojima’s definite last Metal Gear game, there is no going back to redeem anything, like in MGS2 when everyone hated it, but because 4 solved some of the problems that were created in 2 people are now okay with 2, that can’t happen with this game because Kojima and Konami are no more. Now I could write a whole other paper on Konami vs Kojima and my stance on it but this is the jist, Kojima was spending too much money and taking too much time with this game, Konami demanded he finish it so they can make their money and add their microtransaction’s etc Kojima told them where they can stick it and the partnership was dead. This has had an effect on the game, there is clearly content missing, Konami has confirmed that at least one mission was cut, where Snake would have went to Africa to have another battle with Eli and Sahalanthropus, which is the Metal Gear in this game, which is unacceptable really. Also, I assume there was a lot of other content that was cut that we weren’t told about. Sahalanthropus is another problem I have, how is it that this Metal Gear created in the 80’s is more advanced than REX, which was created in the early 2000’s. Also, when you fight Sahalanthropus, there is no one in the thing, it is an empty robot being controlled by Mantis, who floats beside the giant mech. That is actually a decent metaphor for the lack of villains in this game. Skull Face is hardly in the game and his eventual death, like every other significant event in this game, just kind of happens with no build up and packing little punch. The team of bosses in the original Metal Gear, headed up by Liquid and Ocelot, were probably the best team of villains in any game ever, since then the bosses have gone slowly downhill. The Sons of Big Boss were great, Dead Cell were pretty cool, The Cobras were okay, The Beauty & The Beast Corps were pretty lame and The Skulls in this game are emotionless zombies who don’t even have individual names and Skull Face is such a disappointing antagonist, he is hardly in the main game and then he shows up at the end, gives some silly speech that we have heard before in the trailers and then just dies, no boss fight or anything. Also, no customisable Metal Gear, which I feel like is a huge missed opportunity and no Sims like Motherbase customisation, interior or exterior.
David Hayter was missed in this game, Keifer was fine on the rare occasion he did speak, but the phantom Snake twist was the perfect opportunity to reintroduce Hayter’s voice and they didn’t take it. Also no Campbell or EVA, not even a reference. And it is never explained why the last time we see the real Big Boss, he is rescuing a child and a young girl and the next time we see him he has become modern day Hitler. Ultimately, this game just makes me sad, it is hard not to focus on the fallout from the Konima debacle, P.T/Silent Hills is no more, that promisingly terrifying demo we were teased with will amount to nothing and this game is all we will ever get again in terms of the Metal Gear saga. This is the end of an era, and it’s an end that doesn’t sit perfectly with me.