Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Inferno (2016) in Movies
Jul 15, 2019
Inferno is the latest thriller based on the novels of Dan Brown that follow the fictional character of Robert Langdon who is a world renowned symbologist (study of symbols). Like The DaVinci Code and Angels & Demons before them, Inferno follows mostly the same story arch and structure.
Tom Hanks has reprised his role as Robert Langdon (this time with an appropriate haircut) and once again he travels around to beautiful locations of European art and architecture with a young woman by his side, trying to solve a series of clues in order to stop a billionaire madman who believes humanity is a parasite and his plague inferno is the cure. If this sounds like a film you have seen before, it is because you have. In the other two movies that have come before it
Once again, audiences will enjoy being whisked around to see beautiful cities, art, and architecture to solve historical literary clues as the film plays out like a late middle ages travel lesson. These are all good things.
The bad is that during the first half of the film, Robert Langdon has amnesia due to a blow to the head. He cannot remember much which of what he was doing, which makes him a less compelling character. Throughout the series of films, Langdon has used his “dizzying intellect” to solve clues the brightest minds could not solve. In Inferno, that “super power” is taken away and we are left with an average, middle aged man, who is somehow able to solve impossible puzzles and clues while being chased by seedy underground characters and the world health organization. Who for the purposes of this film, seem to have become the FBI/CIA in one. This setup does not work and makes for a boring first half of the film Eventually Langdon regains his memory and the film picks up a bit from there, but for some it might be too late.
As far as the performances go, Tom Hanks delivers a watchable, likable performance, much to his credit considering that the character of Robert Langdon is a relatively boring protagonist. Meanwhile Ben Foster plays the somewhat forgettable billionaire madman (Bertrand Zobrist) in a somewhat forgettable way. It is a shame because perhaps if we had a chance to understand the nuance of his character, like I assume can be done in the books, he would have felt like a more compelling character and caused us to think if he was to be on the right side of history. Unfortunately, any nuance from the book does not translate well to the film adaptation. But not all is lost. For me, the bright spot of the film was Felicity Jones who plays the gifted doctor Sienna Brooks. Brooks, who in helping Langdon with his injury, gets swept up into game for the fate of the world. In her performance, Felicity Jones shows a transition of her emotional resonance throughout the film as her character develops and we get to understand her more, for better or worse. I am excited to see Jones continue to grow in her career and look forward to seeing her this holiday’s Star Wars Story: Rouge One. She has the ability to carry a film, let’s hope she is given the opportunity to do so.
In the end, Inferno is not a terrible film, but it is not very memorable either. Unlike the two films before it, Robert Langdon is handcuffed by an injury that doesn’t allow him to use his intellect that made him compelling before Couple that with what seems like an inspector gadget plot, where the bad guy leave a series of clues to foil his own master plan, and you end up with a “Meh” film.
Tom Hanks has reprised his role as Robert Langdon (this time with an appropriate haircut) and once again he travels around to beautiful locations of European art and architecture with a young woman by his side, trying to solve a series of clues in order to stop a billionaire madman who believes humanity is a parasite and his plague inferno is the cure. If this sounds like a film you have seen before, it is because you have. In the other two movies that have come before it
Once again, audiences will enjoy being whisked around to see beautiful cities, art, and architecture to solve historical literary clues as the film plays out like a late middle ages travel lesson. These are all good things.
The bad is that during the first half of the film, Robert Langdon has amnesia due to a blow to the head. He cannot remember much which of what he was doing, which makes him a less compelling character. Throughout the series of films, Langdon has used his “dizzying intellect” to solve clues the brightest minds could not solve. In Inferno, that “super power” is taken away and we are left with an average, middle aged man, who is somehow able to solve impossible puzzles and clues while being chased by seedy underground characters and the world health organization. Who for the purposes of this film, seem to have become the FBI/CIA in one. This setup does not work and makes for a boring first half of the film Eventually Langdon regains his memory and the film picks up a bit from there, but for some it might be too late.
As far as the performances go, Tom Hanks delivers a watchable, likable performance, much to his credit considering that the character of Robert Langdon is a relatively boring protagonist. Meanwhile Ben Foster plays the somewhat forgettable billionaire madman (Bertrand Zobrist) in a somewhat forgettable way. It is a shame because perhaps if we had a chance to understand the nuance of his character, like I assume can be done in the books, he would have felt like a more compelling character and caused us to think if he was to be on the right side of history. Unfortunately, any nuance from the book does not translate well to the film adaptation. But not all is lost. For me, the bright spot of the film was Felicity Jones who plays the gifted doctor Sienna Brooks. Brooks, who in helping Langdon with his injury, gets swept up into game for the fate of the world. In her performance, Felicity Jones shows a transition of her emotional resonance throughout the film as her character develops and we get to understand her more, for better or worse. I am excited to see Jones continue to grow in her career and look forward to seeing her this holiday’s Star Wars Story: Rouge One. She has the ability to carry a film, let’s hope she is given the opportunity to do so.
In the end, Inferno is not a terrible film, but it is not very memorable either. Unlike the two films before it, Robert Langdon is handcuffed by an injury that doesn’t allow him to use his intellect that made him compelling before Couple that with what seems like an inspector gadget plot, where the bad guy leave a series of clues to foil his own master plan, and you end up with a “Meh” film.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Johnny English Strikes Again (2018) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
My very first experience with the incredibly talented Rowan Atkinson was when I saw a silly Mr. Bean short that was played before the Beauty and the Beast movie. This was way back in 1991 and yet you wouldn’t believe that he’s aged at all during that time. Johnny English Strikes Again is the third movie in the Johnny English franchise, and is another James Bond inspired spoof where our never aging super spy once again tries to outwit a maniacal super genius hell bent on taking over the world.
The movie starts with Johnny English as a geography teacher at a private school in the heart of England. What makes this a light-hearted and perfect entrance to the movie is that instead of teaching geography lessons, he’s teaching the kids how to become spies. Not only does this result in some very chuckle worthy scenes but it also shows us that Johnny still yearns to be back in the field even though he’s an exceptional teacher to the young spies-in-training. As fate would have it, a hacker has released the identities of all MI-7 agents around the world, so the only hope that England has is to call back retired agents. Reluctantly, Johnny is given the job and of course the hijinks start before he even heads out on his mission. In a very cute and refreshing twist on the usual high-tech spy movies, Johnny prefers his spy gear old school, so he turns down the smart phone and hybrid vehicle and instead requests a gun and picks out an old gas-guzzling Aston Martin V8. It was a very clever way to show that his mission wasn’t going to be anything like how Ethan Hunt would handle things.
This leads us to the plot of the movie. Johnny’s mission, with the help of his faithful sidekick Bough (Ben Miller), is to track down the signal where the hacker has been carrying out his attacks and thwart them before the G12 summit takes place. His first stop is to the south of France, where he encounters an alluring Russian spy named Ophelia (Olga Kurylenko) who is clearly working against him. What follows is a slapstick tale of numerous follies as the unlikely trio dance, drive, and crash their way to saving the world.
As you might expect Johnny English forgoes the crudeness and lewd jokes that are popular in comedic films these days and brings back a much more wholesome family friendly comedy. There is no cursing to speak of, no real violence, and except for the last scene it barely rates in the PG category at all. It harkens back to the late 80’s and early 90’s with similar spoof movies like The Naked Gun, where silly dialog and accident-prone heroes are what leads to the laughter. It’s a film that certainly does not take itself seriously and expects the same from the viewing audience. Some of the humor in the movie may elicit a groan from being that bad…but it’s usually so bad that it becomes funny. I found myself laughing a lot more than I expected to and I wasn’t the only one in the theater laughing.
To truly enjoy Johnny English, you have to know what to expect going into it. I can’t imagine there will be many (particularly those who have seen the previous films) that will have particularly high expectations, and that’s where it shines. It may not win any comedy film awards or be the best movie you’ve ever seen but you’ll go away happy. If you enjoyed the previous films, you will certainly enjoy this film as it’s not a huge diversion from the formula and provides the same sort of silly gags throughout. It certainly won’t appeal to everyone and that’s okay, but if you think you might enjoy it even a little, it’s definitely worth a look.
The movie starts with Johnny English as a geography teacher at a private school in the heart of England. What makes this a light-hearted and perfect entrance to the movie is that instead of teaching geography lessons, he’s teaching the kids how to become spies. Not only does this result in some very chuckle worthy scenes but it also shows us that Johnny still yearns to be back in the field even though he’s an exceptional teacher to the young spies-in-training. As fate would have it, a hacker has released the identities of all MI-7 agents around the world, so the only hope that England has is to call back retired agents. Reluctantly, Johnny is given the job and of course the hijinks start before he even heads out on his mission. In a very cute and refreshing twist on the usual high-tech spy movies, Johnny prefers his spy gear old school, so he turns down the smart phone and hybrid vehicle and instead requests a gun and picks out an old gas-guzzling Aston Martin V8. It was a very clever way to show that his mission wasn’t going to be anything like how Ethan Hunt would handle things.
This leads us to the plot of the movie. Johnny’s mission, with the help of his faithful sidekick Bough (Ben Miller), is to track down the signal where the hacker has been carrying out his attacks and thwart them before the G12 summit takes place. His first stop is to the south of France, where he encounters an alluring Russian spy named Ophelia (Olga Kurylenko) who is clearly working against him. What follows is a slapstick tale of numerous follies as the unlikely trio dance, drive, and crash their way to saving the world.
As you might expect Johnny English forgoes the crudeness and lewd jokes that are popular in comedic films these days and brings back a much more wholesome family friendly comedy. There is no cursing to speak of, no real violence, and except for the last scene it barely rates in the PG category at all. It harkens back to the late 80’s and early 90’s with similar spoof movies like The Naked Gun, where silly dialog and accident-prone heroes are what leads to the laughter. It’s a film that certainly does not take itself seriously and expects the same from the viewing audience. Some of the humor in the movie may elicit a groan from being that bad…but it’s usually so bad that it becomes funny. I found myself laughing a lot more than I expected to and I wasn’t the only one in the theater laughing.
To truly enjoy Johnny English, you have to know what to expect going into it. I can’t imagine there will be many (particularly those who have seen the previous films) that will have particularly high expectations, and that’s where it shines. It may not win any comedy film awards or be the best movie you’ve ever seen but you’ll go away happy. If you enjoyed the previous films, you will certainly enjoy this film as it’s not a huge diversion from the formula and provides the same sort of silly gags throughout. It certainly won’t appeal to everyone and that’s okay, but if you think you might enjoy it even a little, it’s definitely worth a look.
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 ).
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated the PC version of Marvel's Avengers in Video Games
Sep 7, 2020
Square Enix and Crystal Dynamics have combined to create one of the most enjoyable Super Hero games ever and one of the more enjoyable gaming experiences of 2020. In Marvel’s Avengers; players are introduced to Kamala Khan; a huge Avengers fan who is invited to be a Fan Fiction finalist and VIP at the massive A Day convention in San Francisco.
What starts as a celebration for the famed heroes soon turns tragic and the game picks up five years late in a world where the Avengers and Heroes are no more. A corporation known as AIM has acquired Stark Industries and maintains their version of law and order through specialized forces as robotic Synths. It is revealed that a reactor powered by a new source was to blame for the A Day disaster and it has created Inhumans as a result.
Kamala finds herself able to stretch her body and upon learning that things on A Day were not as the world has been set to believe sets off with AIM hot on her heels to unlock the clues and save the Avengers.
Along the way players will play as several of the iconic characters and will encounter group missions where players may be matched online or assigned A.I. companions.
Each characters has their own unique skills and timed special abilities which recharge after use and can be a game-changer as enemies become more numerous and difficult.
Each character also has their own combat moves and abilities ranging from ranged attacks to close quarters combat. While The Hulk can throw objects; he is better suited to get in close and mix things up. Iron Man while capable of delivering punches is better used flying and hovering and blasting everything he encounters.
Part of the joy of the game aside from the engaging story is learning new ways to defeat enemies including some team based body slams and other enjoyable moves.
Players are based on a Helicarrier and there are plenty of things to explore and naturally numerous cosmetics, upgrades, and such which players can obtain via looting or at many of the vendors they encounter.
Missions are assigned via a War Table and players have the option to select campaign specific missions or to mix in some side missions as well. Upon completion of the main game; players will have the opportunity to play more side and extra missions and can use a Quick Match open to play with other players as well.
There were a few glitches along the way on my PC build but while a bit annoying a first they became less frequent as the game went along. Some people may have issues with the look of the characters as Tony Stark for example looked to me more like a young Ben Affleck than Robert Downey Jr. but with so many interpretations of the characters over the years this is a minor issue as I was enveloped by the gameplay quickly.
Missions are enjoyable and the timed jump sequences are not unreasonable and players looking for a challenge will be able to adjust the game difficulty to a setting that best suits their style of play.
I first played the game at an invite only meeting during PAX West 2019 and after getting some gameplay time; the developers outlined to us some of the long-term plans for the game from new characters and cosmetics and so on. The game sets up further adventures well and I found myself enjoying the game and characters from starts to finish. The game does a great job establishing Kamala and building her character while giving players plenty of time as the classic Avengers and has more than a few nice surprises along the way.
4 stars out of 5
What starts as a celebration for the famed heroes soon turns tragic and the game picks up five years late in a world where the Avengers and Heroes are no more. A corporation known as AIM has acquired Stark Industries and maintains their version of law and order through specialized forces as robotic Synths. It is revealed that a reactor powered by a new source was to blame for the A Day disaster and it has created Inhumans as a result.
Kamala finds herself able to stretch her body and upon learning that things on A Day were not as the world has been set to believe sets off with AIM hot on her heels to unlock the clues and save the Avengers.
Along the way players will play as several of the iconic characters and will encounter group missions where players may be matched online or assigned A.I. companions.
Each characters has their own unique skills and timed special abilities which recharge after use and can be a game-changer as enemies become more numerous and difficult.
Each character also has their own combat moves and abilities ranging from ranged attacks to close quarters combat. While The Hulk can throw objects; he is better suited to get in close and mix things up. Iron Man while capable of delivering punches is better used flying and hovering and blasting everything he encounters.
Part of the joy of the game aside from the engaging story is learning new ways to defeat enemies including some team based body slams and other enjoyable moves.
Players are based on a Helicarrier and there are plenty of things to explore and naturally numerous cosmetics, upgrades, and such which players can obtain via looting or at many of the vendors they encounter.
Missions are assigned via a War Table and players have the option to select campaign specific missions or to mix in some side missions as well. Upon completion of the main game; players will have the opportunity to play more side and extra missions and can use a Quick Match open to play with other players as well.
There were a few glitches along the way on my PC build but while a bit annoying a first they became less frequent as the game went along. Some people may have issues with the look of the characters as Tony Stark for example looked to me more like a young Ben Affleck than Robert Downey Jr. but with so many interpretations of the characters over the years this is a minor issue as I was enveloped by the gameplay quickly.
Missions are enjoyable and the timed jump sequences are not unreasonable and players looking for a challenge will be able to adjust the game difficulty to a setting that best suits their style of play.
I first played the game at an invite only meeting during PAX West 2019 and after getting some gameplay time; the developers outlined to us some of the long-term plans for the game from new characters and cosmetics and so on. The game sets up further adventures well and I found myself enjoying the game and characters from starts to finish. The game does a great job establishing Kamala and building her character while giving players plenty of time as the classic Avengers and has more than a few nice surprises along the way.
4 stars out of 5
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Babyteeth (2019) in Movies
Aug 25, 2020
I've had more fun at the orthodontist's
Now, before I start, I know I'm likely to be at odds with a lot of viewers on this one. Having had a glance at the IMDB ratings, I can see a lot of arthouse love for this Australian movie. But this really was not for me.
Eliza Scanlen plays Australian schoolgirl Milla, displaying typically rebellious symptoms of adolescence but hampered by a crippling medical issue. She meets a 23-year old drug addict, Moses (Toby Wallace), and the pair feel an immediate pull towards each other, much to the horror of her parents Henry (Ben Mendelsohn) and Anna (Essie Davis). The kids are dysfunctional (for different reasons); the parents are not much better. Adding to the drama is a strange violin teacher (Eugene Gilfedder) and a pregnant (MILF-to-be) next door neighbour (Emily Barclay). We follow the life and love of Milla as she struggles with her circumstances... and the last of her Babyteeth.
I can draw parallels here to the movie "Animals" from last year. Indeed to the Oscar-winner "Moonlight" from four year's ago. I could readily perceive it to be intelligent and artfully produced. But I'm afraid I felt zero empathy or pull from any of the characters. Given that, and the slow burn of writer Rita Kalnejais's screenplay, I found myself constantly looking at my watch for the last half-hour of the movie.
The movie's not without its merits though. Babyteeth has picked up a number of nominations, and as many wins, on the international film-festival circuit, mostly for the direction of Shannon Murphy. This is a first-time feature for TV-director Murphy (she directed two episodes from this year's series of "Killing Eve" for example). Awards have also gone to Toby Wallace for his portrayal of the slightly unhinged and unpredictable Moses. But for me, it was Eliza Scanlen's performance as Milla that appealed to me most and kept my attention. Other-worldly and slightly ethereal, she pulls off the role well. Scanlen was of course Beth March in the recent superb version of "Little Woman". (She's a young lady with great potential, but she needs to be careful not to get typecast as sickly waifs!)
Babyteeth was for me a curate's egg in the photography department. Cinematography was by Andrew Commis, and I found it both breathtaking and frustrating in almost equal measure. There's a scene towards the end of the movie with Milla's face half-lit in the moonlight that was reminiscent to me of the star-child in "2001: A Space Odyssey". Simply gorgeous. And scenes in a nightclub are both strangely and effectively shot. But - and art-house movies seem to mandate this approach - the movie is shot on handheld cameras. This makes a lot of the shots drift in and out of focus. Moreover - and most frustratingly for me - it makes the multitude of scene titles, employed in the telling, float ever-so-slightly against the backgrounds, with a generally nauseating effect.
I'll no doubt feel a right Charlie if Babyteeth gets into the Oscars nominations short-list. But for me, it just wasn't engaging enough to be entertaining. It's billed as a "Comedy Drama". While there were a few good comic lines, it rarely made me do more than smile. And as for the drama, I'm afraid tears were far from being spilled. It's in no way a "bad film": it just personally wasn't for me.
(For the full graphical review please check out One Mann's Movie on https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/08/25/babyteeth-you-might-have-more-fun-at-the-orthodontists/.)
Eliza Scanlen plays Australian schoolgirl Milla, displaying typically rebellious symptoms of adolescence but hampered by a crippling medical issue. She meets a 23-year old drug addict, Moses (Toby Wallace), and the pair feel an immediate pull towards each other, much to the horror of her parents Henry (Ben Mendelsohn) and Anna (Essie Davis). The kids are dysfunctional (for different reasons); the parents are not much better. Adding to the drama is a strange violin teacher (Eugene Gilfedder) and a pregnant (MILF-to-be) next door neighbour (Emily Barclay). We follow the life and love of Milla as she struggles with her circumstances... and the last of her Babyteeth.
I can draw parallels here to the movie "Animals" from last year. Indeed to the Oscar-winner "Moonlight" from four year's ago. I could readily perceive it to be intelligent and artfully produced. But I'm afraid I felt zero empathy or pull from any of the characters. Given that, and the slow burn of writer Rita Kalnejais's screenplay, I found myself constantly looking at my watch for the last half-hour of the movie.
The movie's not without its merits though. Babyteeth has picked up a number of nominations, and as many wins, on the international film-festival circuit, mostly for the direction of Shannon Murphy. This is a first-time feature for TV-director Murphy (she directed two episodes from this year's series of "Killing Eve" for example). Awards have also gone to Toby Wallace for his portrayal of the slightly unhinged and unpredictable Moses. But for me, it was Eliza Scanlen's performance as Milla that appealed to me most and kept my attention. Other-worldly and slightly ethereal, she pulls off the role well. Scanlen was of course Beth March in the recent superb version of "Little Woman". (She's a young lady with great potential, but she needs to be careful not to get typecast as sickly waifs!)
Babyteeth was for me a curate's egg in the photography department. Cinematography was by Andrew Commis, and I found it both breathtaking and frustrating in almost equal measure. There's a scene towards the end of the movie with Milla's face half-lit in the moonlight that was reminiscent to me of the star-child in "2001: A Space Odyssey". Simply gorgeous. And scenes in a nightclub are both strangely and effectively shot. But - and art-house movies seem to mandate this approach - the movie is shot on handheld cameras. This makes a lot of the shots drift in and out of focus. Moreover - and most frustratingly for me - it makes the multitude of scene titles, employed in the telling, float ever-so-slightly against the backgrounds, with a generally nauseating effect.
I'll no doubt feel a right Charlie if Babyteeth gets into the Oscars nominations short-list. But for me, it just wasn't engaging enough to be entertaining. It's billed as a "Comedy Drama". While there were a few good comic lines, it rarely made me do more than smile. And as for the drama, I'm afraid tears were far from being spilled. It's in no way a "bad film": it just personally wasn't for me.
(For the full graphical review please check out One Mann's Movie on https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/08/25/babyteeth-you-might-have-more-fun-at-the-orthodontists/.)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Inferno (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Infernal
Dan Brown has had a bad rap over the years from snobbish reviewers who dismiss his work as “trash”. I’m sure to a large degree the multi-millionaire Dan Brown couldn’t give a toss! I personally enjoyed both the books and Ron Howard’s films of “The Da Vinci Code” and “Angels and Demons” as glossy escapism. Occasionally though books will generate a “WHHAAAT??” moment and Brown’s 2013 novel “Inferno” generated just such a response in its dramatic conclusion… and (for me at least) not in a good way. As someone always looking at script potential in books, the words “unfilmable” came to mind. So veteran screenwriter David Koepp (“Jurassic Park”, “Mission Impossible”, “Spiderman”) is to be congratulated in ‘adapting’ the story to provide a coherent screenplay.
But unfortunately it’s still arrant nonsense.
The film starts in promising style with famed symbologist Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) waking in hospital to horrific visions of hell on earth with only the attractive young nurse Dr Sienna Brooks (Felicity Jones) to soothe his nerves. A serious head wound prevents him from remembering the last 48 hours which makes it a bit tricky when a “Terminator”-style female cop (the striking Romanian actress Ana Ularu) arrives to try to kill him. Fleeing the scene, Langdon follows a typically convoluted trail of puzzles in a race to find the location of the source of a plague that if released will devastate the world’s population. In the process he has to dodge police, World Health Organisation (WHO) staff and members of a shadowy “private security organisation” trying to catch him.
The problem with the story is that it has a plague-sized hole in its plot. The actions of the main protagonist of the film, Bertrand Zobrist (Ben Foster, “The Program”), make absolutely zero sense. If he wanted to achieve his aims he would have just done it! (“No, Mr Bond – I won’t shoot you now”). Laying a devious cryptic trail for others to follow makes even less sense, particularly as he is even seen (in flashback) to be not very good at that! Quite bonkers!
Unfortunately, the more you ponder the story, the worse it gets, and it is this that fatally drags the film down despite all the good work that Hanks, Jones and director Ron Howard try to counter-balance it with.
For there are elements on the positive side of the scales. The Italian and Turkish scenes (in Florence, Venice and Istanbul) are gloriously filmed with lush colours and exotic and evocative locations. Tom Hanks is as solidly reliable as ever in the Langdon role, and its great to see Felicity “The Theory of Everything” Jones in a leading role before she disappears into obscurity again (humour: “Rogue One” is released in December).
Tom Hanks
The film has fun with romantic expectations of the Langdon and Brooks characters. Here though is Hanks with the more age-appropriate Knudsen.
The supporting cast is also of great quality. Sidse Babett Knudsen (“Borgen”) is Dr Sinsky, leader of the W.H.O. (not credited – as memorably done with Peter Capaldi in “World War Z” as “Doctor, W.H.O.”!). Irrfan (“Jurassic World”) Khan is striking as the mysterious and authoritarian “Provost”. And Omar Sy (who made such an impact in the brilliant “The Intouchables”) plays the lead W.H.O. officer in pursuit of Langdon.
Hans Zimmer again provides the soundtrack, with his beautiful series theme cleverly working its way into the music as Langdon’s memory returns. However, at various points the music become overtly noticeable, intrusive and not to my liking. A bombastic choral reworking of the theme over the end titles is stirring though.
In summary, a glossy and nonsensical disappointment.
But unfortunately it’s still arrant nonsense.
The film starts in promising style with famed symbologist Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) waking in hospital to horrific visions of hell on earth with only the attractive young nurse Dr Sienna Brooks (Felicity Jones) to soothe his nerves. A serious head wound prevents him from remembering the last 48 hours which makes it a bit tricky when a “Terminator”-style female cop (the striking Romanian actress Ana Ularu) arrives to try to kill him. Fleeing the scene, Langdon follows a typically convoluted trail of puzzles in a race to find the location of the source of a plague that if released will devastate the world’s population. In the process he has to dodge police, World Health Organisation (WHO) staff and members of a shadowy “private security organisation” trying to catch him.
The problem with the story is that it has a plague-sized hole in its plot. The actions of the main protagonist of the film, Bertrand Zobrist (Ben Foster, “The Program”), make absolutely zero sense. If he wanted to achieve his aims he would have just done it! (“No, Mr Bond – I won’t shoot you now”). Laying a devious cryptic trail for others to follow makes even less sense, particularly as he is even seen (in flashback) to be not very good at that! Quite bonkers!
Unfortunately, the more you ponder the story, the worse it gets, and it is this that fatally drags the film down despite all the good work that Hanks, Jones and director Ron Howard try to counter-balance it with.
For there are elements on the positive side of the scales. The Italian and Turkish scenes (in Florence, Venice and Istanbul) are gloriously filmed with lush colours and exotic and evocative locations. Tom Hanks is as solidly reliable as ever in the Langdon role, and its great to see Felicity “The Theory of Everything” Jones in a leading role before she disappears into obscurity again (humour: “Rogue One” is released in December).
Tom Hanks
The film has fun with romantic expectations of the Langdon and Brooks characters. Here though is Hanks with the more age-appropriate Knudsen.
The supporting cast is also of great quality. Sidse Babett Knudsen (“Borgen”) is Dr Sinsky, leader of the W.H.O. (not credited – as memorably done with Peter Capaldi in “World War Z” as “Doctor, W.H.O.”!). Irrfan (“Jurassic World”) Khan is striking as the mysterious and authoritarian “Provost”. And Omar Sy (who made such an impact in the brilliant “The Intouchables”) plays the lead W.H.O. officer in pursuit of Langdon.
Hans Zimmer again provides the soundtrack, with his beautiful series theme cleverly working its way into the music as Langdon’s memory returns. However, at various points the music become overtly noticeable, intrusive and not to my liking. A bombastic choral reworking of the theme over the end titles is stirring though.
In summary, a glossy and nonsensical disappointment.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Mary Poppins Returns (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
A valiant attempt to recreate a masterpiece.
How do you repaint a masterpiece: the Mona Lisa of children’s fantasy cinema? Some would say “You shouldn’t try”.
As I’ve said before, Mary Poppins was the first film I saw when it came out (or soon afterwards) at a very impressionable age…. I was said to have bawled my eyes out with “THE MAGIC NANNY IS GOING AWAY!!” as Julie Andrews floated off! So as my last cinema trip of 2018 I went to see this sequel, 54 years after the original, with a sense of dread. I’m relieved to say that although the film has its flaws it’s by no means the disaster I envisaged.
The plot
It’s a fairly lightweight story. Now all grown up, young Michael from the original film (Ben Whishaw) has his own family. His troubles though come not singly but in battalions since not only is he grieving a recent loss but he is also about to be evicted from 17 Cherry Tree Lane. Help is at hand in that his father, George Banks, had shares with the Fidelity Fiduciary Bank. But despite their best efforts neither he, his sister Jane (Emily Mortimer) nor their chirpy “strike a light” lamplighter friend Jack (Lin-Manuel Miranda) can find the all-important share certificates. With the deadline from bank manager Wilkins (Colin Firth) approaching, it’s fortuitous that Mary Poppins (Emily Blunt) drops in to look after the Banks children – John (Nathanael Saleh), Anabel (Pixie Davies) and Georgie (Joel Dawson) – in her own inimitable fashion.
Songs that are more Meh-ry Poppins
I know musical taste is very personal. My biggest problem with the film though was that the songs by Marc Shaiman were, to me, on the lacklustre side. Only one jumped out and struck me: the jaunty vaudeville number “A Cover is not the Book”. Elsewhere they were – to me – unmemorable and nowhere near as catchy as those of “The Greatest Showman“. (What amplified this for me was having some of the classic Sherman-brothers themes woven into the soundtrack that just made me realise what I was missing!) Richard M Sherman – now 90 – was credited with “Music Consultant” but I wonder how much input he actually had?
The other flaws
Another issue I had with the film was that it just tried WAAYYY too hard to tick off the key attributes of the original:
‘Mary in the mirror’ – check
‘Bottomless carpet bag’ – check
‘Initial fun in the nursery’ – check
‘Quirky trip to a cartoon land’ – check
‘Dance on the ceiling with a quirky relative’ – check
‘Chirpy chimney sweeps’ – check (“Er… Mr Marshall… we couldn’t get chimney sweeps… will lamplighters do?” “Yeah, good enough”)
Another thing that struck me about the film – particularly as a film aimed at kids – is just how long it is. At 2 hours and 10 minutes it’s a bladder-testing experience for adults let alone younger children. (It’s worth noting that this is still 9 minutes shorter than the original, but back in the 60’s we had FAR fewer options to be stimulated by entertainment and our attention spans were – I think – much longer as a result!)
What it does get right
But with this whinging aside, the film does get a number of things spit-spot on.
Emily Blunt is near perfection as Poppins. (In the interests of balance my wife found her bizarrely clipped accent very grating, but I suspect P.L. Travers would have approved!). Broadway star Lin-Manuel Miranda also does a good job as Jack, although you wonder whether the ‘society of cockney actors’ must again be in a big grump about the casting! I found Emily Mortimer just delightful as the grown-up Jane, although Ben Whishaw‘s Michael didn’t particularly connect with me.
Almost unrecognisable was David Warner as the now wheelchair-bound Admiral Boom. His first mate is none other than Jim Norton of “Father Ted” Bishop Brennan fame (thanks to my daughter Jenn for pointing that one out)!
Also watch out (I’d largely missed it before I realised!) for a nice pavement cameo by Karen Dotrice, the original Jane, asking directions to number 19 Cherry Tree Lane.
What the film also gets right is to implement the old-school animation of the “Jolly Holidays” segment of the original. That’s a really smart move. Filmed at Shepperton Studios in London, this is once again a great advert for Britain’s film technicians. The London sets and the costumes (by the great Sandy Powell) are just superb.
Some cameo cherries on the cake
Finally, the aces in the hole are the two cameos near the end of the film. And they would have been lovely surprises as well since neither name appears in the opening credits. It’s therefore a CRYING SHAME that they chose to let the cat out of the bag in the trailer (BLOODY MARKETING EXECS!). In case you haven’t seen the trailer, I won’t spoil it for you here. But as a magical movie experience the first of those cameos moved me close to tears. He also delivers a hum-dinger of a plot twist that is a genuinely welcome crossover from the first film.
Final Thoughts
Rob Marshall directs, and with a pretty impossible task he delivers an end-product that, while it didn’t completely thrill me, did well not to trash my delicate hopes and dreams either. Having just listened to Kermode and Mayo’s review (and it seems that Mark Kermode places Poppins on a similar pedestal to me) the songs (and therefore the “Place Where Lost Things Go” song) just didn’t resonate with me in the same way, and so, unlike Kermode, I mentally never bridged the gap to safely enjoying it.
But what we all think is secondary. Because if some three or four year old out there gets a similarly lifelong love of the cinema by watching this, then that’s all that matters.
As I’ve said before, Mary Poppins was the first film I saw when it came out (or soon afterwards) at a very impressionable age…. I was said to have bawled my eyes out with “THE MAGIC NANNY IS GOING AWAY!!” as Julie Andrews floated off! So as my last cinema trip of 2018 I went to see this sequel, 54 years after the original, with a sense of dread. I’m relieved to say that although the film has its flaws it’s by no means the disaster I envisaged.
The plot
It’s a fairly lightweight story. Now all grown up, young Michael from the original film (Ben Whishaw) has his own family. His troubles though come not singly but in battalions since not only is he grieving a recent loss but he is also about to be evicted from 17 Cherry Tree Lane. Help is at hand in that his father, George Banks, had shares with the Fidelity Fiduciary Bank. But despite their best efforts neither he, his sister Jane (Emily Mortimer) nor their chirpy “strike a light” lamplighter friend Jack (Lin-Manuel Miranda) can find the all-important share certificates. With the deadline from bank manager Wilkins (Colin Firth) approaching, it’s fortuitous that Mary Poppins (Emily Blunt) drops in to look after the Banks children – John (Nathanael Saleh), Anabel (Pixie Davies) and Georgie (Joel Dawson) – in her own inimitable fashion.
Songs that are more Meh-ry Poppins
I know musical taste is very personal. My biggest problem with the film though was that the songs by Marc Shaiman were, to me, on the lacklustre side. Only one jumped out and struck me: the jaunty vaudeville number “A Cover is not the Book”. Elsewhere they were – to me – unmemorable and nowhere near as catchy as those of “The Greatest Showman“. (What amplified this for me was having some of the classic Sherman-brothers themes woven into the soundtrack that just made me realise what I was missing!) Richard M Sherman – now 90 – was credited with “Music Consultant” but I wonder how much input he actually had?
The other flaws
Another issue I had with the film was that it just tried WAAYYY too hard to tick off the key attributes of the original:
‘Mary in the mirror’ – check
‘Bottomless carpet bag’ – check
‘Initial fun in the nursery’ – check
‘Quirky trip to a cartoon land’ – check
‘Dance on the ceiling with a quirky relative’ – check
‘Chirpy chimney sweeps’ – check (“Er… Mr Marshall… we couldn’t get chimney sweeps… will lamplighters do?” “Yeah, good enough”)
Another thing that struck me about the film – particularly as a film aimed at kids – is just how long it is. At 2 hours and 10 minutes it’s a bladder-testing experience for adults let alone younger children. (It’s worth noting that this is still 9 minutes shorter than the original, but back in the 60’s we had FAR fewer options to be stimulated by entertainment and our attention spans were – I think – much longer as a result!)
What it does get right
But with this whinging aside, the film does get a number of things spit-spot on.
Emily Blunt is near perfection as Poppins. (In the interests of balance my wife found her bizarrely clipped accent very grating, but I suspect P.L. Travers would have approved!). Broadway star Lin-Manuel Miranda also does a good job as Jack, although you wonder whether the ‘society of cockney actors’ must again be in a big grump about the casting! I found Emily Mortimer just delightful as the grown-up Jane, although Ben Whishaw‘s Michael didn’t particularly connect with me.
Almost unrecognisable was David Warner as the now wheelchair-bound Admiral Boom. His first mate is none other than Jim Norton of “Father Ted” Bishop Brennan fame (thanks to my daughter Jenn for pointing that one out)!
Also watch out (I’d largely missed it before I realised!) for a nice pavement cameo by Karen Dotrice, the original Jane, asking directions to number 19 Cherry Tree Lane.
What the film also gets right is to implement the old-school animation of the “Jolly Holidays” segment of the original. That’s a really smart move. Filmed at Shepperton Studios in London, this is once again a great advert for Britain’s film technicians. The London sets and the costumes (by the great Sandy Powell) are just superb.
Some cameo cherries on the cake
Finally, the aces in the hole are the two cameos near the end of the film. And they would have been lovely surprises as well since neither name appears in the opening credits. It’s therefore a CRYING SHAME that they chose to let the cat out of the bag in the trailer (BLOODY MARKETING EXECS!). In case you haven’t seen the trailer, I won’t spoil it for you here. But as a magical movie experience the first of those cameos moved me close to tears. He also delivers a hum-dinger of a plot twist that is a genuinely welcome crossover from the first film.
Final Thoughts
Rob Marshall directs, and with a pretty impossible task he delivers an end-product that, while it didn’t completely thrill me, did well not to trash my delicate hopes and dreams either. Having just listened to Kermode and Mayo’s review (and it seems that Mark Kermode places Poppins on a similar pedestal to me) the songs (and therefore the “Place Where Lost Things Go” song) just didn’t resonate with me in the same way, and so, unlike Kermode, I mentally never bridged the gap to safely enjoying it.
But what we all think is secondary. Because if some three or four year old out there gets a similarly lifelong love of the cinema by watching this, then that’s all that matters.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated It (2017) in Movies
Feb 14, 2018
IT is very good
I met the clown and IT is...fascinating, gripping, thrilling, humorous, intense and good.
But...is it scary? Sure...scary enough, but this adaptation of Stephen King's bestseller is much, much more than a scary movie.
One of the best screen adaptations of a Stephen King book, ever, IT tells the story of a group of13 year olds in Derry, Maine (one of the main towns featured in a variety of King's stories). It is 1989 and children have been going missing at an alarming rate. The adults in the town seem impassive about this, and when the younger brother of one of the gang goes missing, this "Loser's Club" investigates. What they find is a horrifying evil at the center of it all.
Like the plot of this film, there is much, much more going on in this film than what that last paragraph suggests, for this story is not only about the mystery of the missing children, it is a loving look back at childhood, friendship, caring and bonding. Think of this film as STAND BY ME meets...well...a killer clown.
And the clown IS killer. As played by Bill Skarsgard (TV's THE CROWN), Pennywise The Dancing Clown is slyly sinister, drawing the children in as a spider would a fly. It is only when the children are close (and alone) does he drop the guise of niceness and pounce. This is an intense and terrifyingly terrific performance, keeping the fine line between realism and camp (a line that Tim Curry trounced all over in the TV Mini-series version of this material in the 1980's).
I'm a big fan of Stephen King's writing (having read nearly all of his books and short stories) and I walked out of the theater thinking "finally, someone figured out the right way to make a Stephen King thriller work on the screen" and that someone is Director Andy Muschietti (MAMA). He guides this film with a strong hand, not wavering in his vision or sense of purpose as to where (and how) he wants this story to go. He let's the young actor's lead this story, with Skargard's clown pouncing every now and then. This works well, especially when infusing something that is sorely lacking, typically, in these types of films - humor.
And the humor, mostly, falls into the hands of Richie Tozier (Finn Wolfhard, STRANGER THINGS). He is an absolute bright spot injecting just the wrong (or maybe it is right?) comment in a tense situation, just as a 13 year old boy would do. As part of the "Loser's Club", he holds a bright spot in keeping things together when the mood threatens to get too grim or dire. And grim and dire is what is following this set of "Loser's", a veritable "who's who" of loser stereotypes. There is the "fat kid", Ben Hanscome (Jeremy Ray Taylor, ANT-MAN, in a sweet performance), the "always sick kid with the overbearing mother", Eddie Kasbrak (Jack Dylan Grazer), the "Jewish kid", Stanley Uris (Wyatt Oleff) and the "Black Kid", Mike Hanlon (Chosen Jacobs).
But the heart and sole of this film is the two main leads of the "Loser's Club", Bill Denbrough (Jaeden Lieberher, star of two criminally under-viewed gems MIDNIGHT SPECIAL and ST. VINCENT) and Beverly Marsh (Sophia Lillis, a relative newcomer that bears watching in the future). Both are harboring deep, emotional scars - Bill blames himself for the death of his brother by Pennywise and Beverly is (wrongly) viewed as a 13 year old slut by school rumor and innuendo and is sexually harassed by her father. The relationship between these two and the rest of the Loser's Club is the real treat of this film and the actor's are up to the challenge to draw us in and care about what happens to them when they are, ultimately, separated and confronted by Pennywise.
I was surprised by how little graphic gore there was in this film (though there is plenty of blood) and there is a little too many "jump scares" for my taste, but these are quibbles for a very good, very intense "scary film".
I floated out of the cinema after seeing this film You'll float too.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
But...is it scary? Sure...scary enough, but this adaptation of Stephen King's bestseller is much, much more than a scary movie.
One of the best screen adaptations of a Stephen King book, ever, IT tells the story of a group of13 year olds in Derry, Maine (one of the main towns featured in a variety of King's stories). It is 1989 and children have been going missing at an alarming rate. The adults in the town seem impassive about this, and when the younger brother of one of the gang goes missing, this "Loser's Club" investigates. What they find is a horrifying evil at the center of it all.
Like the plot of this film, there is much, much more going on in this film than what that last paragraph suggests, for this story is not only about the mystery of the missing children, it is a loving look back at childhood, friendship, caring and bonding. Think of this film as STAND BY ME meets...well...a killer clown.
And the clown IS killer. As played by Bill Skarsgard (TV's THE CROWN), Pennywise The Dancing Clown is slyly sinister, drawing the children in as a spider would a fly. It is only when the children are close (and alone) does he drop the guise of niceness and pounce. This is an intense and terrifyingly terrific performance, keeping the fine line between realism and camp (a line that Tim Curry trounced all over in the TV Mini-series version of this material in the 1980's).
I'm a big fan of Stephen King's writing (having read nearly all of his books and short stories) and I walked out of the theater thinking "finally, someone figured out the right way to make a Stephen King thriller work on the screen" and that someone is Director Andy Muschietti (MAMA). He guides this film with a strong hand, not wavering in his vision or sense of purpose as to where (and how) he wants this story to go. He let's the young actor's lead this story, with Skargard's clown pouncing every now and then. This works well, especially when infusing something that is sorely lacking, typically, in these types of films - humor.
And the humor, mostly, falls into the hands of Richie Tozier (Finn Wolfhard, STRANGER THINGS). He is an absolute bright spot injecting just the wrong (or maybe it is right?) comment in a tense situation, just as a 13 year old boy would do. As part of the "Loser's Club", he holds a bright spot in keeping things together when the mood threatens to get too grim or dire. And grim and dire is what is following this set of "Loser's", a veritable "who's who" of loser stereotypes. There is the "fat kid", Ben Hanscome (Jeremy Ray Taylor, ANT-MAN, in a sweet performance), the "always sick kid with the overbearing mother", Eddie Kasbrak (Jack Dylan Grazer), the "Jewish kid", Stanley Uris (Wyatt Oleff) and the "Black Kid", Mike Hanlon (Chosen Jacobs).
But the heart and sole of this film is the two main leads of the "Loser's Club", Bill Denbrough (Jaeden Lieberher, star of two criminally under-viewed gems MIDNIGHT SPECIAL and ST. VINCENT) and Beverly Marsh (Sophia Lillis, a relative newcomer that bears watching in the future). Both are harboring deep, emotional scars - Bill blames himself for the death of his brother by Pennywise and Beverly is (wrongly) viewed as a 13 year old slut by school rumor and innuendo and is sexually harassed by her father. The relationship between these two and the rest of the Loser's Club is the real treat of this film and the actor's are up to the challenge to draw us in and care about what happens to them when they are, ultimately, separated and confronted by Pennywise.
I was surprised by how little graphic gore there was in this film (though there is plenty of blood) and there is a little too many "jump scares" for my taste, but these are quibbles for a very good, very intense "scary film".
I floated out of the cinema after seeing this film You'll float too.
Letter Grade: A-
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated The Last Time I Lied in Books
Aug 19, 2018
Pacing is a bit slow (1 more)
Characters act a lot younger than their age
An Alright Read
I was so excited to read The Last Time I Lied by Riley Sager. It had such an interesting synopsis, definitely one that piqued my interest. While this book didn't meet my expectations of it, it was still a fairly good read.
The pacing starts off painfully slow in The Last Time I Lied. I had to force myself to keep reading. I was so bored. Luckily, the pacing picks up around chapter 12 or thereabouts. Each chapter is more fast paced than the previous one.
The plot was definitely interesting even if it does take awhile to really get going. I found myself sucked into the mystery of what happened to Vivian, Allison, and Natalie. I couldn't get enough of the story. The Last Time I Lied had quite a few plot twists that I didn't see coming! Every time I thought I had figured out who the guilty party was, I was proved wrong. Saying all that, I definitely felt like some of my questions weren't answered especially one at the end involving Emma. I don't want to say what it is because it would give away a spoiler. I also don't understand why a certain area wasn't searched and why a certain character didn't retrace their steps when the girls went missing. I don't want to say too much because I don't want to give away any spoilers. Also, the ending felt a little rushed to me, and I didn't like how the author uses "you" to describe what is actually happening to Emma. He does this in two chapters only, thankfully.
The world building was done almost perfectly. I did feel like I was in camp with Emma. I felt like I was experiencing everything Emma did. Riley Sager, the author, did a fantastic job of setting up everything with his wonderful descriptions and what not. The only problem is that the dialogue makes this book sounds more like a young adult novel rather than an adult novel. During my whole time reading The Last Time I Lied, it was hard to picture all the adult characters as adults. The way they spoke and acted reminded me of the way a bunch of teenagers would act. One other thing that took away from the world building being perfect was that I had a hard time believing the main culprit could have gotten away with the crime for so long without being discovered. Again, I can't say too much because of spoilers.
I enjoyed the characters in The Last Time I Lied. I empathized with Emma. I admired her bravery, and I could definitely relate to her sense of wanting to fit in especially with the older girls. However, even though Emma was supposed to be 28 in the book, she came across as sounding like she was about 16. The rest of the grown up characters, with the exception of Franny and Ben, also reminded me of a bunch of 16 year olds. Saying that, I did enjoy all the characters, and while they did sound younger than their actual age, I thought they were fleshed out well enough. Two of my other favorite characters were Vivian and Miranda. There was just something about them that I enjoyed reading about. One character I thought was pointless was Mindy. She's not important to the story, and I just felt like the book could have done without her.
There are scenes of violence, swearing, a sex scene (although not graphic), alcohol use (of age and underage), smoking, and mental illness is mentioned a few times.
Overall, The Last Time I Lied by Riley Sager is a good read. The plot is interesting enough, and the characters are fun. However, there were a few things that kept this from being a great read such as the characters not acting like their age and some unanswered questions. The ending also lets the book down a little. However, I would recommend The Last Time I Lied by Riley Sager to others.
The pacing starts off painfully slow in The Last Time I Lied. I had to force myself to keep reading. I was so bored. Luckily, the pacing picks up around chapter 12 or thereabouts. Each chapter is more fast paced than the previous one.
The plot was definitely interesting even if it does take awhile to really get going. I found myself sucked into the mystery of what happened to Vivian, Allison, and Natalie. I couldn't get enough of the story. The Last Time I Lied had quite a few plot twists that I didn't see coming! Every time I thought I had figured out who the guilty party was, I was proved wrong. Saying all that, I definitely felt like some of my questions weren't answered especially one at the end involving Emma. I don't want to say what it is because it would give away a spoiler. I also don't understand why a certain area wasn't searched and why a certain character didn't retrace their steps when the girls went missing. I don't want to say too much because I don't want to give away any spoilers. Also, the ending felt a little rushed to me, and I didn't like how the author uses "you" to describe what is actually happening to Emma. He does this in two chapters only, thankfully.
The world building was done almost perfectly. I did feel like I was in camp with Emma. I felt like I was experiencing everything Emma did. Riley Sager, the author, did a fantastic job of setting up everything with his wonderful descriptions and what not. The only problem is that the dialogue makes this book sounds more like a young adult novel rather than an adult novel. During my whole time reading The Last Time I Lied, it was hard to picture all the adult characters as adults. The way they spoke and acted reminded me of the way a bunch of teenagers would act. One other thing that took away from the world building being perfect was that I had a hard time believing the main culprit could have gotten away with the crime for so long without being discovered. Again, I can't say too much because of spoilers.
I enjoyed the characters in The Last Time I Lied. I empathized with Emma. I admired her bravery, and I could definitely relate to her sense of wanting to fit in especially with the older girls. However, even though Emma was supposed to be 28 in the book, she came across as sounding like she was about 16. The rest of the grown up characters, with the exception of Franny and Ben, also reminded me of a bunch of 16 year olds. Saying that, I did enjoy all the characters, and while they did sound younger than their actual age, I thought they were fleshed out well enough. Two of my other favorite characters were Vivian and Miranda. There was just something about them that I enjoyed reading about. One character I thought was pointless was Mindy. She's not important to the story, and I just felt like the book could have done without her.
There are scenes of violence, swearing, a sex scene (although not graphic), alcohol use (of age and underage), smoking, and mental illness is mentioned a few times.
Overall, The Last Time I Lied by Riley Sager is a good read. The plot is interesting enough, and the characters are fun. However, there were a few things that kept this from being a great read such as the characters not acting like their age and some unanswered questions. The ending also lets the book down a little. However, I would recommend The Last Time I Lied by Riley Sager to others.
Darren (1599 KP) rated 10 Cloverfield Lane (2016) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019 (Updated Jun 20, 2019)
Contains spoilers, click to show
Story: 10 Cloverfield Lane starts as we see Michelle (Winstead) walking away from her married life with Ben only to find herself in a car accident. Upon waking up she finds her chained up in a bed as she desperately looks for a way out. Michelle’s capturer is Howard (Goodman) who claims to have saved her from an attack on America. Michelle isn’t the only other person in the bunker with Emmett (Gallagher Jr) also there.
Howard has been preparing this bunker for years and has everything needed to survive in luxury with electricity and plumbing. The three have to learn to live with each other as the paranoia about what has really happened keeps rising.
10 Cloverfield Lane is a very clever thriller that creates the paranoia of what could be going happening through nearly the whole film. We are sat wondering what is happening outside the bunker and what will happen inside the bunker. The downside from where I am sat was knowing it was a sequel, if this was just about the bunker and the final twist was that it was in the Cloverfield universe we would have found ourselves fully on Michelle’s side but as we know it is all real we kind of side with the paranoia filled Howard. This is good and tense throughout but the title alone takes away something truly special about the film.
Actor Review
John Goodman: Howard is the man who has built the bunker, he has let both Michelle and Emmett stay in his bunker as he believes America would come under attack from something. He is ex-navy and very paranoid, we are left wondering whether h is crazy or not though. John is great in this role where we see him using the talent he has.howard
Mary Elizabeth Winstead: Michelle is a young woman who is wondering about her life before finding herself being in a car crash. She wakes up in the bunker where she has to learn to live with Howard and Emmett. She is never comfortable there always trying to find a way out. Mary is great in this strong female role.michelle
John Gallagher Jr: Emmett was hired to help build the bunker and found himself inside when the attacks happened. He tries to be nice to Michele which only pushes Howard into his paranoia. John is good in this role if only the supporting of the three.
Support Cast: 10 Cloverfield Lane doesn’t have many other characters with most just being in one scene.
Director Review: Dan Trachtenberg – Dan gives us a thriller that really does keep up guessing what is real.
Horror: 10 Cloverfield Lane gives us the idea where we just don’t know what is going on showing the paranoia driving the horror.
Mystery: 10 Cloverfield Lane keeps us guessing from start to finish.
Sci-Fi: 10 Cloverfield Lane enters into a world which could have a post-apocalyptic world but never really understand.
Thriller: 10 Cloverfield Lane keeps us on edge for the whole film where we are left to wonder where the film will go.
Settings: 10 Cloverfield Lane has nearly the whole film inside the bunker where we see the tension rise.
Special Effects: 10 Cloverfield Lane has good effects when needed without being in the film being all about special effects.
Suggestion: 10 Cloverfield Lane is one for fans of the original to enjoy but just remember this is only in the same universe rather than a sequel. (Watch)
Best Part: Performances.
Worst Part: Title is misleading.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: We could have.
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Budget: $15 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 43 Minutes
Tagline: Something is coming
Trivia: Howard states that he worked on satellites for the military. Michelle sees an envelope in the bunker from a company called Bold Futura. Bold Futura is the company responsible for the satellite that is seen crashing into the ocean in the ending of Cloverfield (2008) which is what is believed to be responsible for disturbing the creature.
Overall: Great concept we don’t see in sequels with this only being in the same universe only.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/03/31/10-cloverfield-lane-2016/
Howard has been preparing this bunker for years and has everything needed to survive in luxury with electricity and plumbing. The three have to learn to live with each other as the paranoia about what has really happened keeps rising.
10 Cloverfield Lane is a very clever thriller that creates the paranoia of what could be going happening through nearly the whole film. We are sat wondering what is happening outside the bunker and what will happen inside the bunker. The downside from where I am sat was knowing it was a sequel, if this was just about the bunker and the final twist was that it was in the Cloverfield universe we would have found ourselves fully on Michelle’s side but as we know it is all real we kind of side with the paranoia filled Howard. This is good and tense throughout but the title alone takes away something truly special about the film.
Actor Review
John Goodman: Howard is the man who has built the bunker, he has let both Michelle and Emmett stay in his bunker as he believes America would come under attack from something. He is ex-navy and very paranoid, we are left wondering whether h is crazy or not though. John is great in this role where we see him using the talent he has.howard
Mary Elizabeth Winstead: Michelle is a young woman who is wondering about her life before finding herself being in a car crash. She wakes up in the bunker where she has to learn to live with Howard and Emmett. She is never comfortable there always trying to find a way out. Mary is great in this strong female role.michelle
John Gallagher Jr: Emmett was hired to help build the bunker and found himself inside when the attacks happened. He tries to be nice to Michele which only pushes Howard into his paranoia. John is good in this role if only the supporting of the three.
Support Cast: 10 Cloverfield Lane doesn’t have many other characters with most just being in one scene.
Director Review: Dan Trachtenberg – Dan gives us a thriller that really does keep up guessing what is real.
Horror: 10 Cloverfield Lane gives us the idea where we just don’t know what is going on showing the paranoia driving the horror.
Mystery: 10 Cloverfield Lane keeps us guessing from start to finish.
Sci-Fi: 10 Cloverfield Lane enters into a world which could have a post-apocalyptic world but never really understand.
Thriller: 10 Cloverfield Lane keeps us on edge for the whole film where we are left to wonder where the film will go.
Settings: 10 Cloverfield Lane has nearly the whole film inside the bunker where we see the tension rise.
Special Effects: 10 Cloverfield Lane has good effects when needed without being in the film being all about special effects.
Suggestion: 10 Cloverfield Lane is one for fans of the original to enjoy but just remember this is only in the same universe rather than a sequel. (Watch)
Best Part: Performances.
Worst Part: Title is misleading.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: We could have.
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Budget: $15 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 43 Minutes
Tagline: Something is coming
Trivia: Howard states that he worked on satellites for the military. Michelle sees an envelope in the bunker from a company called Bold Futura. Bold Futura is the company responsible for the satellite that is seen crashing into the ocean in the ending of Cloverfield (2008) which is what is believed to be responsible for disturbing the creature.
Overall: Great concept we don’t see in sequels with this only being in the same universe only.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/03/31/10-cloverfield-lane-2016/