Search
Search results
Darren (1599 KP) rated A Walk In The Woods (2015) in Movies
Jul 8, 2019
Director: Ken Kwapis
Writer: Michael Arndt, Bill Holderman (Screenplay) Bill Bryson (Book)
Starring: Robert Redford, Nick Nolte, Emma Thompson, Mary Steenburgen, Nick Offerman, Kristen Schaal, R. Keith Harris
Plot: After spending two decades in England, Bill Bryson returns to the U.S., where he decides the best way to connect with his homeland is to hike the Appalachian Trail with one of his oldest friends.
Tagline – When you push yourself to the edge, the real fun begins.
Runtime: 1 Hour 44 Minutes
There may be spoilers in the rest of the review
Verdict: Never Captures the Sense of Adventure
Story: A Walk in the Woods starts when author Bill Bryson (Redford) returns to America after years of travel books, where he has never written about his homeland. Bill wants to walk the Appalachian Trail, over 2000miles, his wife Catherine (Thompson) isn’t happy with this decision forcing him to go with somebody, which sees him reconnect with an old friend Stephen Katz (Nolte).
Even though Stephen isn’t in the best shape for this hike, he is the only person that accepts the offer and the two set out on the 6-month long hike, hoping to create his next best seller, while reconnecting with an old friend.
Thoughts on A Walk in the Woods
Characters – Bill Bryson is a travel author that has been writing about hiking trails all over the world, only he has never written about America, he wants to change this, hoping to give himself a chance to experience the American walking trail of the Appalachian Trail, one of the most challenging hikes in the country. Stephen Katz is the only person that is willing to join Bill on his adventure, the two have had their differences in the past, he isn’t in the best shape for this adventure and sees it as a chance to reconnect with an old friend. Catherine is the wife of Bill that doesn’t want Bill to go on this hike, she is worried about everything that could happen, forcing him to go with somebody on the trip. Jeannie is one of the ladies that they guys meet on the journey, she is one of the many people they meet along the way.
Performances – Robert Redford and Nick Nolte are wonderful together in the leading role, you get to believe their friendship has been through the ups and downs life has to offer, only to let them get their solo moments when needed for the film. when we get to the supporting cast Emma Thompson does get her chance to shine without getting too much screen time.
Story – The story here follows an author who sets out on a new adventure travelling the Appalachian Trail, first for himself and secondly for his latest book, he reconnects with an old friend to join him on this adventure. This story does have a big difference from the book which sees a big age change, which does change the story, which is more focused on the older generation that are seeing their friends die and wanting to do another adventure before it is too late. The trip itself never gets shown in distance scale either, we know how far it is, but we don’t seem to learn where it starts and finishes or what locations we go through.
Adventure/Biopic/Comedy – The adventure side of the film does take the men on with a location that will be one of the highlights of the film, the biopic side of the film does use the real names, but not the real ages which does change the dynamic of the story completely. The comedy will give you a couple of laughs along the way, without it being a full-blown comedy.
Settings – The settings in the film do give us a couple of beautiful shots, though we don’t get to feel the distance being travelled.
Scene of the Movie – Mary Ellen.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – We never feel the distance they are traveling through the film.
Final Thoughts – This is an adventure film that doesn’t give us the sense of adventure that it could have, we do get great performances, but the story never draws us in the way it could.
Overall: Disappointing adventure.
Rating
Writer: Michael Arndt, Bill Holderman (Screenplay) Bill Bryson (Book)
Starring: Robert Redford, Nick Nolte, Emma Thompson, Mary Steenburgen, Nick Offerman, Kristen Schaal, R. Keith Harris
Plot: After spending two decades in England, Bill Bryson returns to the U.S., where he decides the best way to connect with his homeland is to hike the Appalachian Trail with one of his oldest friends.
Tagline – When you push yourself to the edge, the real fun begins.
Runtime: 1 Hour 44 Minutes
There may be spoilers in the rest of the review
Verdict: Never Captures the Sense of Adventure
Story: A Walk in the Woods starts when author Bill Bryson (Redford) returns to America after years of travel books, where he has never written about his homeland. Bill wants to walk the Appalachian Trail, over 2000miles, his wife Catherine (Thompson) isn’t happy with this decision forcing him to go with somebody, which sees him reconnect with an old friend Stephen Katz (Nolte).
Even though Stephen isn’t in the best shape for this hike, he is the only person that accepts the offer and the two set out on the 6-month long hike, hoping to create his next best seller, while reconnecting with an old friend.
Thoughts on A Walk in the Woods
Characters – Bill Bryson is a travel author that has been writing about hiking trails all over the world, only he has never written about America, he wants to change this, hoping to give himself a chance to experience the American walking trail of the Appalachian Trail, one of the most challenging hikes in the country. Stephen Katz is the only person that is willing to join Bill on his adventure, the two have had their differences in the past, he isn’t in the best shape for this adventure and sees it as a chance to reconnect with an old friend. Catherine is the wife of Bill that doesn’t want Bill to go on this hike, she is worried about everything that could happen, forcing him to go with somebody on the trip. Jeannie is one of the ladies that they guys meet on the journey, she is one of the many people they meet along the way.
Performances – Robert Redford and Nick Nolte are wonderful together in the leading role, you get to believe their friendship has been through the ups and downs life has to offer, only to let them get their solo moments when needed for the film. when we get to the supporting cast Emma Thompson does get her chance to shine without getting too much screen time.
Story – The story here follows an author who sets out on a new adventure travelling the Appalachian Trail, first for himself and secondly for his latest book, he reconnects with an old friend to join him on this adventure. This story does have a big difference from the book which sees a big age change, which does change the story, which is more focused on the older generation that are seeing their friends die and wanting to do another adventure before it is too late. The trip itself never gets shown in distance scale either, we know how far it is, but we don’t seem to learn where it starts and finishes or what locations we go through.
Adventure/Biopic/Comedy – The adventure side of the film does take the men on with a location that will be one of the highlights of the film, the biopic side of the film does use the real names, but not the real ages which does change the dynamic of the story completely. The comedy will give you a couple of laughs along the way, without it being a full-blown comedy.
Settings – The settings in the film do give us a couple of beautiful shots, though we don’t get to feel the distance being travelled.
Scene of the Movie – Mary Ellen.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – We never feel the distance they are traveling through the film.
Final Thoughts – This is an adventure film that doesn’t give us the sense of adventure that it could have, we do get great performances, but the story never draws us in the way it could.
Overall: Disappointing adventure.
Rating
Merissa (12069 KP) rated Colorado Wild (Colorado Heart, #1) in Books
Apr 15, 2023
The start of this book confused me as it didn't seem to be about the men mentioned in the synopsis but as you carry on reading, it all becomes clear. This book doesn't just focus on the main characters mentioned but on the group as a whole, as you learn about who they are and what they do. There was a change in names as well from Bill to Billy. Not much difference, admittedly, but it still jolted for a moment as it was right at the beginning when you are just getting to know the characters and didn't know if these were two different ones, or one and the same!
The storyline is a good one and shows promise. The characters could do with a bit more development and the points of view need to be slowed down some. Sometimes I wasn't sure which one was speaking, or to whom. With a bit of proofreading and editing, I think this book could shine. As it is, I enjoyed the story and look forward to learning more about the Wild Bluff boys.
* A copy of this book was provided to me with no requirements for a review. I voluntarily read this book; the comments here are my honest opinion. *
Merissa
Archaeolibrarian - I Dig Good Books!
Aug 13, 2015
The storyline is a good one and shows promise. The characters could do with a bit more development and the points of view need to be slowed down some. Sometimes I wasn't sure which one was speaking, or to whom. With a bit of proofreading and editing, I think this book could shine. As it is, I enjoyed the story and look forward to learning more about the Wild Bluff boys.
* A copy of this book was provided to me with no requirements for a review. I voluntarily read this book; the comments here are my honest opinion. *
Merissa
Archaeolibrarian - I Dig Good Books!
Aug 13, 2015
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated It: Chapter Two (2019) in Movies
Sep 7, 2019
Hader steals the film
The "secret sauce" of the first chapter of IT (based on the horror novel by Stephen King) was NOT the gore or scares that were thrown at the audience, it was the characters and the performances that made that first film work. The young members of the "Loser's Club" - and especially the young actors populating these characters - created people that you wanted to root and cheer for throughout their ordeal with Pennywise the Clown and the bullies of Derry.
So...it should have been a "no-brainer" for Director Andy Muschietti and the filmmakers to repeat that pattern - it worked very, very well. But, somewhere along the way they forgot what made the first film good and Muschietti and new screenwriter Gary Dauberman decided to focus on the horror, gore and frights and let their talented group of adult actors inhabit the characters with little (maybe no) help from the screenplay.
And...the result is a "fine" film that wraps up the first film just "fine", but ultimately falls short of that first film and definitely falls short of what "could have been".
IT: CHAPTER TWO picks up 27 years later when Pennywise the Dancing Clown comes back (per his cycle) to terrorize the children of Derry once again. The Loser's Club from the first film band back together (per their pact at the end of the first film) to battle - and finally destroy - this dark threat.
The filmmakers pull a strong group of actors together to play the adult versions of the Loser's Club - headlined by Jessica Chastain (ZERO DARK THIRTY) as the adult Beverly Marsh and James McAvoy (Professor X in the recent run of X-MEN films) as the adult Bill Denborough. I find McAvoy to be (for the most part) a solid, if unspectacular, actor and he is true to from here. Solid, but unspectacular in a role that was written that way. Chastain, perhaps, is the biggest disappointment for me in this film as the young Beverly Marsh (as portrayed by Sophia Lillis) was the highlight of the first film but here this character is...bland and somewhat boring. I don't fault Chastain (an actress that I usually enjoy very, very much), I blame the screenplay which saddles these two characters with an underwritten "love triangle" with the adult Ben Hascombe (Jay Ryan - somewhat of a newcomer, who has smoldering good looks, but not much else going for him). It was rumored that Chris Pratt was circling this character (I would imagine he walked away when he saw the screenplay). That's too bad, for he might have brought some life to all 3 of these characters.
Faring better is the usually reliable Isiah Mustafa (TV's SHADOWHUNTERS) as the adult Mike Hanlon, the only one of the Loser's Club who stayed in Derry to keep a vigilant watch against Pennywise' return. He has a haunted air about him - certainly in keeping with the the past that only he remembers. And Andy Bean (SWAMP THING) has a nice couple of moments as the adult Stanley Uris.
The only truly interesting dynamic of the returning Loser's Club is the characters and love/hate relationship between the older Eddie Kaspbrak, the hypochondriac (played by James Ransome, TV's THE WIRE) and smart-mouth Richie Tolzier (inhabited by SNL vet Bill Hader). While Ransome's Eddie is quite a bit more interesting than he was as a youth (and that's no slight on Jack Dylan Grazer who played the younger Eddie, I just found Ransome's portrayal more nuanced and somewhat more interesting). But it is Hader who steals this film. His Richie is constantly using humor to cover his emotions building on the interesting characterization that Finn Wolfhard brought to the younger version and giving us more. Hader is a master comedian, so handles the comedy parts as deftly as you would think he would, but it is when the other emotions - fear, rage, love - come barreling out of him that Hader elevates this character (and the movie) to a higher level. I would be thrilled if Hader was nominated for an Oscar for this role - he is that good.
Also coming back are all of the "kids" from the first film to flesh out some scenes - and set up some other scenes/moments by the adults - they are a welcome addition and shine a spotlight at how weak - and underwritten - most of the adult characters are in this film.
Bill Skarsgard is seen quite a bit more as Pennywise - and that makes him less menacing and threatening (but still scary) and there are 2 fun cameos along the way by 2 prominent individuals, so that was fun.
There is a running gag throughout the film about author Bill Denborough (the surrogate for Stephen King) not being able to write a decent ending - a critique that King receives constantly - and they changed the ending of this film from the book. I am a big fan of the book, but would agree that the ending of the book was not that good, so was open to this trying a different way to end things...and...this new ending lands about as well as the original ending (oh well...).
But that's just a quibble, for by that time you've ridden with these characters for over 5 hours and while the first chapter is stronger than the first, the journey is good (enough) for an enjoyable (enough) time at the Cineplex.
Come for the Loser's Club and the scares - stay for Hader's Oscar worthy performance.
Letter Grade: B+
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
So...it should have been a "no-brainer" for Director Andy Muschietti and the filmmakers to repeat that pattern - it worked very, very well. But, somewhere along the way they forgot what made the first film good and Muschietti and new screenwriter Gary Dauberman decided to focus on the horror, gore and frights and let their talented group of adult actors inhabit the characters with little (maybe no) help from the screenplay.
And...the result is a "fine" film that wraps up the first film just "fine", but ultimately falls short of that first film and definitely falls short of what "could have been".
IT: CHAPTER TWO picks up 27 years later when Pennywise the Dancing Clown comes back (per his cycle) to terrorize the children of Derry once again. The Loser's Club from the first film band back together (per their pact at the end of the first film) to battle - and finally destroy - this dark threat.
The filmmakers pull a strong group of actors together to play the adult versions of the Loser's Club - headlined by Jessica Chastain (ZERO DARK THIRTY) as the adult Beverly Marsh and James McAvoy (Professor X in the recent run of X-MEN films) as the adult Bill Denborough. I find McAvoy to be (for the most part) a solid, if unspectacular, actor and he is true to from here. Solid, but unspectacular in a role that was written that way. Chastain, perhaps, is the biggest disappointment for me in this film as the young Beverly Marsh (as portrayed by Sophia Lillis) was the highlight of the first film but here this character is...bland and somewhat boring. I don't fault Chastain (an actress that I usually enjoy very, very much), I blame the screenplay which saddles these two characters with an underwritten "love triangle" with the adult Ben Hascombe (Jay Ryan - somewhat of a newcomer, who has smoldering good looks, but not much else going for him). It was rumored that Chris Pratt was circling this character (I would imagine he walked away when he saw the screenplay). That's too bad, for he might have brought some life to all 3 of these characters.
Faring better is the usually reliable Isiah Mustafa (TV's SHADOWHUNTERS) as the adult Mike Hanlon, the only one of the Loser's Club who stayed in Derry to keep a vigilant watch against Pennywise' return. He has a haunted air about him - certainly in keeping with the the past that only he remembers. And Andy Bean (SWAMP THING) has a nice couple of moments as the adult Stanley Uris.
The only truly interesting dynamic of the returning Loser's Club is the characters and love/hate relationship between the older Eddie Kaspbrak, the hypochondriac (played by James Ransome, TV's THE WIRE) and smart-mouth Richie Tolzier (inhabited by SNL vet Bill Hader). While Ransome's Eddie is quite a bit more interesting than he was as a youth (and that's no slight on Jack Dylan Grazer who played the younger Eddie, I just found Ransome's portrayal more nuanced and somewhat more interesting). But it is Hader who steals this film. His Richie is constantly using humor to cover his emotions building on the interesting characterization that Finn Wolfhard brought to the younger version and giving us more. Hader is a master comedian, so handles the comedy parts as deftly as you would think he would, but it is when the other emotions - fear, rage, love - come barreling out of him that Hader elevates this character (and the movie) to a higher level. I would be thrilled if Hader was nominated for an Oscar for this role - he is that good.
Also coming back are all of the "kids" from the first film to flesh out some scenes - and set up some other scenes/moments by the adults - they are a welcome addition and shine a spotlight at how weak - and underwritten - most of the adult characters are in this film.
Bill Skarsgard is seen quite a bit more as Pennywise - and that makes him less menacing and threatening (but still scary) and there are 2 fun cameos along the way by 2 prominent individuals, so that was fun.
There is a running gag throughout the film about author Bill Denborough (the surrogate for Stephen King) not being able to write a decent ending - a critique that King receives constantly - and they changed the ending of this film from the book. I am a big fan of the book, but would agree that the ending of the book was not that good, so was open to this trying a different way to end things...and...this new ending lands about as well as the original ending (oh well...).
But that's just a quibble, for by that time you've ridden with these characters for over 5 hours and while the first chapter is stronger than the first, the journey is good (enough) for an enjoyable (enough) time at the Cineplex.
Come for the Loser's Club and the scares - stay for Hader's Oscar worthy performance.
Letter Grade: B+
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Avengers: Infinity War (2018) in Movies
May 5, 2018
Very good "culmination" of the last 10 years of Marvel Films
AVENGERS: INFINITY WAR is the best film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe.
Said to be the culmination of 10 years worth of Marvel films - and Marvel heroes - INFINITY WAR lives up to it's bill, bringing all the Marvel Universe heroes together to fight a "big bad" that is worthy of this sort of thing - THANOS.
Voiced by Josh Brolin, the CGI Thanos is powerful, destructive, razor-focused on his one purpose with moments of "humanity" that makes him an interesting villain. The filmmakers kept his motivation and machinations simple so you are never confused by this bad guy or what he is trying to do. What surprised me is that the filmmakers added another layer to this character that was a nice layer that really added to the character, his motivations and his personality.
As for the band of heroes brought together for this film, it works well. The criticisms I have heard is that no ONE hero stands out, so EVERY hero is in the background. I couldn't disagree more. I thought the evenness of the "screen time" was one of the strengths of this film, not focusing too much on one hero (or heroes), giving all time to shine - and focus on what they do best. There were moments of humor, drama, action and heroism sprinkled across all. But what really thrilled me was the different combinations that were put together, for these heroes all had different missions and assignments and some odd and interesting cross-film dynamics took shape. I won't give any of these away, but I thought they ALL dynamics blended together nicely.
This is definitely a "fan-boy" film, giving service to fans of all these films, characters - and comics and credit for that should go to filmmakers Anthony and Joe Russo (Directors of the previously best film in this series - CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE WINTER SOLDIER) who kept the action moving, the motivations of the participants simple and the effects dazzling.
One final note - this is the first part of a two part film, so it does end in a cliffhanger, one that works effectively well. As always with the Marvel films - but especially in this one - stay through to the end of the credits, the scene at the end of the credits sets up Part 2.
I thoroughly enjoyed my time at this film and can't wait to see the next one.
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Said to be the culmination of 10 years worth of Marvel films - and Marvel heroes - INFINITY WAR lives up to it's bill, bringing all the Marvel Universe heroes together to fight a "big bad" that is worthy of this sort of thing - THANOS.
Voiced by Josh Brolin, the CGI Thanos is powerful, destructive, razor-focused on his one purpose with moments of "humanity" that makes him an interesting villain. The filmmakers kept his motivation and machinations simple so you are never confused by this bad guy or what he is trying to do. What surprised me is that the filmmakers added another layer to this character that was a nice layer that really added to the character, his motivations and his personality.
As for the band of heroes brought together for this film, it works well. The criticisms I have heard is that no ONE hero stands out, so EVERY hero is in the background. I couldn't disagree more. I thought the evenness of the "screen time" was one of the strengths of this film, not focusing too much on one hero (or heroes), giving all time to shine - and focus on what they do best. There were moments of humor, drama, action and heroism sprinkled across all. But what really thrilled me was the different combinations that were put together, for these heroes all had different missions and assignments and some odd and interesting cross-film dynamics took shape. I won't give any of these away, but I thought they ALL dynamics blended together nicely.
This is definitely a "fan-boy" film, giving service to fans of all these films, characters - and comics and credit for that should go to filmmakers Anthony and Joe Russo (Directors of the previously best film in this series - CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE WINTER SOLDIER) who kept the action moving, the motivations of the participants simple and the effects dazzling.
One final note - this is the first part of a two part film, so it does end in a cliffhanger, one that works effectively well. As always with the Marvel films - but especially in this one - stay through to the end of the credits, the scene at the end of the credits sets up Part 2.
I thoroughly enjoyed my time at this film and can't wait to see the next one.
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Superbad (2007) in Movies
Feb 7, 2021
Hilarious From Start to Finish
Two best friends go on an adventure to get alcohol for the last big party of high school.
Acting: 10
Michael Cera and Jonah Hill couldn’t have played their roles any better as best friends Evan and Seth. Cera is nerdy and lovable while Hill is a big ball of energy that plays macho but is really insecure. Their chemistry is perfect together and sets up perfect assists for awesome side characters like McLovin’ to shine.
Beginning: 10
Right from the first line of the movie, I got sucked in. The comedy hits you and doesn’t stop in the first ten minutes as Evan and Seth discuss what porn sites to subscribe to. It’s a perfect setup for what is to come.
Characters: 10
Evan and Seth are perfect together. You almost wonder if they aren’t best friends in real life. If there weren’t any other characters in the movie but the two of them, I still would have given this category a perfect score. Hilarious characters like Fogell (Christopher Mintz-Plasse) and Officers Slater and Michaels (Bill Hader and Seth Rogen) just add to the film’s overall enjoyment.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
Entertainment Value: 10
In one scene, we find Seth making sex impresssions in home economics behind his cooking partner’s back while Evan looks on. This is just one of a number of scenes that make this movie ridiculously entertaining. It’s amazing how many crazy antics they get into in so few settings.
Memorability: 10
Evan and Seth are in such a rush to grow up, but towards the end of the movie, there is a scene where they are laying in sleeping bags like two little kids. It’s unique little touches like this that really make this movie strong and impactful. More than just a mere comedy, but also amazing at comedy, Superbad soars to great heights with scenes that stand the test of time.
Pace: 10
Plot: 10
Such a simple story made strong with great twists and turns. It never tries to be anything more than what it is, but it also manages to have layers nonetheless. It’s a great ride overall, and the epitomy of a “less is more” concept.
Resolution: 10
Loved how they tied everything together. Beautiful final ten minutes, just as quality as the start. Definitely leaves you with a feeling of fulfillment.
Overall: 100
As a screenwriter, a movie like Superbad is what I aspire to write. Not a comedy, but a movie that fires on all cylinders and maintains consistent, perfect timing. This is a movie I can watch repeatedly and it will never get old.
Acting: 10
Michael Cera and Jonah Hill couldn’t have played their roles any better as best friends Evan and Seth. Cera is nerdy and lovable while Hill is a big ball of energy that plays macho but is really insecure. Their chemistry is perfect together and sets up perfect assists for awesome side characters like McLovin’ to shine.
Beginning: 10
Right from the first line of the movie, I got sucked in. The comedy hits you and doesn’t stop in the first ten minutes as Evan and Seth discuss what porn sites to subscribe to. It’s a perfect setup for what is to come.
Characters: 10
Evan and Seth are perfect together. You almost wonder if they aren’t best friends in real life. If there weren’t any other characters in the movie but the two of them, I still would have given this category a perfect score. Hilarious characters like Fogell (Christopher Mintz-Plasse) and Officers Slater and Michaels (Bill Hader and Seth Rogen) just add to the film’s overall enjoyment.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
Entertainment Value: 10
In one scene, we find Seth making sex impresssions in home economics behind his cooking partner’s back while Evan looks on. This is just one of a number of scenes that make this movie ridiculously entertaining. It’s amazing how many crazy antics they get into in so few settings.
Memorability: 10
Evan and Seth are in such a rush to grow up, but towards the end of the movie, there is a scene where they are laying in sleeping bags like two little kids. It’s unique little touches like this that really make this movie strong and impactful. More than just a mere comedy, but also amazing at comedy, Superbad soars to great heights with scenes that stand the test of time.
Pace: 10
Plot: 10
Such a simple story made strong with great twists and turns. It never tries to be anything more than what it is, but it also manages to have layers nonetheless. It’s a great ride overall, and the epitomy of a “less is more” concept.
Resolution: 10
Loved how they tied everything together. Beautiful final ten minutes, just as quality as the start. Definitely leaves you with a feeling of fulfillment.
Overall: 100
As a screenwriter, a movie like Superbad is what I aspire to write. Not a comedy, but a movie that fires on all cylinders and maintains consistent, perfect timing. This is a movie I can watch repeatedly and it will never get old.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Pirates of the Caribbean: At Worlds End (2007) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Captain Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) returns in “Pirates of the Caribbean: At Worlds End”, the third film in the series which has set box office records the world over. Picking up shortly after the events of the previous film, “Dead Man’s Chest”, it’s a new world for pirates and those who associate with pirates. Once the hunters, they’ve become the hunted, rounded up by The East India Trading Company, headed by Lord Cutler Beckett (Tom Hollander). Now under Beckett’s command, The Flying Dutchman, and its miserable, unforgiving captain, Davy Jones (Bill Nighy), sails the seven seas hunting pirate ships and giving no quarter.
Will Turner (Orlando Bloom), Elizabeth Swann (Keira Knightley) and Captain Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush) journey to exotic Singapore and confront Chinese pirate Captain Sao Feng (Chow Yun-Fat) to gain charts, and a ship, that will take them off to world’s end, to rescue Jack from his cursed fate in Davy Jone’s Locker.
They need to gather the Nine Lords of the Brethren Court, their only hope to defeat Beckett, the Flying Dutchman, and his Armada. Sao Feng is one of the nine lords as is Captain Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp). Their clandestine meeting does not go unnoticed, with the East India Trading Company dispatching troops to interfere, and soon a battle royale erupts in one of the films better moments, which sadly were few and far between.
British troops and treacherous waters dispensed with, Elizabeth, Captain Barbosa, and Will Turner (Orlando Bloom), are reunited with Jack, which sets into motion a very long, and at times confusing series of events. Jack is trying to avoid his debt to the squid faced Davy Jones, while Will is hoping to free his father from the Flying Dutchman as well, and at the same time restore his damaged relationship with Elizabeth.
While this covers the main three characters, the agenda for the others in the film are much more murky, especially that of Barbossa and other members of the Brethren Court who join together and seem content to risk life and limb without much in the way of compensation. There is a tacked on subplot about the Pieces of Eight that are needed to free a magical entity who may be of help in their battle with the deadly Jones and his otherworldly crew, but sadly most of the film’s nearly three hour running times seems either unnecessary and/or confusing as it works its way towards the final climax.
When the film does shift back into action mode which thankfully comes in the final 30 minutes or so of the film, with great special effects, the attractive and nimble cast really get a chance to shine. It is easily the most enjoyable and invigorating action sequence in all three of the films, and is almost worth the wait it took to get there. Almost. The film suffers mightily from the convoluted plot, dragging painfully on for long stretches of time, and only seems to come to life when Depp is on the screen. Sadly that is not nearly enough to save the film, weighed down as it is by the issues I’ve already detailed.
Although visually spectacular, I had high hopes for this film, especially after the great, but somewhat disturbing, opening sequence. Any momentum gained from that was quickly lost and the film soon became a bloated extravaganza of style over substance that was badly in need of having 45-60 minutes trimmed from its running time.
Will Turner (Orlando Bloom), Elizabeth Swann (Keira Knightley) and Captain Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush) journey to exotic Singapore and confront Chinese pirate Captain Sao Feng (Chow Yun-Fat) to gain charts, and a ship, that will take them off to world’s end, to rescue Jack from his cursed fate in Davy Jone’s Locker.
They need to gather the Nine Lords of the Brethren Court, their only hope to defeat Beckett, the Flying Dutchman, and his Armada. Sao Feng is one of the nine lords as is Captain Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp). Their clandestine meeting does not go unnoticed, with the East India Trading Company dispatching troops to interfere, and soon a battle royale erupts in one of the films better moments, which sadly were few and far between.
British troops and treacherous waters dispensed with, Elizabeth, Captain Barbosa, and Will Turner (Orlando Bloom), are reunited with Jack, which sets into motion a very long, and at times confusing series of events. Jack is trying to avoid his debt to the squid faced Davy Jones, while Will is hoping to free his father from the Flying Dutchman as well, and at the same time restore his damaged relationship with Elizabeth.
While this covers the main three characters, the agenda for the others in the film are much more murky, especially that of Barbossa and other members of the Brethren Court who join together and seem content to risk life and limb without much in the way of compensation. There is a tacked on subplot about the Pieces of Eight that are needed to free a magical entity who may be of help in their battle with the deadly Jones and his otherworldly crew, but sadly most of the film’s nearly three hour running times seems either unnecessary and/or confusing as it works its way towards the final climax.
When the film does shift back into action mode which thankfully comes in the final 30 minutes or so of the film, with great special effects, the attractive and nimble cast really get a chance to shine. It is easily the most enjoyable and invigorating action sequence in all three of the films, and is almost worth the wait it took to get there. Almost. The film suffers mightily from the convoluted plot, dragging painfully on for long stretches of time, and only seems to come to life when Depp is on the screen. Sadly that is not nearly enough to save the film, weighed down as it is by the issues I’ve already detailed.
Although visually spectacular, I had high hopes for this film, especially after the great, but somewhat disturbing, opening sequence. Any momentum gained from that was quickly lost and the film soon became a bloated extravaganza of style over substance that was badly in need of having 45-60 minutes trimmed from its running time.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Ghostbusters: Afterlife (2021) in Movies
Nov 24, 2021
The True Successor to the Original Film
I am a huge fan of the original, 1984 Bill Murray/Dan Ackroyd/Harold Ramis GHOSTBUSTERS - so much a fan, in fact, that I devoted an entire hour of my podcast, the BANKOFMARQUIS MOVIES PODCAST (which can be found in your favorite Podcast app) last Halloween to this film (Episode #23 to be precise). I found that the next 2 follow-up films - GHOSTBUSTERS 2 and the all-female GHOSTBUSTERS from a few years ago - did not even come close to recapturing the magic of that first film.
GHOSTBUSTERS:AFTERLIFE does and is, in my opinion, the true successor to this all-time great film. This is because Afterlife is nothing more than what it pretends to be - a 2 hour homage to the first film and, most importantly, a wonderful tribute and send off to the late Harold Ramis while creating a whole new “Ghostbusters” Universe and characters along the way.
The plot is fairly simple, the daughter and 2 grandchildren of Original Ghostbuster Egon Spengler (Ramis) arrive at his remote farm after his passing, They start discovering old Ghostbusters equipment (including the Ecto-1) and strange Supernatural events begin to occur.
So…who ya’ gonna call?
This film is lovingly created and produced by Writer/Director Jason Reitman (son of original Ghostbuster Director Ivan Reitman) and it succeeds not because it reveres the first film, but because it loves and respects it and leans into whenever it needs to while also becoming its’ own animal.
Nothing shows this more than the performances in this film. Previous attempts at revising this series tried to hard to regenerate the unique chemistry of the original Ghostbusters. This film realizes that was a mistake and lets these characters do their own things in their own way.
Paul Rudd and Carrie Coon are very good - if somewhat restrained - as the “adults” in this film, but it is the kids - that shine. Finn Wolfhard (STRANGER THINGS, IT) is rock solid as Trevor - one of Spengler’s Grandkids while Logan Kim as “Podcast” one of their friends is also fun and interesting.
But, it is the performance of McKenna Grace (THE HANDMAID’S TALE) as Phoebe, the Granddaughter most like the Grandfather, that really catches your attention and holds this film together in a way that is remarkable for one so young. She really is the secret weapon in this film.
And, of course, there are some fun cameos - cameos that would be spoilery if mentioned, but you can probably guess.
Reitman keeps the action moving along at a fine clip - though the first hour does drag out a bit - and the CGI is much improved since 1984, so that helps things out here as well.
More than a nostalgia play, GHOSTBUSTERS:AFTERLIFE is a fun romp that will be enjoyed by those who know (and love) the original as well as those who are coming to it for the first time.
Oh…and make sure you stay for the 2 End Credits scene - one comes about 2 minutes in and the other is right at the end, they are both worth staying for.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
GHOSTBUSTERS:AFTERLIFE does and is, in my opinion, the true successor to this all-time great film. This is because Afterlife is nothing more than what it pretends to be - a 2 hour homage to the first film and, most importantly, a wonderful tribute and send off to the late Harold Ramis while creating a whole new “Ghostbusters” Universe and characters along the way.
The plot is fairly simple, the daughter and 2 grandchildren of Original Ghostbuster Egon Spengler (Ramis) arrive at his remote farm after his passing, They start discovering old Ghostbusters equipment (including the Ecto-1) and strange Supernatural events begin to occur.
So…who ya’ gonna call?
This film is lovingly created and produced by Writer/Director Jason Reitman (son of original Ghostbuster Director Ivan Reitman) and it succeeds not because it reveres the first film, but because it loves and respects it and leans into whenever it needs to while also becoming its’ own animal.
Nothing shows this more than the performances in this film. Previous attempts at revising this series tried to hard to regenerate the unique chemistry of the original Ghostbusters. This film realizes that was a mistake and lets these characters do their own things in their own way.
Paul Rudd and Carrie Coon are very good - if somewhat restrained - as the “adults” in this film, but it is the kids - that shine. Finn Wolfhard (STRANGER THINGS, IT) is rock solid as Trevor - one of Spengler’s Grandkids while Logan Kim as “Podcast” one of their friends is also fun and interesting.
But, it is the performance of McKenna Grace (THE HANDMAID’S TALE) as Phoebe, the Granddaughter most like the Grandfather, that really catches your attention and holds this film together in a way that is remarkable for one so young. She really is the secret weapon in this film.
And, of course, there are some fun cameos - cameos that would be spoilery if mentioned, but you can probably guess.
Reitman keeps the action moving along at a fine clip - though the first hour does drag out a bit - and the CGI is much improved since 1984, so that helps things out here as well.
More than a nostalgia play, GHOSTBUSTERS:AFTERLIFE is a fun romp that will be enjoyed by those who know (and love) the original as well as those who are coming to it for the first time.
Oh…and make sure you stay for the 2 End Credits scene - one comes about 2 minutes in and the other is right at the end, they are both worth staying for.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Ghostbusters (1984) in Movies
Oct 30, 2020
A Comedy Classic
My daughter was flipping channels the other day and ran across the great 1984 Supernatural comedy GHOSTBUSTERS and stopped to watch for awhile. As happens with her generation, she eventually got more interested in her phone and friends and wandered away. Me? I was drawn back into this film so much so that I went downstairs, grabbed the DVD (yes, kids, I still own DVDs) and popped the film into my Home Theater System to give it a proper viewing.
I gotta say...I was so inspired by how terrific this film is that I changed course and devoted the 23rd BankofMarquis Movies podcast to this film.
Starring the comedic trio of Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis and featuring Sigourney Weaver, Ernie Hudson and the great Rick Moranis, GHOSTBUSTERS tells the tale of supernatural exterminators called to save NYC when paranormal experiences start escalating in the Big Apple.
But it's not the destination, it's the journey that makes this film so much fun. Told in a standard 2 Act arc - Origin Story followed by a 2nd Act of battling the "Big Bad" - it is the comedic timing and chemistry of the 3 leads that makes this film work (aided by a wonderful "straight man" turn by Sigourney Weaver and a brilliant "side-kick" comedic turn by Rick Moranis).
Credit for keeping this film together, moving and more than just a "series of jokes" is Director Ivan Reitman (STRIPES, MEATBALLS), he had the comedic "cred" to appeal to these 3 big time comedians, but has a Producers sense of efficiency and a Director's command of subject and tone.
This film was Aykroyd's idea and he shines as, Ray Stantz, the heart of the Ghostbusters. He truly believes in what he is doing and has a child-like sense of wonder in his actions. Harold Ramis (more noted as a Writer and a Director) was brought in to co-write Aykroyd's idea, steering it more towards Reitman's idea of humor and writing in a way that would make Murray shine - but he is also wonderfully deadpan as techno-geek Egon Spengler. The serious nerd who never smiles.
But...make no mistake...this film revolves around the antics of con-man Dr. Peter Venkman, a scientist who doesn't believe any of this, but is willing to go along as long as it achieves his goals. And...what are his goals? Well...womanizing and getting through life with as little work as possible. Murray is at the top of his comedic game in this film and most of his scenes are improvised - but, to be fair to the writers, Murrya's riffs are what Ramos and Aykroyd put down on paper. He is the mouth of this film and his energy drives this movie throughout.
Sigourney Weaver proved that she could do more than Sci-Fi action (like ALIEN) when she plays the straightman to these 3 wild-men. She stated that she was channeling her inner Margaret Dumont (straightman to the Marx Brothers) and she does an admirable, charming job in a role that could have easily come off as annoying.
Rick Moranis, of course, almost steals the film as the nerdy accountant neighbor of Weaver's. His improvised riff as he goes around the room at his own party is the stuff of comedic gold.
Ernie Hudson comes along as the 4th Ghostbuster. Many folks thinks that he is the "unnecessary" GhostBuster, but I would argue that he comes along at a time (right after the origin story is complete) to be the audience surrogate - to ask the questions that need to be asked and to get necessary expository passages out.
And...finallly...there is William Atherton as EPA Agent Walter Peck. I kind of feel sorry for this actor, for he had a decent career going up to Ghostbusters, but he was so good as the annoying, buzzkill "anti-Ghostbuster" that serves as the foil for their antics, that he wasn't really accepted in any other kind of role the rest of his career (he would play a version of this character in the first 2 DIE HARD films).
The special effects hold up, just enough to make them passable. Keep in mind that this film was made over 35 years ago and the effects were state of the art back in the day, so I would recommend you cut that some slack.
And...if you do...you'll be rewarded with a rollicking fun time at the movies.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
I gotta say...I was so inspired by how terrific this film is that I changed course and devoted the 23rd BankofMarquis Movies podcast to this film.
Starring the comedic trio of Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis and featuring Sigourney Weaver, Ernie Hudson and the great Rick Moranis, GHOSTBUSTERS tells the tale of supernatural exterminators called to save NYC when paranormal experiences start escalating in the Big Apple.
But it's not the destination, it's the journey that makes this film so much fun. Told in a standard 2 Act arc - Origin Story followed by a 2nd Act of battling the "Big Bad" - it is the comedic timing and chemistry of the 3 leads that makes this film work (aided by a wonderful "straight man" turn by Sigourney Weaver and a brilliant "side-kick" comedic turn by Rick Moranis).
Credit for keeping this film together, moving and more than just a "series of jokes" is Director Ivan Reitman (STRIPES, MEATBALLS), he had the comedic "cred" to appeal to these 3 big time comedians, but has a Producers sense of efficiency and a Director's command of subject and tone.
This film was Aykroyd's idea and he shines as, Ray Stantz, the heart of the Ghostbusters. He truly believes in what he is doing and has a child-like sense of wonder in his actions. Harold Ramis (more noted as a Writer and a Director) was brought in to co-write Aykroyd's idea, steering it more towards Reitman's idea of humor and writing in a way that would make Murray shine - but he is also wonderfully deadpan as techno-geek Egon Spengler. The serious nerd who never smiles.
But...make no mistake...this film revolves around the antics of con-man Dr. Peter Venkman, a scientist who doesn't believe any of this, but is willing to go along as long as it achieves his goals. And...what are his goals? Well...womanizing and getting through life with as little work as possible. Murray is at the top of his comedic game in this film and most of his scenes are improvised - but, to be fair to the writers, Murrya's riffs are what Ramos and Aykroyd put down on paper. He is the mouth of this film and his energy drives this movie throughout.
Sigourney Weaver proved that she could do more than Sci-Fi action (like ALIEN) when she plays the straightman to these 3 wild-men. She stated that she was channeling her inner Margaret Dumont (straightman to the Marx Brothers) and she does an admirable, charming job in a role that could have easily come off as annoying.
Rick Moranis, of course, almost steals the film as the nerdy accountant neighbor of Weaver's. His improvised riff as he goes around the room at his own party is the stuff of comedic gold.
Ernie Hudson comes along as the 4th Ghostbuster. Many folks thinks that he is the "unnecessary" GhostBuster, but I would argue that he comes along at a time (right after the origin story is complete) to be the audience surrogate - to ask the questions that need to be asked and to get necessary expository passages out.
And...finallly...there is William Atherton as EPA Agent Walter Peck. I kind of feel sorry for this actor, for he had a decent career going up to Ghostbusters, but he was so good as the annoying, buzzkill "anti-Ghostbuster" that serves as the foil for their antics, that he wasn't really accepted in any other kind of role the rest of his career (he would play a version of this character in the first 2 DIE HARD films).
The special effects hold up, just enough to make them passable. Keep in mind that this film was made over 35 years ago and the effects were state of the art back in the day, so I would recommend you cut that some slack.
And...if you do...you'll be rewarded with a rollicking fun time at the movies.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Creatrix Rising: Unlocking the Power of Midlife Women in Books
Aug 21, 2021
There was something about the synopsis of Creatrix Rising by Stephanie Raffelock that really sucked me in. When I read it, I knew that it was a book I would fall in love with. I wasn't wrong!
Creatrix Rising is full of great anecdotes. Reading them, I really felt like I was getting to know the author. Stephanie Raffelock does not hold back in some of the stories which helps to make her book all the more real. While reading, I felt as if Stephanie stripped herself down to her soul for me to see and bared it all especially while reading about her time as a teenager in Los Angeles. Reading Creatrix Rising made me want to actually meet Stephanie Raffelock because she just seems like such an inspiration and an amazing woman! In fact, reading some of what happened in Stephanie's life sort of paralleled mine.
Stephanie Raffelock does a fantastic job at describing what a "creatrix" is. She writes "Creatrix is a distinctly feminine word that simply means a woman who makes things." Raffelock says the world creatrix should replace crone which has such a negative connotation, and I agree! From there, Raffelock gives us plenty of personal stories about different women she has come across in her life that fit the creatrix characteristics. In each story, I felt like I was getting to know these women. I wanted to know these women. Stephanie Raffelock's writing is so beautiful and descriptive. It's hard not to feel like her stories are yours. In fact, it was difficult to not picture different women in my life that fit the bill of a creatrix. I put this down to Raffelock's wonderful writing. She definitely knows how to get her point across in such a sweet and beautiful way. Raffelock also teaches us that there is no shame in getting older and how we really should embrace aging as it's not a bad thing at all but quite the opposite.
Another thing I really loved about Creatrix Rising is at the end of each chapter, there is a section entitled "For Reflection, Activity, and Journaling." This section summarizes the main point of each chapter and asks a few in depth questions for the reader to ponder on. Be prepared to have a journal next to you because you will want to answer these questions. They will really make you think long and hard and look deeper into yourself and others. It's such a great and relaxing mental exercise. At the end of the book, if you decide to write down your answers to Stephanie Raffelock's questions, you will have your own little mini book either to keep for yourself or to share with others. If you need a little bit of help, Raffelock lists some fantastic resources to help you on your journey. I also feel that these questions would be great for a book group's discussion if this was a book picked for a book group which I would totally recommend that!
If you decide to read Creatrix Rising (which you really should), here's my personal advice. Do NOT skip the epilogue. Stephanie Raffelock says that she wrote this book in 2020 when the Corona Virus had just really taken off. Raffelock's epilogue for Creatrix Rising is all about the Corona Virus, but she uses symbolism painting the Corona Virus as a beautiful woman that takes everyone by surprise. My jaw was on the floor the whole time I was reading the epilogue. Again, Raffelock's talent for writing really did shine through in her epilogue. I would have never thought to compare Corona Virus to a beautiful woman, but reading Stephanie's story, I realized just how right she was.
Trigger warnings for Creatrix Rising include profanity, some drug use, death, some violence, and some politics.
All in all, Creatrix Rising is a beautiful masterpiece of a book that will leave its reader thinking of all the women in their life that they have come across and how these women have affected them. Although this book mentions unlocking the power of midlife women, I really think men would enjoy it just as much as they also think about the women that have touched their lives. I would definitely recommend Creatrix Rising by Stephanie Raffelock to everyone aged 18+ who are after a beautifully written book that will really make them think.
--
(A special thank you to Lone Star Literary Life and Stephanie Raffelock for providing me with a hardcover of Creatrix Rising in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.)
Creatrix Rising is full of great anecdotes. Reading them, I really felt like I was getting to know the author. Stephanie Raffelock does not hold back in some of the stories which helps to make her book all the more real. While reading, I felt as if Stephanie stripped herself down to her soul for me to see and bared it all especially while reading about her time as a teenager in Los Angeles. Reading Creatrix Rising made me want to actually meet Stephanie Raffelock because she just seems like such an inspiration and an amazing woman! In fact, reading some of what happened in Stephanie's life sort of paralleled mine.
Stephanie Raffelock does a fantastic job at describing what a "creatrix" is. She writes "Creatrix is a distinctly feminine word that simply means a woman who makes things." Raffelock says the world creatrix should replace crone which has such a negative connotation, and I agree! From there, Raffelock gives us plenty of personal stories about different women she has come across in her life that fit the creatrix characteristics. In each story, I felt like I was getting to know these women. I wanted to know these women. Stephanie Raffelock's writing is so beautiful and descriptive. It's hard not to feel like her stories are yours. In fact, it was difficult to not picture different women in my life that fit the bill of a creatrix. I put this down to Raffelock's wonderful writing. She definitely knows how to get her point across in such a sweet and beautiful way. Raffelock also teaches us that there is no shame in getting older and how we really should embrace aging as it's not a bad thing at all but quite the opposite.
Another thing I really loved about Creatrix Rising is at the end of each chapter, there is a section entitled "For Reflection, Activity, and Journaling." This section summarizes the main point of each chapter and asks a few in depth questions for the reader to ponder on. Be prepared to have a journal next to you because you will want to answer these questions. They will really make you think long and hard and look deeper into yourself and others. It's such a great and relaxing mental exercise. At the end of the book, if you decide to write down your answers to Stephanie Raffelock's questions, you will have your own little mini book either to keep for yourself or to share with others. If you need a little bit of help, Raffelock lists some fantastic resources to help you on your journey. I also feel that these questions would be great for a book group's discussion if this was a book picked for a book group which I would totally recommend that!
If you decide to read Creatrix Rising (which you really should), here's my personal advice. Do NOT skip the epilogue. Stephanie Raffelock says that she wrote this book in 2020 when the Corona Virus had just really taken off. Raffelock's epilogue for Creatrix Rising is all about the Corona Virus, but she uses symbolism painting the Corona Virus as a beautiful woman that takes everyone by surprise. My jaw was on the floor the whole time I was reading the epilogue. Again, Raffelock's talent for writing really did shine through in her epilogue. I would have never thought to compare Corona Virus to a beautiful woman, but reading Stephanie's story, I realized just how right she was.
Trigger warnings for Creatrix Rising include profanity, some drug use, death, some violence, and some politics.
All in all, Creatrix Rising is a beautiful masterpiece of a book that will leave its reader thinking of all the women in their life that they have come across and how these women have affected them. Although this book mentions unlocking the power of midlife women, I really think men would enjoy it just as much as they also think about the women that have touched their lives. I would definitely recommend Creatrix Rising by Stephanie Raffelock to everyone aged 18+ who are after a beautifully written book that will really make them think.
--
(A special thank you to Lone Star Literary Life and Stephanie Raffelock for providing me with a hardcover of Creatrix Rising in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Beauty and the Beast (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Tail as old as Kline.
With the Disney marketing machine in full swing, its hard to separate the hype from the movie reality in this latest live-action remake of one of their classic animated features from 1991. If you are lucky enough to have children you will know that each child tends to have “their” Disney feature: for my second daughter (then 4) that film would be “Beauty and the Beast”. With a VHS video tape worn down to the substrate, this is a film I know every line of dialogue to (“I’m especially good at expectorating”). So seeing this movie was always going to be a wander down Nostalgia Avenue and a left turn into Emotion Crescent, regardless of how good a film it was. And so it proved.
Taking no chances with a beloved formula, most of the film is an almost exact frame-for-frame recreation of the original, with the odd diversion which, in the main, is to slot in new songs by original composer Alan Menken with Tim Rice lyrics. For, unlike “La La Land” this is a proper musical lover’s musical with songs dropping in regularly throughout the running time.
Which brings us to Emma Watson’s Belle. I’ve seen review comments that she ‘dials it in’ with a humourless and souless portrayal of the iconic bookworm. I can’t fathom what film those people were watching! I found Watson to be utterly mesmerising, confident and delightful with a fine (though possibly auto-tuned) singing voice. Her ‘Sound of Music’ moment (you’ll know the one) brought tears to my eyes. There are moments when her acting is highly reminiscent of Hermione Grainger, but this is about as crass a criticism as saying that Harrison Ford has done his “Knock it Off” snarl again.
I even felt that the somewhat dodgy bestiality/Stockholm-syndrome thing, inherent in the plot, was deftly handled by her. Curiously (and I feel guilty for even thinking this) the only part I felt slightly icky about was the age difference evident in the final kiss between Watson (now 27) and the transformed beast (sorry if this is a TERRIBLE spoiler for you!) played by Dan Stevens (“Downton Abbey”): even though with Stevens being only 35 this is only 8 years! I think the problem here is that it is still difficult for me to decouple the modern feminist woman that is Watson from the picture of the young Hermione as a schoolgirl in her first term at Hogwarts. (I know this is terrible typecasting, and definitely my bad, but that’s the way it is).
Stevens himself is fine as the cursed prince, albeit that most of his scenes are behind the CGI-created wet-rug that is the beast. Similarly, most of the supporting stars (Ewan McGregor as Lumière, Ian McKellen as Cogsworth, Emma Thompson as Mrs Potts and an almost unrecognisable Stanley Tucci as the maestro Cadenza) are similarly confined to voice parts for the majority of the film. Kevin Kline is great as the supremely huggable Maurice. But the performances that really shine though are those of Luke Evans (“The Girl on the Train“) as the odiously boorish Gaston and Josh Gad (Olaf in “Frozen”) as his hilariously adoring sidekick LeFou. Much has been made of the gay Disney angle to this element of the story, most of which is arrant homophobic nonsense since the scenes are pretty innocuous. In fact the most adventurous ‘non-heterosexual’ aspect of the film, and a scene that raises by far the biggest laugh, relates to a completely different character.
Most of the songs delivered in the film are OK without, in my view, surpassing the versions in the original. Only Dan Steven’s dramatic new song “Evermore”- as one of the few really new ‘full-length’ songs in the film – has ‘Oscar nomination’ written all over it. However, the film eschews the ‘live-filming’ approach to song production featured in recent musicals like “La La Land” and “Les Miserables”, with some degree of lip-sync evident. Whilst I understand that ‘imperfection’ is not a “Disney thing”, I found that lack of risk-taking a bit of a disappointment.
The makers of the original “Beauty and the Beast” would I’m sure have been bowled over by the quality of the special effects on show here. However, that was in 1991 and it is now 2017, when “The Jungle Book” has set the bar for CGI effects. By today’s standards, the special effects here are mediocre at best. I wondered at first if some of the dodgy green-screen work was delivered that way to make it seem more “cartoony”, but I doubt that – – why bother? More irritatingly, the animated chattels in the castle, especially the candlestick Lumière, are seriously unconvincing. Mrs Potts, the teapot, and her son Chip, the cup, are rendered as flat and two-dimensional. There should have been no shortage of money to thrown at the effects with a reported budget of $160 million. Where has the Disney magic gone?
The film also seems to be rendered primarily for a 3D showing (I saw it in 2D). I say this because some of the panning shots (notably one around the library) to me just ended up as an unimpressive blur of mediocrity. Most odd.
The director is Bill Condon responsible for the modestly well-respected but low-key “Dreamgirls” and “Mr Holmes” but also the much derided “Breaking Dawn” end to the “Twilight” series. As such this seems to have been quite a risk that Disney took with such a high profile property, and I would have been intrigued to see what a more innovative director like Chazelle or Iñárritu would have done with it.
However, despite my reservations it is bound to be a MONSTER hit in every sense of the word, and kids aged 5 to 10 will, I predict, absolutely adore it (be warned that kids under 5 may be seriously scared by some of the darker scenes, especially the two wolf-attacks). For a younger age group, I would rate it as an easy FFFFF. As an adult viewer, given that I have viewed it through the rosy tint of my nostalgia-glasses (unfortunately you cannot hire these at the cinema if you haven’t brought your own!), this was an enjoyable watch. Despite my (more than expected!) slew of criticisms above my rating is still….
Taking no chances with a beloved formula, most of the film is an almost exact frame-for-frame recreation of the original, with the odd diversion which, in the main, is to slot in new songs by original composer Alan Menken with Tim Rice lyrics. For, unlike “La La Land” this is a proper musical lover’s musical with songs dropping in regularly throughout the running time.
Which brings us to Emma Watson’s Belle. I’ve seen review comments that she ‘dials it in’ with a humourless and souless portrayal of the iconic bookworm. I can’t fathom what film those people were watching! I found Watson to be utterly mesmerising, confident and delightful with a fine (though possibly auto-tuned) singing voice. Her ‘Sound of Music’ moment (you’ll know the one) brought tears to my eyes. There are moments when her acting is highly reminiscent of Hermione Grainger, but this is about as crass a criticism as saying that Harrison Ford has done his “Knock it Off” snarl again.
I even felt that the somewhat dodgy bestiality/Stockholm-syndrome thing, inherent in the plot, was deftly handled by her. Curiously (and I feel guilty for even thinking this) the only part I felt slightly icky about was the age difference evident in the final kiss between Watson (now 27) and the transformed beast (sorry if this is a TERRIBLE spoiler for you!) played by Dan Stevens (“Downton Abbey”): even though with Stevens being only 35 this is only 8 years! I think the problem here is that it is still difficult for me to decouple the modern feminist woman that is Watson from the picture of the young Hermione as a schoolgirl in her first term at Hogwarts. (I know this is terrible typecasting, and definitely my bad, but that’s the way it is).
Stevens himself is fine as the cursed prince, albeit that most of his scenes are behind the CGI-created wet-rug that is the beast. Similarly, most of the supporting stars (Ewan McGregor as Lumière, Ian McKellen as Cogsworth, Emma Thompson as Mrs Potts and an almost unrecognisable Stanley Tucci as the maestro Cadenza) are similarly confined to voice parts for the majority of the film. Kevin Kline is great as the supremely huggable Maurice. But the performances that really shine though are those of Luke Evans (“The Girl on the Train“) as the odiously boorish Gaston and Josh Gad (Olaf in “Frozen”) as his hilariously adoring sidekick LeFou. Much has been made of the gay Disney angle to this element of the story, most of which is arrant homophobic nonsense since the scenes are pretty innocuous. In fact the most adventurous ‘non-heterosexual’ aspect of the film, and a scene that raises by far the biggest laugh, relates to a completely different character.
Most of the songs delivered in the film are OK without, in my view, surpassing the versions in the original. Only Dan Steven’s dramatic new song “Evermore”- as one of the few really new ‘full-length’ songs in the film – has ‘Oscar nomination’ written all over it. However, the film eschews the ‘live-filming’ approach to song production featured in recent musicals like “La La Land” and “Les Miserables”, with some degree of lip-sync evident. Whilst I understand that ‘imperfection’ is not a “Disney thing”, I found that lack of risk-taking a bit of a disappointment.
The makers of the original “Beauty and the Beast” would I’m sure have been bowled over by the quality of the special effects on show here. However, that was in 1991 and it is now 2017, when “The Jungle Book” has set the bar for CGI effects. By today’s standards, the special effects here are mediocre at best. I wondered at first if some of the dodgy green-screen work was delivered that way to make it seem more “cartoony”, but I doubt that – – why bother? More irritatingly, the animated chattels in the castle, especially the candlestick Lumière, are seriously unconvincing. Mrs Potts, the teapot, and her son Chip, the cup, are rendered as flat and two-dimensional. There should have been no shortage of money to thrown at the effects with a reported budget of $160 million. Where has the Disney magic gone?
The film also seems to be rendered primarily for a 3D showing (I saw it in 2D). I say this because some of the panning shots (notably one around the library) to me just ended up as an unimpressive blur of mediocrity. Most odd.
The director is Bill Condon responsible for the modestly well-respected but low-key “Dreamgirls” and “Mr Holmes” but also the much derided “Breaking Dawn” end to the “Twilight” series. As such this seems to have been quite a risk that Disney took with such a high profile property, and I would have been intrigued to see what a more innovative director like Chazelle or Iñárritu would have done with it.
However, despite my reservations it is bound to be a MONSTER hit in every sense of the word, and kids aged 5 to 10 will, I predict, absolutely adore it (be warned that kids under 5 may be seriously scared by some of the darker scenes, especially the two wolf-attacks). For a younger age group, I would rate it as an easy FFFFF. As an adult viewer, given that I have viewed it through the rosy tint of my nostalgia-glasses (unfortunately you cannot hire these at the cinema if you haven’t brought your own!), this was an enjoyable watch. Despite my (more than expected!) slew of criticisms above my rating is still….