Search
Search results
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Spider-Man 3 (2007) in Movies
Jul 1, 2019 (Updated Jul 3, 2019)
"None of that matters now, you're my friend"
After the worldwide success of the first two "Spider-Man" films, director Sam Raimi and the cast decided to take a break. The first two had been shot almost back-to-back, with very little "down time" in between. So, in late 2005, about 18 months after the release of "Spider-Man 2", Raimi began fleshing out ideas for a third storyline. For this chapter, the director wanted to teach Peter Parker about forgiveness; to do so, he'd need a villain with personal ties. The problem was that, besides the Osborn family and Otto Octavius, no villains in the comics had such a huge connection. Raimi didn't want to contradict a well-established character, so he sought one out whose backstory had never been fully realized: the Sandman, whose literary incarnation was little more than a random thief. Connecting the character to the death of Ben Parker gave Peter a huge obstacle that needed facing. Wrapping up Harry Osborn's story was also necessary, since Marvel wasn't sure if James Franco would agree to more chapters in the franchise. The addition of Gwen Stacy (who in the comics, was Peter's first love) was done mainly for the fans, and to create a conflicted love triangle with Peter & Mary Jane. Satisfied with his concept, Raimi told his plans to Marvel Comics; the result was less than expected.
Therein lies my biggest problem with "Spider-Man 3". I liked the Venom character as a kid, but in all honesty having 4 villains in the same film (Harry, Marko, the black symbiote itself, and eventually Venom) was just too much at once. From the standpoint of a fan, I'd have preferred that Venom be saved for a future entry, so he could have taken center stage. By having him alongside both Marko and Harry Osborn, the story became rather confusing for many fans, and the film's box office suffered as a direct result. Overall, this film made less money across the board than its predecessor...all because of corporate greed.
That being said, I still enjoy the film on many levels, but knowing what caused the multi-arc story makes some moments bittersweet. The actors clearly enjoyed this ride, but something in general seemed a bit lacking. Looking back, I realize it was the Venom character. The fact of it essentially being forced into the narrative only made the tale confusing and hard to follow. It became one of those films many people have to watch more than once, just to understand it...and these days, audiences don't have a lot of patience for films with too many angles. Rightfully so, in my opinion.
Tobey Maguire, slipping into the spandex suit for a third try, really shows his acting range here, even more so than his diverse performance in "Spider-Man 2". From intense love to seething hatred (and everything in between), he really brings his game up to a whole new level. Kirsten Dunst shines again as Parker's star-crossed love, Mary Jane Watson. I liked her performance very much, and her singing in the film is beautiful. She's less helpless than in either prior entry, and far more confident. Bryce Dallas Howard (daughter of acclaimed director Ron) makes her first apearance in the franchise as the bubbling, exuberant, and gorgeous Gwen Stacy. I liked her character, but felt she didn't have much to do in the long run.
James Franco does an equally-remarkable turn, finally completing the journey that began at the end of the original film. He gives Harry a blend of jealousy, mystique, and severe determination. He also revisits the lighter tones of his role, for the scenes where Harry has amnesia. And in the finale, he shows that in his heart, Harry was truly a hero. Thomas Haden Church gave Marko both sentiment and menace, and turned what was originally a two-bit thug into a far more interesting character. Topher Grace played the "creepy" card as Venom, and gave Eddie Brock a know-it-all arrogance that makes you almost feel disgusted.
Aside from the criticisms surrounding Venom, I honestly didn't have a lot for this entry. Mary Jane is no longer in a water-drenched position (thank God!), so I was very relieved. I guess my main concern was that there were too many villians should of just stuck with Harry and Venom or Harry and sandman. And for anyone who asks why i haven't put the dancing scenes as a negative. I get a kick out of them what can i say?
Therein lies my biggest problem with "Spider-Man 3". I liked the Venom character as a kid, but in all honesty having 4 villains in the same film (Harry, Marko, the black symbiote itself, and eventually Venom) was just too much at once. From the standpoint of a fan, I'd have preferred that Venom be saved for a future entry, so he could have taken center stage. By having him alongside both Marko and Harry Osborn, the story became rather confusing for many fans, and the film's box office suffered as a direct result. Overall, this film made less money across the board than its predecessor...all because of corporate greed.
That being said, I still enjoy the film on many levels, but knowing what caused the multi-arc story makes some moments bittersweet. The actors clearly enjoyed this ride, but something in general seemed a bit lacking. Looking back, I realize it was the Venom character. The fact of it essentially being forced into the narrative only made the tale confusing and hard to follow. It became one of those films many people have to watch more than once, just to understand it...and these days, audiences don't have a lot of patience for films with too many angles. Rightfully so, in my opinion.
Tobey Maguire, slipping into the spandex suit for a third try, really shows his acting range here, even more so than his diverse performance in "Spider-Man 2". From intense love to seething hatred (and everything in between), he really brings his game up to a whole new level. Kirsten Dunst shines again as Parker's star-crossed love, Mary Jane Watson. I liked her performance very much, and her singing in the film is beautiful. She's less helpless than in either prior entry, and far more confident. Bryce Dallas Howard (daughter of acclaimed director Ron) makes her first apearance in the franchise as the bubbling, exuberant, and gorgeous Gwen Stacy. I liked her character, but felt she didn't have much to do in the long run.
James Franco does an equally-remarkable turn, finally completing the journey that began at the end of the original film. He gives Harry a blend of jealousy, mystique, and severe determination. He also revisits the lighter tones of his role, for the scenes where Harry has amnesia. And in the finale, he shows that in his heart, Harry was truly a hero. Thomas Haden Church gave Marko both sentiment and menace, and turned what was originally a two-bit thug into a far more interesting character. Topher Grace played the "creepy" card as Venom, and gave Eddie Brock a know-it-all arrogance that makes you almost feel disgusted.
Aside from the criticisms surrounding Venom, I honestly didn't have a lot for this entry. Mary Jane is no longer in a water-drenched position (thank God!), so I was very relieved. I guess my main concern was that there were too many villians should of just stuck with Harry and Venom or Harry and sandman. And for anyone who asks why i haven't put the dancing scenes as a negative. I get a kick out of them what can i say?
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian (2008) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Following the grand fable of “The Lion The Witch and The Wardrobe” is not an easy task as the cinematical version of the timeless classic by C.S. Lewis was a worldwide box office smash. Thankfully Director Andrew Adamson (Who co-wrote the script), still has plenty of magic left from helming the first film in the series.
The film opens roughly a year after the events of the first film and the children have returned to England and have returned to their studies in war torn England. The Children Peter (William Moseley), Edmund (Skandar Keynes), Susan (Anna Popplewell), and Lucy (Georgie Henley), struggle with being children again as the memories of their years ruling Narnia and their battle with the White Witch is still fresh in their memories.
Back in Narnia, several centuries have passed, and an invading army has conquered Narnia and vanquished the creatures of the land to the woods, while they reign supreme over the land. The situation takes a turn for the worse when the evil Prince Miraz (Sergio Castellitto), learns that his wife has given birth to a son.
With a future heir in place, Prince Caspian (Ben Barnes), the rightful heir to the throne, is targeted for death by his power mad uncle, and must flee into the woods for his life. In short order, he meets some of the local creatures, and with his Uncle’s troops in hot pursuit, he summons the former rulers of Narnia via a magical horn.
Delighted to be back in Narnia, Peter and his siblings soon learn things are not as they were when they last visited and take a turn towards the unexpected when they are told that the magical Lion Aslan (Liam Neeson), has long since deserted the creatures of Narnia and left them at the mercy of the invading hordes. Lucy does not believe this and insists that she has seen and heard from Aslan since her return but her claims are met with skepticism by her older siblings.
In time the children meet up with Caspian and the former rulers of the land must help the young Prince bring in a new age of peace and prosperity for all the races of the land, and in doing so, must face up to a vast army that is gathering against them as well as some old enemies long forgotten.
What follows is a grand adventure that pits good against evil in one of the more enjoyable fantasy adventure films in recent years.
The film takes a bit to get started, but thanks to the engaging cast and great visuals of the film, as well as a surprising amount of humor, viewers should find plenty to like as the film builds up to the battle sequences.
While not state of the art, the FX in the film are solid and enhances the story and characters rather than overshadow them. The film does take some liberties with the book, most notably adding more action to the story, but it is nothing that would be considered detracting to the overall product. Parents may want to note that there is a lot of violence in the film and that death and mayhem are constant throughout.
The cast is enjoyable and really do well with parts that do require alot of physicality to them. The chemistry amongst the leads is good but it is the solid supporting work of Peter Dinklage as Trumpkin that really allows the cast to shine in his scenes with them.
Much was made in the last film of the strong Christian themes that C.S. Lewis filled his Narnia books with. The theme of Christianity is still strong in the film, but it is not as pronounced as it was in the past film, save for segments near the last third of the film.
Despite the nearly 2hrs and 20 minute run time the film easily kept my attention and should delight fans who likely are already waiting for the next film in the series, “The Voyage of The Dawn Tredder” to arrive.
The film opens roughly a year after the events of the first film and the children have returned to England and have returned to their studies in war torn England. The Children Peter (William Moseley), Edmund (Skandar Keynes), Susan (Anna Popplewell), and Lucy (Georgie Henley), struggle with being children again as the memories of their years ruling Narnia and their battle with the White Witch is still fresh in their memories.
Back in Narnia, several centuries have passed, and an invading army has conquered Narnia and vanquished the creatures of the land to the woods, while they reign supreme over the land. The situation takes a turn for the worse when the evil Prince Miraz (Sergio Castellitto), learns that his wife has given birth to a son.
With a future heir in place, Prince Caspian (Ben Barnes), the rightful heir to the throne, is targeted for death by his power mad uncle, and must flee into the woods for his life. In short order, he meets some of the local creatures, and with his Uncle’s troops in hot pursuit, he summons the former rulers of Narnia via a magical horn.
Delighted to be back in Narnia, Peter and his siblings soon learn things are not as they were when they last visited and take a turn towards the unexpected when they are told that the magical Lion Aslan (Liam Neeson), has long since deserted the creatures of Narnia and left them at the mercy of the invading hordes. Lucy does not believe this and insists that she has seen and heard from Aslan since her return but her claims are met with skepticism by her older siblings.
In time the children meet up with Caspian and the former rulers of the land must help the young Prince bring in a new age of peace and prosperity for all the races of the land, and in doing so, must face up to a vast army that is gathering against them as well as some old enemies long forgotten.
What follows is a grand adventure that pits good against evil in one of the more enjoyable fantasy adventure films in recent years.
The film takes a bit to get started, but thanks to the engaging cast and great visuals of the film, as well as a surprising amount of humor, viewers should find plenty to like as the film builds up to the battle sequences.
While not state of the art, the FX in the film are solid and enhances the story and characters rather than overshadow them. The film does take some liberties with the book, most notably adding more action to the story, but it is nothing that would be considered detracting to the overall product. Parents may want to note that there is a lot of violence in the film and that death and mayhem are constant throughout.
The cast is enjoyable and really do well with parts that do require alot of physicality to them. The chemistry amongst the leads is good but it is the solid supporting work of Peter Dinklage as Trumpkin that really allows the cast to shine in his scenes with them.
Much was made in the last film of the strong Christian themes that C.S. Lewis filled his Narnia books with. The theme of Christianity is still strong in the film, but it is not as pronounced as it was in the past film, save for segments near the last third of the film.
Despite the nearly 2hrs and 20 minute run time the film easily kept my attention and should delight fans who likely are already waiting for the next film in the series, “The Voyage of The Dawn Tredder” to arrive.
Lee (2222 KP) rated The Personal History of David Copperfield (2019) in Movies
Jan 26, 2020
Based on the famous and beloved novel by Charles Dickens, Armando Iannucci (Veep, The Thick of It, The Death of Stalin) brings us this fresh new take on David Copperfield. And it’s like no other Dickens adaptation you’ve ever seen before.
Dev Patel stars as Copperfield, the star and narrator of the story which charts his personal rise from rags to riches during Victorian England. We begin though with Copperfield as an adult, recounting his life story to a small theatre audience as he steps into a painted backdrop behind him on stage, transporting him, and us, to the location of his birth. He enters the family home and continues to narrate from within the scene as his mother struggles with labour. It’s just one of a variety of wonderfully inventive storytelling devices that the movie employs throughout.
While the chaos of childbirth plays out, the first in a long line of star-studded supporting characters arrives, David’s eccentric Aunt Betsey (Tilda Swinton), and we immediately get a glimpse of the kind of humour Iannucci has brought to the story as she sets about upsetting Peggotty, the family housekeeper, and declares that the baby will definitely be a girl.
From there, the storyline is fast paced, weaving between locations as David grows up - from an overturned boat house in Yarmouth, to the chaos of London and the difficulties of working in a bottle factory, and on to the Kent countryside. Along the way we meet yet more big names, including Peter Capaldi, Ben Whishaw, Hugh Laurie, Paul Whitehouse and Benedict Wong. Not to mention countless other recognisable faces.
The Personal History of David Copperfield is a real mixing pot of beautiful visuals, quirky humour and larger than life characters. Realism has been ditched in order to deliver a whimsical tale that is accessible to all ages. Unfortunately though, it just didn’t work for me. Aside from the opening scenes, and the occasional moment later on, the humour didn’t land at all. In fact, I got more laughs from the incredible movie Parasite that I saw just the night before seeing this.
Dev Patel, always impressive and enjoyable in everything he does, is charming as David Copperfield and is definitely the standout. Benedict Wong and Hugh Laurie were both enjoyable, but I felt the others all suffered from a script that just wasn’t strong enough. A beautifully shot movie, bold and bright and vibrant, but instantly forgettable.
Dev Patel stars as Copperfield, the star and narrator of the story which charts his personal rise from rags to riches during Victorian England. We begin though with Copperfield as an adult, recounting his life story to a small theatre audience as he steps into a painted backdrop behind him on stage, transporting him, and us, to the location of his birth. He enters the family home and continues to narrate from within the scene as his mother struggles with labour. It’s just one of a variety of wonderfully inventive storytelling devices that the movie employs throughout.
While the chaos of childbirth plays out, the first in a long line of star-studded supporting characters arrives, David’s eccentric Aunt Betsey (Tilda Swinton), and we immediately get a glimpse of the kind of humour Iannucci has brought to the story as she sets about upsetting Peggotty, the family housekeeper, and declares that the baby will definitely be a girl.
From there, the storyline is fast paced, weaving between locations as David grows up - from an overturned boat house in Yarmouth, to the chaos of London and the difficulties of working in a bottle factory, and on to the Kent countryside. Along the way we meet yet more big names, including Peter Capaldi, Ben Whishaw, Hugh Laurie, Paul Whitehouse and Benedict Wong. Not to mention countless other recognisable faces.
The Personal History of David Copperfield is a real mixing pot of beautiful visuals, quirky humour and larger than life characters. Realism has been ditched in order to deliver a whimsical tale that is accessible to all ages. Unfortunately though, it just didn’t work for me. Aside from the opening scenes, and the occasional moment later on, the humour didn’t land at all. In fact, I got more laughs from the incredible movie Parasite that I saw just the night before seeing this.
Dev Patel, always impressive and enjoyable in everything he does, is charming as David Copperfield and is definitely the standout. Benedict Wong and Hugh Laurie were both enjoyable, but I felt the others all suffered from a script that just wasn’t strong enough. A beautifully shot movie, bold and bright and vibrant, but instantly forgettable.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Spies in Disguise (2019) in Movies
Dec 7, 2020
Strong chemistry between Smith and Holland
Blue Sky Animation Studios has often been seen as the "poor little sister" in the animation game - behind Disney/Pixar and Dreamworks - and is often listed as the "Ice Age" studio. But, if you look into their filmography, you will see a solid mark of quality throughout.
This studio has delivered solid animated outings with such fare as ROBOTS, HORTON HEARS A WHO, RIO and FERDINAND (along with the myriad of ICE AGE films) and their latest feature - 2019's SPIES IN DISGUISE - is no exception. I was pleasantly surprised by the fun, action, comedy and suspense of this film and was entertained throughout.
Blue Sky, of course, IS the "poor little sister" to the "Big 2" and it shows in some of their casting choices. Where I thought vocal work was being done by Tina Fey and Holly Hunter, I soon discovered that it is Rachel Brosnahan and Reba Mcintyre - not shabby at all, but not quite the "A" team either (it's like you are listening to the Broadway replacement actors for the Original Cast).
That is probably because they spent all of their casting money on the 2 leads - Will Smith and Tom Holland - and they are TERRIFIC together. Unlike Holland's lackluster (and lack of chemistry) turn with Chris Pratt in the PIXAR film ONWARD, Holland and Smith work well together in this film and I enjoyed their interactions with each other. Of course, Will Smith is in a league of his own when it comes to charming, cocky adventure hero with raw emotions and a soul - and that is EXACTLY what his character is and it works very, very well. Add to that Holland's riff on his Spiderman Peter Parker character - a scientific genius who is socially awkward and we have a fun duo to root for throughout this film.
Other outstanding voice talents in this cast include Masi Oka (who's voice would be terrific in just about ANY animation film), Rashida Jones, Karen Gillen and the always good Ben Mendelsohn as the villain.
Directors Nick Bruno (in his Directorial debut) and Troy Quane (in only his 2nd Animated outing) do a professional job keeping the plot moving, the fun brewing and the plot and action scenes simple and easy to follow (an easy thing to screw up) and this makes SPIES IN DISGUISE a very fun escape for an hour and 42 minutes.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
This studio has delivered solid animated outings with such fare as ROBOTS, HORTON HEARS A WHO, RIO and FERDINAND (along with the myriad of ICE AGE films) and their latest feature - 2019's SPIES IN DISGUISE - is no exception. I was pleasantly surprised by the fun, action, comedy and suspense of this film and was entertained throughout.
Blue Sky, of course, IS the "poor little sister" to the "Big 2" and it shows in some of their casting choices. Where I thought vocal work was being done by Tina Fey and Holly Hunter, I soon discovered that it is Rachel Brosnahan and Reba Mcintyre - not shabby at all, but not quite the "A" team either (it's like you are listening to the Broadway replacement actors for the Original Cast).
That is probably because they spent all of their casting money on the 2 leads - Will Smith and Tom Holland - and they are TERRIFIC together. Unlike Holland's lackluster (and lack of chemistry) turn with Chris Pratt in the PIXAR film ONWARD, Holland and Smith work well together in this film and I enjoyed their interactions with each other. Of course, Will Smith is in a league of his own when it comes to charming, cocky adventure hero with raw emotions and a soul - and that is EXACTLY what his character is and it works very, very well. Add to that Holland's riff on his Spiderman Peter Parker character - a scientific genius who is socially awkward and we have a fun duo to root for throughout this film.
Other outstanding voice talents in this cast include Masi Oka (who's voice would be terrific in just about ANY animation film), Rashida Jones, Karen Gillen and the always good Ben Mendelsohn as the villain.
Directors Nick Bruno (in his Directorial debut) and Troy Quane (in only his 2nd Animated outing) do a professional job keeping the plot moving, the fun brewing and the plot and action scenes simple and easy to follow (an easy thing to screw up) and this makes SPIES IN DISGUISE a very fun escape for an hour and 42 minutes.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
And so to the latest incarnation in Spider-man Homecoming. After seeing Tom Holland in Civil War, well, let's just say that I was not convinced. Then the adverts where he's making the home movie of everything... yeah that began to grate a bit.
There's no origin story with this one, or with his appearance in Civil War. I'm not sure how I feel about no Uncle Ben, or that they're regressing Aunt May every time she appears. But I do love Marisa Tomei, and she does get a fantastic last line.
Somewhere before this film went into production I reckon someone thought "We need something that's not quite a bad a Spider-man, but not quite as serious as The Amazing Spider-man." Someone else was walking by and overheard. "You should zhush it up with the Avengers treatment."... and so Homecoming was born.
The effects are of course way better than 2002, and everything is pretty bright and shiny since it was properly Marvelised. As much as I initially didn't like Tom Holland, I have to admit that he makes a good film. My only major issue is that it seems more concerned about bringing him into the Marvel Universe than leaving him out there developing his own film.
For a nerd, Peter has got game. We're on the third incarnation of films this side of 2000, and we're on the third (and potential fourth) love interest. I like that they're jumping that around a little, it does help make each lot feel slightly different, but it does get confusing... and obviously you can keep an eye out for other love interests who make appearances.
It seems unfair to compare all three films (which is a bit tricky as that was partly the idea of this whole post) because each of them have their own bit of the movie spectrum. The daft, the heart-wrenching and the blockbuster, all have their place in the collection. Gun against my head I'd probably still pick Andrew Garfield as my favourite, but Holland is right there too.
That being said, I still don't like Spider-man as a superhero...
*ducks under the table to avoid the barrage of abuse*
He's too chaotic, he's just too young (in this one) to really understand the full implications of what he's doing. I personally don't understand why he would be worthy of movie fame over other characters. It has been pointed out to me that as he's just a "regular Joe", that people can identify with him more over the other options of Gods or mutants... but hell... I'm mutant and proud!
There's no origin story with this one, or with his appearance in Civil War. I'm not sure how I feel about no Uncle Ben, or that they're regressing Aunt May every time she appears. But I do love Marisa Tomei, and she does get a fantastic last line.
Somewhere before this film went into production I reckon someone thought "We need something that's not quite a bad a Spider-man, but not quite as serious as The Amazing Spider-man." Someone else was walking by and overheard. "You should zhush it up with the Avengers treatment."... and so Homecoming was born.
The effects are of course way better than 2002, and everything is pretty bright and shiny since it was properly Marvelised. As much as I initially didn't like Tom Holland, I have to admit that he makes a good film. My only major issue is that it seems more concerned about bringing him into the Marvel Universe than leaving him out there developing his own film.
For a nerd, Peter has got game. We're on the third incarnation of films this side of 2000, and we're on the third (and potential fourth) love interest. I like that they're jumping that around a little, it does help make each lot feel slightly different, but it does get confusing... and obviously you can keep an eye out for other love interests who make appearances.
It seems unfair to compare all three films (which is a bit tricky as that was partly the idea of this whole post) because each of them have their own bit of the movie spectrum. The daft, the heart-wrenching and the blockbuster, all have their place in the collection. Gun against my head I'd probably still pick Andrew Garfield as my favourite, but Holland is right there too.
That being said, I still don't like Spider-man as a superhero...
*ducks under the table to avoid the barrage of abuse*
He's too chaotic, he's just too young (in this one) to really understand the full implications of what he's doing. I personally don't understand why he would be worthy of movie fame over other characters. It has been pointed out to me that as he's just a "regular Joe", that people can identify with him more over the other options of Gods or mutants... but hell... I'm mutant and proud!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Personal History of David Copperfield (2019) in Movies
Jan 8, 2021
The fantastic ensemble cast (1 more)
Great directing and editing
Effortlessly stylish and entertaining
The Personal History of David Copperfield starts with the young man (Dev Patel) regaling a theatre audience with a reading of his autobiography. This immediately pitches him into witnessing his own birth to widowed single mother Clara (the wonderful Morfydd Clark, or "Saint Maud" fame). From there, Copperfield goes helter-skelter into a rollercoaster life encompassing workhouse-bottling poverty, fish-gutting and rich gentlemanly pursuits.
You have to admire the artistry of Dickens. Of course, I am aware of some of the plethora of rich and complex characters that Dickens imagined including the rascally Mr Micawber (Peter Capaldi) and the ever-'umble but conniving Uriah Heep (Ben Wishaw). But the story is literally rammed with amazing characters. It's almost as if Dickens conjured up full pen-portraits of 30 different characters and then contrived to fit them somehow into the story. Remarkably rich.
There's a very striking nature to the casting of this movie. It had me going "Wha?? Who??" while watching it. Because the roles are cast multi-culturally, without nature to the demographics of the time and - crucially - to the relationship between the characters. For example, with Copperfield, you might - with a bit of a squint - play along with it since we never see the father. But then the mother of the (very-much-white) Steerforth (Aneurin Barnard) turns up as Nigerian-born actress Nikki Amuka-Bird (who is fabulous). Benedict Wong also turns up as legal director Mr Wickfield. It was as if the casting was done purely on talent and regardless of race and appropriateness for the Dickensian times. Which is refreshingly different and much to be welcomed.
Sarah Crowe has won a number of awards for her casting of the film and a BAFTA nomination too. And well deserved, since she pulls in a truly stellar ensemble cast. As well as those mentioned above, we also have Hugh Laurie as the addled Mr Dick; Tilda Swinton as Betsey Trotwood; Anna Maxwell Martin as Mrs Strong; Paul Whitehouse as Daniel Peggotty; and Gwendoline Christie as the evil Mrs Murdstone. Even Daisy May Cooper (from TV's "This Country") turns up and is particularly effective as Peggoty - the housemaid and friend to Copperfield. And casting Morfydd Clark in a second role as the scatty love interest Dora Spenlow is also both brilliant and provocative.
With such a wealth of talent on show, it's difficult to pull out specific performances. This is a movie that genuinely deserved to make the SAG Ensemble award list.
When I saw that the director of this was Armando Iannucci, I raised an eyebrow. For the subject matter seemed to be at right angles to the normal satirical thrust of the director. But the guy behind "The Thick of It" and "The Death of Stalin" reigned in his most satirical barbs and - together with his regular collaborative screenwriter Simon Blackwell - turned the movie into a delightfully quirky telling of the story. I felt that there was something of the Guy Ritchie "Sherlock Holmes" behind the very effective use of the cutting and on screen handwriting.
In that cutting, many of the scene transitions are masterfully done. So a special shout-out to the film editors Mick Audsley and Peter Lambert here. A memorable example is a flashback in the "boat house" where a background tarpaulin blows away to reveal Steerforth on horseback in France: simply breathtaking.
This was a refreshing movie. Endlessly innovative and entertaining. It makes me even possibly want to revisit trying to read the book again! Highly recommended.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review here - https://rb.gy/ba74zo ).
You have to admire the artistry of Dickens. Of course, I am aware of some of the plethora of rich and complex characters that Dickens imagined including the rascally Mr Micawber (Peter Capaldi) and the ever-'umble but conniving Uriah Heep (Ben Wishaw). But the story is literally rammed with amazing characters. It's almost as if Dickens conjured up full pen-portraits of 30 different characters and then contrived to fit them somehow into the story. Remarkably rich.
There's a very striking nature to the casting of this movie. It had me going "Wha?? Who??" while watching it. Because the roles are cast multi-culturally, without nature to the demographics of the time and - crucially - to the relationship between the characters. For example, with Copperfield, you might - with a bit of a squint - play along with it since we never see the father. But then the mother of the (very-much-white) Steerforth (Aneurin Barnard) turns up as Nigerian-born actress Nikki Amuka-Bird (who is fabulous). Benedict Wong also turns up as legal director Mr Wickfield. It was as if the casting was done purely on talent and regardless of race and appropriateness for the Dickensian times. Which is refreshingly different and much to be welcomed.
Sarah Crowe has won a number of awards for her casting of the film and a BAFTA nomination too. And well deserved, since she pulls in a truly stellar ensemble cast. As well as those mentioned above, we also have Hugh Laurie as the addled Mr Dick; Tilda Swinton as Betsey Trotwood; Anna Maxwell Martin as Mrs Strong; Paul Whitehouse as Daniel Peggotty; and Gwendoline Christie as the evil Mrs Murdstone. Even Daisy May Cooper (from TV's "This Country") turns up and is particularly effective as Peggoty - the housemaid and friend to Copperfield. And casting Morfydd Clark in a second role as the scatty love interest Dora Spenlow is also both brilliant and provocative.
With such a wealth of talent on show, it's difficult to pull out specific performances. This is a movie that genuinely deserved to make the SAG Ensemble award list.
When I saw that the director of this was Armando Iannucci, I raised an eyebrow. For the subject matter seemed to be at right angles to the normal satirical thrust of the director. But the guy behind "The Thick of It" and "The Death of Stalin" reigned in his most satirical barbs and - together with his regular collaborative screenwriter Simon Blackwell - turned the movie into a delightfully quirky telling of the story. I felt that there was something of the Guy Ritchie "Sherlock Holmes" behind the very effective use of the cutting and on screen handwriting.
In that cutting, many of the scene transitions are masterfully done. So a special shout-out to the film editors Mick Audsley and Peter Lambert here. A memorable example is a flashback in the "boat house" where a background tarpaulin blows away to reveal Steerforth on horseback in France: simply breathtaking.
This was a refreshing movie. Endlessly innovative and entertaining. It makes me even possibly want to revisit trying to read the book again! Highly recommended.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review here - https://rb.gy/ba74zo ).
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
When I heard the news last year that Spider-Man was going to be rebooted yet again, I was like “are you freaking serious”? After the successful Toby Maguire trilogy (though the less said about “Spider-Man 3” the better) and the mildly successful “Amazing Spider-Man” duo with Andrew Garfield only finishing in 2014, did we REALLY need another reboot? More dramatic spider biting? More Uncle Ben spouting then dying? The same old – same old, rewarmed in a pan with a bit of red wine added just to stop it feeling so dry and tasteless.
And I still feel the same way. I understand that its more to do with rights ownership between Sony, Marvel and Disney that this got made so quickly…. but in the words of Ian Malcolm “they didn’t stop to think if they should”.
But actually, although I still don’t really approve of it, they’ve done a pretty good job in rebooting in a different manner. I commented in my review for “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” that that first reboot was “much less earnest and quirkier than the original Tobey Maguire series, and reveling more in the fun to be had around a superhero’s schooldays.” This latest reboot moves even further along that scale, being very much more of a high-school comedy that a pure superhero flick.
Wearing the suit this time is a far more age-appropriate Tom Holland, winner of last year’s BAFTA Rising Star award. And very personable he is too. The suit in question has been jizzed up by Iron Man (Robert Downey Jnr) – perhaps I could have rephrased that better! Because here the Spider-Man story carries on from the brief cameo in “Captain America: Civil War” that crossed Spidey into the mainstream Marvel timeline.
Within the high-school setting, Peter Parker’s geeky, and almost too deliberately multi-racial, gang includes his pal Ned (Jacob Batalon), very funny with a “chair guy” sequence, the unattainable Liz (Laura Harrier) as the love-interest, Betty (the excellent Angourie Rice who made such a great impression in “The Nice Guys” but didn’t really move the meter for me here I’m afraid), Flash (Tony Revolori) and best of all for me the almost horizontally laconic Michelle (Zendaya, of Shoshone heritage) – uber-cool but harbouring a secret crush on Peter.
Chris Evans pops up for comic relief as Captain America doing motivational high-school videos. And older viewers might want to have fun watching out for Tyne Daly: Lacey in the old cop show “Cagney and Lacey”.
But stealing the show in the acting stakes is Michael Keaton as Adrian Toomes (aka “The Vulture”) who could for all the world be auditioning for “Birdman 2”. The well-judged thing about this villain is that he is no hyper-galactic being with superpowers, or a typical “rule the world” Bond villain, but just an ordinary Joe in search of financial profit to keep his family in the manner to which they are accustomed. I really liked that. The script (an army of people, but led by Jonathan Goldstein and John Francis Daley, who also wrote the story) also nicely counterpoints the thin-line between the “good arms dealer” (Tony Stark) and the “bad arms dealer” (Toomes).
The script also very wisely leaps several months into where the reboot could have started. None of the tedious spider biting. No Uncle Ben – just a sly reference to “what Aunt May’s been through”. Now this might confuse anyone not familiar with the Spider-Man story, but the percentage of people in the Western world in that segment must be less than 2%.
There are however also significant character changes that may annoy Spider-Man devotees. Aunt May herself is no longer the frail old lady of previous depictions, but a hot and attractive middle-aged woman (AILF?) played by Marisa Tomei (who does indeed look ‘Mila Kunis‘).
Many of the action scenes are well done, with a scene at the Washington Monument being particularly exciting. It all gets rather overblown though with a later scene aboard the Avenger’s plane. And this scene sums up my problem with many of these films: the superhero characters are pretty well indestructible. You know they are. So the scenes of peril, that might thrill in an Indiana Jones, an M.I. or a Bond film, lack any sort of tension. Even when the protagonist does have a superhero on the ropes, they don’t carry on kicking the proverbial c**p out of them until they are “dead”…. they lay off so the superhero can recover and kick their ass in a few minutes time!
The director is Jon Watts in only his third directorial outing (with only the much praised “Cop Car” to pretty up his CV). With such a lot on his shoulders he does a good job.
At 133 minutes its a tad over-long (I watched this in a double bill with “War for the Planet of the Apes” so my eyes afterwards were 16:9!). But it’s a fun summer flick that both amuses and entertains. If you have the choice between this and Planet of the Apes though for your Saturday night at the movies, I would personally choose the latter.
By the way, in terms of “monkeys” – yep, it’s a Marvel film, of course there are monkeys! One early on in the credits and another one at the end… which is actually very funny indeed.
And I still feel the same way. I understand that its more to do with rights ownership between Sony, Marvel and Disney that this got made so quickly…. but in the words of Ian Malcolm “they didn’t stop to think if they should”.
But actually, although I still don’t really approve of it, they’ve done a pretty good job in rebooting in a different manner. I commented in my review for “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” that that first reboot was “much less earnest and quirkier than the original Tobey Maguire series, and reveling more in the fun to be had around a superhero’s schooldays.” This latest reboot moves even further along that scale, being very much more of a high-school comedy that a pure superhero flick.
Wearing the suit this time is a far more age-appropriate Tom Holland, winner of last year’s BAFTA Rising Star award. And very personable he is too. The suit in question has been jizzed up by Iron Man (Robert Downey Jnr) – perhaps I could have rephrased that better! Because here the Spider-Man story carries on from the brief cameo in “Captain America: Civil War” that crossed Spidey into the mainstream Marvel timeline.
Within the high-school setting, Peter Parker’s geeky, and almost too deliberately multi-racial, gang includes his pal Ned (Jacob Batalon), very funny with a “chair guy” sequence, the unattainable Liz (Laura Harrier) as the love-interest, Betty (the excellent Angourie Rice who made such a great impression in “The Nice Guys” but didn’t really move the meter for me here I’m afraid), Flash (Tony Revolori) and best of all for me the almost horizontally laconic Michelle (Zendaya, of Shoshone heritage) – uber-cool but harbouring a secret crush on Peter.
Chris Evans pops up for comic relief as Captain America doing motivational high-school videos. And older viewers might want to have fun watching out for Tyne Daly: Lacey in the old cop show “Cagney and Lacey”.
But stealing the show in the acting stakes is Michael Keaton as Adrian Toomes (aka “The Vulture”) who could for all the world be auditioning for “Birdman 2”. The well-judged thing about this villain is that he is no hyper-galactic being with superpowers, or a typical “rule the world” Bond villain, but just an ordinary Joe in search of financial profit to keep his family in the manner to which they are accustomed. I really liked that. The script (an army of people, but led by Jonathan Goldstein and John Francis Daley, who also wrote the story) also nicely counterpoints the thin-line between the “good arms dealer” (Tony Stark) and the “bad arms dealer” (Toomes).
The script also very wisely leaps several months into where the reboot could have started. None of the tedious spider biting. No Uncle Ben – just a sly reference to “what Aunt May’s been through”. Now this might confuse anyone not familiar with the Spider-Man story, but the percentage of people in the Western world in that segment must be less than 2%.
There are however also significant character changes that may annoy Spider-Man devotees. Aunt May herself is no longer the frail old lady of previous depictions, but a hot and attractive middle-aged woman (AILF?) played by Marisa Tomei (who does indeed look ‘Mila Kunis‘).
Many of the action scenes are well done, with a scene at the Washington Monument being particularly exciting. It all gets rather overblown though with a later scene aboard the Avenger’s plane. And this scene sums up my problem with many of these films: the superhero characters are pretty well indestructible. You know they are. So the scenes of peril, that might thrill in an Indiana Jones, an M.I. or a Bond film, lack any sort of tension. Even when the protagonist does have a superhero on the ropes, they don’t carry on kicking the proverbial c**p out of them until they are “dead”…. they lay off so the superhero can recover and kick their ass in a few minutes time!
The director is Jon Watts in only his third directorial outing (with only the much praised “Cop Car” to pretty up his CV). With such a lot on his shoulders he does a good job.
At 133 minutes its a tad over-long (I watched this in a double bill with “War for the Planet of the Apes” so my eyes afterwards were 16:9!). But it’s a fun summer flick that both amuses and entertains. If you have the choice between this and Planet of the Apes though for your Saturday night at the movies, I would personally choose the latter.
By the way, in terms of “monkeys” – yep, it’s a Marvel film, of course there are monkeys! One early on in the credits and another one at the end… which is actually very funny indeed.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Paddington 2 (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Bear faced brilliance.
I never went to see “Paddington 2” at the cinema when it came out. Well, it’s a kids film isn’t it? And my grandkids I thought… well, their probably a bit too young for the long haul on this one. But – after catching up with it recently on a transatlantic flight – I’m sorry I missed it. For it is brilliant in its own way.
Having not seen the first “Paddington”, also directed by Paul King, there is a useful little flashback to the Peruvian origins of the little chap before we pitch into the plot proper. Paddington (voiced by Ben Wishaw, “Spectre“) has nicely settled down to life with The Brown’s in their London home and is a well-loved member of the community (well, well loved that is by everyone except the cranky Mr Curry (Peter Capaldi, “Dr Who“, “World War Z“). But he longs to buy his Aunt Lucy (Imelda Staunton, “Finding Your Feet“) a special birthday present – a pop-up book of London scenes that he’s seen in a local antique shop. But for that he needs a lot of cash, and so proceeds to earn it through a variety of different jobs.
However, fading actor Phoenix Buchanan (Hugh Grant, “Florence Foster Jenkins“, “The Man From U.N.C.L.E.“) also shows an unhealty interest in the book and, after it disappears from the shop with Paddington’s paw prints all over the scene, the poor bear finds himself on the wrong side of the law.
This is a continually inventive movie, which rockets along with truly impressive verve and panache from scene to scene. As a particular example of this, an animated walk through the pop-up book is marvellously done: a tribute to the 2D retro nature (even in those days!) of the TV animation of the 70’s that will go over the heads of younger viewers. There are plenty of slapstick scenes – notably of Paddington trying window cleaning, and his job in a barber’s shop – which will not only delight younger children but also made this 57 year old laugh out loud too! The prison sequence also delights, with a laundry blunder by the bear leading into a comical showdown with the prison’s chief poisoner, sorry, head chef played by Brendan Gleeson (“Alone in Berlin“, “Live By Night“).
Vision AND sound! Paddington with incarcerated friends, including Brendan Gleeson (centre).
The cast all seem to revel in their parts, with Hugh Bonneville (“Viceroy’s House“, “The Monuments Men“) energetic as Mr Brown and Oscar runner-up (surely!) Sally Hawkins (“The Shape of Water“) very chirpy as Mrs Brown. All of the residents of Windsor Gardens are a who’s who of UK film and TV, and each cameo has a lovely little tale behind it: Julie Walters (“Brooklyn“) as Mrs Bird, the Brown’s help; Sanjeev Bhaskar as Dr Jafri, forever nearly locking himself out; Miss Kitts (Jessica Hynes) and the crusty Colonel Lancaster (Ben Miller) in a ‘will they/won’t they’ potential romance. Elsewhere, Jim Broadbent (“Bridget Jones Baby“, “Eddie the Eagle“) is great as the antique store owner; Tom Conti adds both gravitas and humour as Judge Biggleswade and Richard Ayoade (“The Double“) is very funny as a forensic expert.
The Brown family: from left; Mr Brown (Hugh Bonneville); Jonathan (Samuel Joslin); Mrs Brown (Sally Hawkins); Mrs Bird (Julie Walters); and Judy Brown (Madeleine Harris).
Head and shoulders above all of them though is Hugh Grant who is just outstandingly good as the puffed-up and self-important ham-actor. His Best Supporting Actor nomination for a BAFTA was surprising, but having seen the film so very much deserved. Hang around in the end credits for his last words of the film which are cornily hilarious! One can only hope that Phoenix Buchanen returns for Paddington 3.
A career best… Hugh Grant as the devilishly slippery Phoenix Buchanan.
I would have thought that some of the scenes towards the end of the film, particularly one where Paddington seems doomed to a watery end, might be a little frightening for younger viewers. Thank heavens Sally Hawkins has gills! 🙂
Overall, this is a movie I would gladly watch again, with or without kids. In a movie landscape that is pretty devoid of good comedy, here is a movie that really did make me laugh out loud.
Having not seen the first “Paddington”, also directed by Paul King, there is a useful little flashback to the Peruvian origins of the little chap before we pitch into the plot proper. Paddington (voiced by Ben Wishaw, “Spectre“) has nicely settled down to life with The Brown’s in their London home and is a well-loved member of the community (well, well loved that is by everyone except the cranky Mr Curry (Peter Capaldi, “Dr Who“, “World War Z“). But he longs to buy his Aunt Lucy (Imelda Staunton, “Finding Your Feet“) a special birthday present – a pop-up book of London scenes that he’s seen in a local antique shop. But for that he needs a lot of cash, and so proceeds to earn it through a variety of different jobs.
However, fading actor Phoenix Buchanan (Hugh Grant, “Florence Foster Jenkins“, “The Man From U.N.C.L.E.“) also shows an unhealty interest in the book and, after it disappears from the shop with Paddington’s paw prints all over the scene, the poor bear finds himself on the wrong side of the law.
This is a continually inventive movie, which rockets along with truly impressive verve and panache from scene to scene. As a particular example of this, an animated walk through the pop-up book is marvellously done: a tribute to the 2D retro nature (even in those days!) of the TV animation of the 70’s that will go over the heads of younger viewers. There are plenty of slapstick scenes – notably of Paddington trying window cleaning, and his job in a barber’s shop – which will not only delight younger children but also made this 57 year old laugh out loud too! The prison sequence also delights, with a laundry blunder by the bear leading into a comical showdown with the prison’s chief poisoner, sorry, head chef played by Brendan Gleeson (“Alone in Berlin“, “Live By Night“).
Vision AND sound! Paddington with incarcerated friends, including Brendan Gleeson (centre).
The cast all seem to revel in their parts, with Hugh Bonneville (“Viceroy’s House“, “The Monuments Men“) energetic as Mr Brown and Oscar runner-up (surely!) Sally Hawkins (“The Shape of Water“) very chirpy as Mrs Brown. All of the residents of Windsor Gardens are a who’s who of UK film and TV, and each cameo has a lovely little tale behind it: Julie Walters (“Brooklyn“) as Mrs Bird, the Brown’s help; Sanjeev Bhaskar as Dr Jafri, forever nearly locking himself out; Miss Kitts (Jessica Hynes) and the crusty Colonel Lancaster (Ben Miller) in a ‘will they/won’t they’ potential romance. Elsewhere, Jim Broadbent (“Bridget Jones Baby“, “Eddie the Eagle“) is great as the antique store owner; Tom Conti adds both gravitas and humour as Judge Biggleswade and Richard Ayoade (“The Double“) is very funny as a forensic expert.
The Brown family: from left; Mr Brown (Hugh Bonneville); Jonathan (Samuel Joslin); Mrs Brown (Sally Hawkins); Mrs Bird (Julie Walters); and Judy Brown (Madeleine Harris).
Head and shoulders above all of them though is Hugh Grant who is just outstandingly good as the puffed-up and self-important ham-actor. His Best Supporting Actor nomination for a BAFTA was surprising, but having seen the film so very much deserved. Hang around in the end credits for his last words of the film which are cornily hilarious! One can only hope that Phoenix Buchanen returns for Paddington 3.
A career best… Hugh Grant as the devilishly slippery Phoenix Buchanan.
I would have thought that some of the scenes towards the end of the film, particularly one where Paddington seems doomed to a watery end, might be a little frightening for younger viewers. Thank heavens Sally Hawkins has gills! 🙂
Overall, this is a movie I would gladly watch again, with or without kids. In a movie landscape that is pretty devoid of good comedy, here is a movie that really did make me laugh out loud.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Boss (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Where's the comedy?
Melissa McCarthy is one of the biggest stars in Hollywood. Her rise to fame has been nothing short of extraordinary, helped in part by her leading roles in The Heat, Spy and of course the hilarious Bridesmaids.
However, each of those examples of comedic brilliance had one thing in common, apart from McCarthy, director Paul Feig. He brings out the very best in the actress and we’ll see if this formula continues to work with the controversial Ghostbusters reboot, released later this year.
For now, McCarthy teams up with director and real-life husband Ben Falcone (Tammy) in The Boss. But does it offer you a laugh a minute?
The Boss follows the fall from grace of Michelle Darnell (McCarthy), one of America’s wealthiest women, and her efforts to get back on top. Her plan? To start a cake-making empire. Alongside her for the ride is long-suffering assistant Claire (Kristen Bell). Side roles are reserved for Game of Thrones star Peter Dinklage as Michelle’s rival and Kathy Bates as her mentor.
Unfortunately, the biggest problem The Boss has is one that blights many films nowadays; the best bits have already been shown in the trailer. For an action adventure, this is disappointing, but for a comedy, it’s silver-screen suicide. Having laughed in the pre-release clips already, the rest of the film is as barren as the Sahara when it comes to raising a titter.
That’s a real shame as the film’s plot, whilst hardly ground-breaking, is fundamentally solid and the acting is, Dinklage’s hammy performance aside, decent. McCarthy in particular takes a poor script and injects some much-needed spice into it – a testament to her incredible talents as a comedienne. Bell is on-point and bounces off McCarthy’s presence very well while Kathy Bates provides the film with one of its more memorable scenes, albeit one already used in the trailer.
There’s also a well-choreographed bust-up between two groups of teenage girls that manages to raise a chuckle, but again the majority of it was added to the most recent trailer.
Overall, The Boss is McCarthy’s second true turkey with Tammy being the first, but there’s no blame to be placed on her shoulders here. Michelle Darnell is a cracking character, despite her striking resemblance to Rita from Coronation Street, and is one that deserves far better than a film that’s light on laughs and has to rest on the laurels of its lead star – now that’s just lazy.
Perhaps the next time her husband asks her to star in one of his comedies, she should really, really think about it first.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/06/11/wheres-the-comedy-the-boss-review/
However, each of those examples of comedic brilliance had one thing in common, apart from McCarthy, director Paul Feig. He brings out the very best in the actress and we’ll see if this formula continues to work with the controversial Ghostbusters reboot, released later this year.
For now, McCarthy teams up with director and real-life husband Ben Falcone (Tammy) in The Boss. But does it offer you a laugh a minute?
The Boss follows the fall from grace of Michelle Darnell (McCarthy), one of America’s wealthiest women, and her efforts to get back on top. Her plan? To start a cake-making empire. Alongside her for the ride is long-suffering assistant Claire (Kristen Bell). Side roles are reserved for Game of Thrones star Peter Dinklage as Michelle’s rival and Kathy Bates as her mentor.
Unfortunately, the biggest problem The Boss has is one that blights many films nowadays; the best bits have already been shown in the trailer. For an action adventure, this is disappointing, but for a comedy, it’s silver-screen suicide. Having laughed in the pre-release clips already, the rest of the film is as barren as the Sahara when it comes to raising a titter.
That’s a real shame as the film’s plot, whilst hardly ground-breaking, is fundamentally solid and the acting is, Dinklage’s hammy performance aside, decent. McCarthy in particular takes a poor script and injects some much-needed spice into it – a testament to her incredible talents as a comedienne. Bell is on-point and bounces off McCarthy’s presence very well while Kathy Bates provides the film with one of its more memorable scenes, albeit one already used in the trailer.
There’s also a well-choreographed bust-up between two groups of teenage girls that manages to raise a chuckle, but again the majority of it was added to the most recent trailer.
Overall, The Boss is McCarthy’s second true turkey with Tammy being the first, but there’s no blame to be placed on her shoulders here. Michelle Darnell is a cracking character, despite her striking resemblance to Rita from Coronation Street, and is one that deserves far better than a film that’s light on laughs and has to rest on the laurels of its lead star – now that’s just lazy.
Perhaps the next time her husband asks her to star in one of his comedies, she should really, really think about it first.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/06/11/wheres-the-comedy-the-boss-review/
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Being There (1979) in Movies
Mar 26, 2018
Decent
A gardener with no professional skills has to strike out on his own when the owner of his estate dies.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 4
Being There gets off to an extremely slow start and I think it has more to do with expectations than anything. I don't know what exactly I was looking for, but it seemed as if the film started out laying the groundwork for what was to come, but it was trying to feel its way into the story. If your film is going to be over two hours long, it should be because there is a lot of meat in the film, not because its got a slow start latched on to it.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 0
For the life of me, I can't remember not one memorable shot in this film. Not a single solitary one. Believe me, I sat on this for quite a few minutes trying to remember something, anything that stood out for me. Nothing. For main character Chance (Peter Sellers) to have been a gardener, we never got to see him working his craft in one of the rich, extravagant gardens. Nothing doing.
Conflict: 4
There's not a lot of friction in the conflict, but it is fun to watch as things unfold. You know it's only a matter of time before someone uncovers the truth of what's going on with Chance, but every scene that passes where he comes out unscathed is absolutely confounding. There are never any real stakes, however, hence the lower score.
Genre: 8
When it comes to dramas, I consider Being There, highly original. It feels like Forrest Gump mixed in with a ton of political satire. It stares the norm in the face and completely breaks the mold.
Memorability: 6
While the visuals were absolutely forgettable, the film did have some solid memorable moments that stood out. In one particular scene, Chance is having a dinner conversation with Benjamin Rand (Melvyn Douglas) about the "room upstairs". Ben thinks they're talking about heaven when Chance is literally talking about the room upstairs.
Pace: 8
Once the film can get out of its own way in the beginning, it definitely managed to hold my attention with a solid pace. I was so entertained by Chance that things never really got slow again for me. His actions and presence alone kept me engaged.
Plot: 9
Resolution: 10
Overall: 69
I was rooting for Being There to be better but there were just a handful of pitfalls that kept it well short of getting an all-time rating. With solid characters that were highly entertaining, I wish it would have gotten out of the gates stronger, among other things. For me, the film is a skippable one.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 4
Being There gets off to an extremely slow start and I think it has more to do with expectations than anything. I don't know what exactly I was looking for, but it seemed as if the film started out laying the groundwork for what was to come, but it was trying to feel its way into the story. If your film is going to be over two hours long, it should be because there is a lot of meat in the film, not because its got a slow start latched on to it.
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 0
For the life of me, I can't remember not one memorable shot in this film. Not a single solitary one. Believe me, I sat on this for quite a few minutes trying to remember something, anything that stood out for me. Nothing. For main character Chance (Peter Sellers) to have been a gardener, we never got to see him working his craft in one of the rich, extravagant gardens. Nothing doing.
Conflict: 4
There's not a lot of friction in the conflict, but it is fun to watch as things unfold. You know it's only a matter of time before someone uncovers the truth of what's going on with Chance, but every scene that passes where he comes out unscathed is absolutely confounding. There are never any real stakes, however, hence the lower score.
Genre: 8
When it comes to dramas, I consider Being There, highly original. It feels like Forrest Gump mixed in with a ton of political satire. It stares the norm in the face and completely breaks the mold.
Memorability: 6
While the visuals were absolutely forgettable, the film did have some solid memorable moments that stood out. In one particular scene, Chance is having a dinner conversation with Benjamin Rand (Melvyn Douglas) about the "room upstairs". Ben thinks they're talking about heaven when Chance is literally talking about the room upstairs.
Pace: 8
Once the film can get out of its own way in the beginning, it definitely managed to hold my attention with a solid pace. I was so entertained by Chance that things never really got slow again for me. His actions and presence alone kept me engaged.
Plot: 9
Resolution: 10
Overall: 69
I was rooting for Being There to be better but there were just a handful of pitfalls that kept it well short of getting an all-time rating. With solid characters that were highly entertaining, I wish it would have gotten out of the gates stronger, among other things. For me, the film is a skippable one.