Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Trial of the Chicago 7 (2020) in Movies
Oct 24, 2020
The epic ensemble cast (1 more)
The direction from Aaron Sorkin
“Trial” is a less wordy triumph for Sorkin
So, "The Trial of the Chicago 7" is one which I was unfortunately unable to catch on its short "Oscar-nom" cinema release, but is now on Netflix. And boy, for older viewers who prefer historical drama over wham-bam action, this is definitely worth the watch.
I know a decent bit of 20th century history, but this is a story I knew nothing about. At the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago, anti-Vietnam protests resulted in a violent and brutal confrontation with the police. Eight of the ring-leaders were rounded up and charged with inciting the violence. What happens in the court with the eight convicted men, in front of an old and partisan judge (the wonderful Frank Langella), is simply amazing.
There's a nice wiki article on the history you can look up. But its worth watching the movie blind, since it's a great rollercoaster ride.
If you read my blog regularly, you'll know that one of my favourite of the awards in award season is the "Ensemble Cast" award from the Screen Actor's Guild (SAG). I think a good measure of which movies might be good candidates for this award is when you find it difficult to single out particular actors for an individual award when they all work so well together. For this is a cast to die for:
- Sacha Baron Cohen, as Abbie Hoffman: an intelligent 'straight' role, poles apart from Borat and Bruno, that he delivers on 100%;
- Jeremy Strong as Hoffman's buddy Jerry Rubin, doing an enormously entertaining turn;
- Eddie Redmayne as the apparently 'sensible one' Tom Hayden. A bit similar to his role in "Les Miserables", but diving off in a different direction at a key point;
- John Carroll Lynch as the genuine 'boy scout' David Dellinger, so good in "The Founder" and here as the only family man under the judgmental stare of his wife and son;
- Yahya Abdul-Mateen II as Black Panther member Bobby Seale - the "minus 1" from the title - in an astonishingly powerful performance;
- Joseph Gordon-Levitt as the prosecutor Richard Schultz - always quietly dependable;
- And the fantastic Mark Rylance as the defense attorney William Kunstler. I appreciate I am having a tendency to gush in this review, but Rylance expresses such a range of frustration and disgust here that his performance is nothing short of electrifying.
There's also a cracking cameo from Michael Keaton playing the former US Attorney General, Ramsey Clark.
I would think that any of these performances might be Oscar-worthy (somewhere in the Actor/Supporting Actor categories) but my personal choices would be Rylance for Best Actor and Baron Cohen and Langella for Best Supporting Actor nods.
One of my issues with the scripts of Aaron Sorkin is that they tend to be overly dense and wordy. In epic TV like "The West Wing" he could spread the dialogue over a whole series, but in a feature film it can become very dense and verbose. I found that in both of his last two films - "Molly's Game" and "Steve Jobs".
Here, in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", even though there's a lot of speechifying, to me it never felt over the top. Although an epic courtroom drama (akin to his debut script "A Few Good Men") the characters are given time to breath between the lines. And many of those lines are real zingers, particularly out of the mouth of stand-up anarchist Abbie Hoffman (Sacha Baron Cohen).
Aside from the script being a zinger, the direction here from Aaron Sorkin is also top-notch. If you thought a courtroom drama was going to be static and boring, think again. The camera never rests, and inserted flashbacks (excellent film editing from Alan Baumgarten) maintain the momentum of the story.
Overall, this is a movie tour-de-force from Sorkin, and a fantastic watch. Could this be a writing/directing double Oscar nom for Sorkin?
(For the full graphical review, check out the bob the movie man review here - https://rb.gy/y6bxtf . Thanks.)
I know a decent bit of 20th century history, but this is a story I knew nothing about. At the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago, anti-Vietnam protests resulted in a violent and brutal confrontation with the police. Eight of the ring-leaders were rounded up and charged with inciting the violence. What happens in the court with the eight convicted men, in front of an old and partisan judge (the wonderful Frank Langella), is simply amazing.
There's a nice wiki article on the history you can look up. But its worth watching the movie blind, since it's a great rollercoaster ride.
If you read my blog regularly, you'll know that one of my favourite of the awards in award season is the "Ensemble Cast" award from the Screen Actor's Guild (SAG). I think a good measure of which movies might be good candidates for this award is when you find it difficult to single out particular actors for an individual award when they all work so well together. For this is a cast to die for:
- Sacha Baron Cohen, as Abbie Hoffman: an intelligent 'straight' role, poles apart from Borat and Bruno, that he delivers on 100%;
- Jeremy Strong as Hoffman's buddy Jerry Rubin, doing an enormously entertaining turn;
- Eddie Redmayne as the apparently 'sensible one' Tom Hayden. A bit similar to his role in "Les Miserables", but diving off in a different direction at a key point;
- John Carroll Lynch as the genuine 'boy scout' David Dellinger, so good in "The Founder" and here as the only family man under the judgmental stare of his wife and son;
- Yahya Abdul-Mateen II as Black Panther member Bobby Seale - the "minus 1" from the title - in an astonishingly powerful performance;
- Joseph Gordon-Levitt as the prosecutor Richard Schultz - always quietly dependable;
- And the fantastic Mark Rylance as the defense attorney William Kunstler. I appreciate I am having a tendency to gush in this review, but Rylance expresses such a range of frustration and disgust here that his performance is nothing short of electrifying.
There's also a cracking cameo from Michael Keaton playing the former US Attorney General, Ramsey Clark.
I would think that any of these performances might be Oscar-worthy (somewhere in the Actor/Supporting Actor categories) but my personal choices would be Rylance for Best Actor and Baron Cohen and Langella for Best Supporting Actor nods.
One of my issues with the scripts of Aaron Sorkin is that they tend to be overly dense and wordy. In epic TV like "The West Wing" he could spread the dialogue over a whole series, but in a feature film it can become very dense and verbose. I found that in both of his last two films - "Molly's Game" and "Steve Jobs".
Here, in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", even though there's a lot of speechifying, to me it never felt over the top. Although an epic courtroom drama (akin to his debut script "A Few Good Men") the characters are given time to breath between the lines. And many of those lines are real zingers, particularly out of the mouth of stand-up anarchist Abbie Hoffman (Sacha Baron Cohen).
Aside from the script being a zinger, the direction here from Aaron Sorkin is also top-notch. If you thought a courtroom drama was going to be static and boring, think again. The camera never rests, and inserted flashbacks (excellent film editing from Alan Baumgarten) maintain the momentum of the story.
Overall, this is a movie tour-de-force from Sorkin, and a fantastic watch. Could this be a writing/directing double Oscar nom for Sorkin?
(For the full graphical review, check out the bob the movie man review here - https://rb.gy/y6bxtf . Thanks.)
Darren (1599 KP) rated King Kong (2005) in Movies
Jun 25, 2019
Thoughts on King Kong
Characters – Ann Darrow is a stage actress who has ben performing in an unsuccessful show for years until her theatre gets closed down, she is getting desperate to work with famous play write, only to find herself meeting a film director working with him. Ann jumps at the chance to have a paid gig, only this becomes more than she ever bargained for, when she becomes the object of King Kong affections on Skull Island. Carl Denham is a film director whose latest film isn’t impressing his investors, he decides to run before having the whole projects plug pulled, taking his crew to an unknown island and even after the danger starts, he continues to film his evolving story. Jack Driscoll is the screenwriter that is trying to get back to his stage work, only to find that Carl has tricked him into remaining on the boat, forcing him to work on the screenplay, he starts to fall in love with Ann along the way too, willing to risk his own life to save hers. Kong is the feared ruler of Skull Island, he takes Ann as a sacrifice falling in love with the human on his island, he can fight any threat, including T-Rexes. He is the icon that we know from previous films bought to life once again.
Performances – Naomi Watts in the role made famous by Fay Wray, brings her own stamp to the role, handling the small comic moments very well through the film too. Jack Black might not have been many people’s first choice for the director role, but he proves a lot of people wrong with his performance, which still remains one of his best. Adrian Brody proves to be a great choice too because he gets to poke fun at the Hollywood stereotypes.
Story – The story here follows an ambitious director who takes his crew including a desperate young actress to Skull Island, a mysterious uncharted location only to find a land filled with unseen monsters including the king of the island Kong, who becomes friends with Ann the actress. This is the remake of the one of the classic films of the 1930s, it does tell the same story, only builds on everything to new levels, because back then, nobody knew how big movies were going to be, so this time we can look back at the movie building era, showing more of the conflicts between movies and theatre. The island is also much larger in scale with plenty of creatures which add to the story. we do even have small side stories which do work to fill the films lengthy 3 hour plus run time. We do get to see just how destructive the human can be to new worlds too.
Action/Adventure – The action in the film is massive, edge of the seat and most importantly brilliant to watch, be it the fights between creatures, monsters and humans, right down to the New York showdown with Kong. The adventure does take us to a new world, where we haven’t seen the creatures before, or at least not this size. It shows the most dangerous side of the explorer’s journeys in the world.
Settings – The film does use two main settings, first New York which is re-created for the time period perfectly, the second is the island which is filled with the beauty and terror you would have come to expect from an unknown location
Special Effects – The effects are one of the biggest talking points of this film, first of all Kong looks fantastic, large amounts of the film looks brilliant, but that one chase scene will drag this down because it is such a weak point for the film.
Scene of the Movie – Kong versus the T-Rex.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The canyon chase the CGI looks awful.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the remakes that works because of the improvement in technology, it is epic in scale and manages to capture the true feeling behind what made the original such a memorable movie.
Overall: Stunning remake that lives up to the scale of the movie.
Characters – Ann Darrow is a stage actress who has ben performing in an unsuccessful show for years until her theatre gets closed down, she is getting desperate to work with famous play write, only to find herself meeting a film director working with him. Ann jumps at the chance to have a paid gig, only this becomes more than she ever bargained for, when she becomes the object of King Kong affections on Skull Island. Carl Denham is a film director whose latest film isn’t impressing his investors, he decides to run before having the whole projects plug pulled, taking his crew to an unknown island and even after the danger starts, he continues to film his evolving story. Jack Driscoll is the screenwriter that is trying to get back to his stage work, only to find that Carl has tricked him into remaining on the boat, forcing him to work on the screenplay, he starts to fall in love with Ann along the way too, willing to risk his own life to save hers. Kong is the feared ruler of Skull Island, he takes Ann as a sacrifice falling in love with the human on his island, he can fight any threat, including T-Rexes. He is the icon that we know from previous films bought to life once again.
Performances – Naomi Watts in the role made famous by Fay Wray, brings her own stamp to the role, handling the small comic moments very well through the film too. Jack Black might not have been many people’s first choice for the director role, but he proves a lot of people wrong with his performance, which still remains one of his best. Adrian Brody proves to be a great choice too because he gets to poke fun at the Hollywood stereotypes.
Story – The story here follows an ambitious director who takes his crew including a desperate young actress to Skull Island, a mysterious uncharted location only to find a land filled with unseen monsters including the king of the island Kong, who becomes friends with Ann the actress. This is the remake of the one of the classic films of the 1930s, it does tell the same story, only builds on everything to new levels, because back then, nobody knew how big movies were going to be, so this time we can look back at the movie building era, showing more of the conflicts between movies and theatre. The island is also much larger in scale with plenty of creatures which add to the story. we do even have small side stories which do work to fill the films lengthy 3 hour plus run time. We do get to see just how destructive the human can be to new worlds too.
Action/Adventure – The action in the film is massive, edge of the seat and most importantly brilliant to watch, be it the fights between creatures, monsters and humans, right down to the New York showdown with Kong. The adventure does take us to a new world, where we haven’t seen the creatures before, or at least not this size. It shows the most dangerous side of the explorer’s journeys in the world.
Settings – The film does use two main settings, first New York which is re-created for the time period perfectly, the second is the island which is filled with the beauty and terror you would have come to expect from an unknown location
Special Effects – The effects are one of the biggest talking points of this film, first of all Kong looks fantastic, large amounts of the film looks brilliant, but that one chase scene will drag this down because it is such a weak point for the film.
Scene of the Movie – Kong versus the T-Rex.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The canyon chase the CGI looks awful.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the remakes that works because of the improvement in technology, it is epic in scale and manages to capture the true feeling behind what made the original such a memorable movie.
Overall: Stunning remake that lives up to the scale of the movie.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Composure in Tabletop Games
Sep 5, 2019
Sometimes you just identify with something so strongly that you have to respond to the call for action. Such was the case when I was contacted about reviewing Composure. Here’s what hooked me, “We started as just a couple buddies that didn’t think Cards Against Humanity was that funny.” If you know me or my game tastes, you would know that CAH is my ultimate least favorite game of all time. It’s just gross for the sake of being gross. Not a fan at all. So when we were sent Composure, I was hailing it to the group as the CAH-killer. Is it?
In Composure, the name of the game is keeping your composure while discussing subjects that may toe the line of offensive to some people. If you can answer difficult questions with a straight face, you may score VPs in the form of poker chips (included). If not, no chips. In fact, you pay chips to the pot when you laugh or get upset or just break composure.
To setup, deal each player 10 cards and 10 poker chips. You are now ready to play.
To start a round, everyone antes up a chip to the pot. When it is your turn to be the Dealer, you will choose a card from your hand and challenge another player to answer the question or scenario on your chosen card. Try to match up your card with the player you know with whom it will strike a chord and watch the devastation unfold. If anyone breaks composure, pay the pot. If you can answer without breaking composure, the Dealer awards you with chip(s). That’s the game. We just played until we got through our entire hands, but you can house rule end times/rounds.
Components. This game consists of a ton of cards and a ton of poker chips. Mine also came with a glamorous sheer sparkly bag into which I put the chips after playing. The cards are all fine quality, and the chips are standard white plastic poker chips. There really is no “art” to be had aside from the publisher’s logo on the cards and chip stickers. Nobody purchases CAH for the art, so nobody will purchase Composure for the art.
I think it must be me. I think because I toe the line of offensiveness on the daily that people with whom I play games come to expect that I will say something off-color or very dangerously close to offensive. Therefore, when I have played this game, the offensiveness was somewhat eschewed simply by my presence at the table. Don’t get me wrong, I am incredibly inclusive and I love all people, but I’ll probably say something stupid that I expect to be hilarious, but comes across as a little (or a whole ton) harsh and uncaring. That said, my game-mates are immune to this type of carrying on and so the game came across a little flat for us. This is NOT a knock on the game. I think it’s a case of game to gamer mismatch.
So here’s what I think. Composure IS a replacement for CAH for me. But then again, so is 52 Card Pickup. Now, while I do not own CAH, my brother Bryan does and that fills a niche for his collection. I did not have any offensive card games in my collection, so this will suit my needs in that area quite nicely. I don’t like the rudeness of CAH, but I get the same taste from this game without the punishment of having to play the former.
If you are looking for something that comes in an aggressive green color to knock off that disgusting big black box, then this is your game. If I were to house rule some stuff, I would have a discard and replace mechanic so that I can load my hand with group-appropriate cards and not be stuck with stinkers. That said, Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a sturdy 6 / 12. If you’re like me, ditch the crap and get yourself a real slightly-offensive card game.
In Composure, the name of the game is keeping your composure while discussing subjects that may toe the line of offensive to some people. If you can answer difficult questions with a straight face, you may score VPs in the form of poker chips (included). If not, no chips. In fact, you pay chips to the pot when you laugh or get upset or just break composure.
To setup, deal each player 10 cards and 10 poker chips. You are now ready to play.
To start a round, everyone antes up a chip to the pot. When it is your turn to be the Dealer, you will choose a card from your hand and challenge another player to answer the question or scenario on your chosen card. Try to match up your card with the player you know with whom it will strike a chord and watch the devastation unfold. If anyone breaks composure, pay the pot. If you can answer without breaking composure, the Dealer awards you with chip(s). That’s the game. We just played until we got through our entire hands, but you can house rule end times/rounds.
Components. This game consists of a ton of cards and a ton of poker chips. Mine also came with a glamorous sheer sparkly bag into which I put the chips after playing. The cards are all fine quality, and the chips are standard white plastic poker chips. There really is no “art” to be had aside from the publisher’s logo on the cards and chip stickers. Nobody purchases CAH for the art, so nobody will purchase Composure for the art.
I think it must be me. I think because I toe the line of offensiveness on the daily that people with whom I play games come to expect that I will say something off-color or very dangerously close to offensive. Therefore, when I have played this game, the offensiveness was somewhat eschewed simply by my presence at the table. Don’t get me wrong, I am incredibly inclusive and I love all people, but I’ll probably say something stupid that I expect to be hilarious, but comes across as a little (or a whole ton) harsh and uncaring. That said, my game-mates are immune to this type of carrying on and so the game came across a little flat for us. This is NOT a knock on the game. I think it’s a case of game to gamer mismatch.
So here’s what I think. Composure IS a replacement for CAH for me. But then again, so is 52 Card Pickup. Now, while I do not own CAH, my brother Bryan does and that fills a niche for his collection. I did not have any offensive card games in my collection, so this will suit my needs in that area quite nicely. I don’t like the rudeness of CAH, but I get the same taste from this game without the punishment of having to play the former.
If you are looking for something that comes in an aggressive green color to knock off that disgusting big black box, then this is your game. If I were to house rule some stuff, I would have a discard and replace mechanic so that I can load my hand with group-appropriate cards and not be stuck with stinkers. That said, Purple Phoenix Games gives this one a sturdy 6 / 12. If you’re like me, ditch the crap and get yourself a real slightly-offensive card game.
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated Thorn in Books
Aug 3, 2020
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
#1 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/3214627135">Thorn</a>; - ★★★★★
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Book-Review-Banner-56.png"/>;
Thorn by Intisar Khanani is such a powerful story about finding your true self, fighting against the injustice and loving with your whole heart.
<b>Synopsis</b>
Princess Alyrra grew up in a cruel family, fearing that her brother might hurt her every day. She despises the fact that she needs to behave in a certain way to appeal to the court. Her despise grows even more when she learns that she's been betrothed to the powerful Prince Kestrin, a stranger from another kingdom.
But when a sorceress robes Alyrra of her true identity, she sees this as an opportunity to start a new life as a goose girl, where she doesn't have to pretend in front of everyone and be her true self.
Soon enough, she realises what is actually going on with the regular people in the kingdom. The poverty, the crimes, the fact that the royal guards don't care at all. The fact that the street thieves have to make their own sets of rules in order to keep the peace on the streets.
When a big tragedy hits home, Alyrra knows she needs to make a choice. Stay here and give up the identity of the princess forever, or go back to being a princess, only for the sake of saving the people.
<b><i>"It is rare for someone who wants power to truly deserve it."</i></b>
<b>My Thoughts:</b>
Thorn is the first book of the Dauntless Path series, and I am so happy I had the chance to read it! Very powerful book, with a very strong female character, who is not afraid to say what she thinks and fight for what she believes in!
<b><i>"I've found that acting when you are afraid is the greatest sign of courage there is."</i></b>
What I loved about Alyrra's character is that it shows us how much of a hardship it can be to make a certain choice. It is not just black and white. At first, we all root for the - get your identity back. However, Alyrra has been abused all her life. Her brother abused her physically and her mother mentally. She then had to deal with the pressure of being a princess. Following rules. Not saying what she really thinks, but what others want to hear. She is then promised to marry someone she doesn't know and pretend to be someone she is not, again.
<b><i>And suddenly, she can be someone else.</i></b>
She has the chance to start a brand new life. A person that is not in the spotlight. She can think and speak freely. And that is why I understand her choice to want to stay as a goose girl forever.
<b><i>"We all have our unspoken sorrows, hopes we cannot mention, choices we may yet regret."</i></b>
But then she sees the true picture of how people are treated in the kingdom. How people live. The injustice that happens on the streets every single day. And then she also gets the attention of the prince and being who she is, she is not afraid to say her mind.
But to truly change things, she needs to become a princess again. And making such a choice comes not only with consequences, but with huge sacrifices too.
The ending of Thorn was very well written and very satisfying. I am looking forward to reading more about Alyrra's story and get more answers in the next book. I cannot recommend Thorn enough!
Thank you to ReadersFirst and Hot Key Books, for sending me a copy of this book in exchange for an honest review.
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
#1 <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/3214627135">Thorn</a>; - ★★★★★
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Book-Review-Banner-56.png"/>;
Thorn by Intisar Khanani is such a powerful story about finding your true self, fighting against the injustice and loving with your whole heart.
<b>Synopsis</b>
Princess Alyrra grew up in a cruel family, fearing that her brother might hurt her every day. She despises the fact that she needs to behave in a certain way to appeal to the court. Her despise grows even more when she learns that she's been betrothed to the powerful Prince Kestrin, a stranger from another kingdom.
But when a sorceress robes Alyrra of her true identity, she sees this as an opportunity to start a new life as a goose girl, where she doesn't have to pretend in front of everyone and be her true self.
Soon enough, she realises what is actually going on with the regular people in the kingdom. The poverty, the crimes, the fact that the royal guards don't care at all. The fact that the street thieves have to make their own sets of rules in order to keep the peace on the streets.
When a big tragedy hits home, Alyrra knows she needs to make a choice. Stay here and give up the identity of the princess forever, or go back to being a princess, only for the sake of saving the people.
<b><i>"It is rare for someone who wants power to truly deserve it."</i></b>
<b>My Thoughts:</b>
Thorn is the first book of the Dauntless Path series, and I am so happy I had the chance to read it! Very powerful book, with a very strong female character, who is not afraid to say what she thinks and fight for what she believes in!
<b><i>"I've found that acting when you are afraid is the greatest sign of courage there is."</i></b>
What I loved about Alyrra's character is that it shows us how much of a hardship it can be to make a certain choice. It is not just black and white. At first, we all root for the - get your identity back. However, Alyrra has been abused all her life. Her brother abused her physically and her mother mentally. She then had to deal with the pressure of being a princess. Following rules. Not saying what she really thinks, but what others want to hear. She is then promised to marry someone she doesn't know and pretend to be someone she is not, again.
<b><i>And suddenly, she can be someone else.</i></b>
She has the chance to start a brand new life. A person that is not in the spotlight. She can think and speak freely. And that is why I understand her choice to want to stay as a goose girl forever.
<b><i>"We all have our unspoken sorrows, hopes we cannot mention, choices we may yet regret."</i></b>
But then she sees the true picture of how people are treated in the kingdom. How people live. The injustice that happens on the streets every single day. And then she also gets the attention of the prince and being who she is, she is not afraid to say her mind.
But to truly change things, she needs to become a princess again. And making such a choice comes not only with consequences, but with huge sacrifices too.
The ending of Thorn was very well written and very satisfying. I am looking forward to reading more about Alyrra's story and get more answers in the next book. I cannot recommend Thorn enough!
Thank you to ReadersFirst and Hot Key Books, for sending me a copy of this book in exchange for an honest review.
Lee (2222 KP) rated An American Pickle (2020) in Movies
Sep 2, 2020
A fish-out-of-water movie where Seth Rogen plays two members of the same family, brought together following an accident which left one of them preserved in brine for 100 years? It’s a wacky premise, and with Rogen in the title role, you’d probably form a pretty good idea of how this might play out as a goofball comedy. Thankfully, it’s not like that at all.
It’s 1919. Herschel Greenbaum leads a simple life, working as a ditch-digger in Eastern European village Schlupsk – a tough job, that results in many broken shovels. One day though, his luck changes when he meets Sarah, and they fall in love. They have so much in common – his parents were murdered by Cossacks, her parents were murdered by Cossacks, not to mention the fact that they both like black! But when those pesky Cossacks ravage the village on their wedding day, Herschel and Sarah decide to set sail for America, with plans for a new life in the land of opportunity. Settling in Brooklyn, Herschel still has pretty simple life goals, wanting one day to be able to experience the luxury of seltzer water (“I want the bubbles to tickle my tongue”). But he and his now pregnant wife vow that in 100 years time, the Greenbaum name will actually mean something.
Herschel lands himself a slightly better job than ditch-digger – chasing and killing rats in a pickle factory! But an unfortunate accident sees Herschel falling into a large vat of pickles, right at the very moment that the factory gets condemned and shut down. The lid is placed on the vat and the workers quickly abandon the factory, leaving Herschel perfectly preserved in the brine. 100 years pass, and the city develops around the factory, which miraculously seems to remain untouched until 2019, when a couple of kids venture inside and remove the lid of the vat, releasing Herschel from his hibernation.
The science behind how this perfect preservation was possible is hilariously glossed over, and when his only living relative is discovered, Herschel is released into his care. Great-grandson Ben (also played by Rogen) is an app developer residing in Brooklyn, and with no living family is overjoyed at the opportunity to take Herschel back to his apartment and begin introducing him to the future.
Ben has a SodaStream, so finally being able to enjoy the tickling bubbles of seltzer water is already a highlight for Herschel. Ben also owns 25 pairs of socks, which is amazing as he only has two feet! But it’s not long before Herschel begins to question why Ben doesn’t have any family photos up in his apartment and why the mobile app that Ben has been working so hard on for the last five years hasn’t really taken off. After discovering that the plot of land where his wife Sarah is buried sits right beneath a billboard advertising vodka (“Cossack vodka!”), Herschel becomes determined to raise the $200,000 needed to buy the plot of land so that he can remove the billboard.
The trailer for An American Pickle gave the impression that, despite the obvious wackiness of the plot, there was evidence of a strong family movie at the heart – a touching representation of what it would mean to be able to spend some time with one of your ancestors. There are certainly elements of that here, early on and in the latter parts of the movie. However, with their differing approaches to family values and attitudes to business, the pair soon fall out, and there is a lengthy period of bickering and backstabbing, which eventually becomes tiresome. Herschel starts setting up his own pickle business from scratch, while a jealous Ben does his very best to ruin everything. It’s a noticeable lack of focus that ultimately lets the movie down.
Despite that, it’s wonderful to see Seth Rogen in such different roles. I’m not usually a fan of his, bored of his usual stoner shtick in almost every movie he’s in. But I really enjoyed his performances in this, especially as the thickly accented Herschel, and his interactions with Ben are both charming and wonderful at times.
It’s 1919. Herschel Greenbaum leads a simple life, working as a ditch-digger in Eastern European village Schlupsk – a tough job, that results in many broken shovels. One day though, his luck changes when he meets Sarah, and they fall in love. They have so much in common – his parents were murdered by Cossacks, her parents were murdered by Cossacks, not to mention the fact that they both like black! But when those pesky Cossacks ravage the village on their wedding day, Herschel and Sarah decide to set sail for America, with plans for a new life in the land of opportunity. Settling in Brooklyn, Herschel still has pretty simple life goals, wanting one day to be able to experience the luxury of seltzer water (“I want the bubbles to tickle my tongue”). But he and his now pregnant wife vow that in 100 years time, the Greenbaum name will actually mean something.
Herschel lands himself a slightly better job than ditch-digger – chasing and killing rats in a pickle factory! But an unfortunate accident sees Herschel falling into a large vat of pickles, right at the very moment that the factory gets condemned and shut down. The lid is placed on the vat and the workers quickly abandon the factory, leaving Herschel perfectly preserved in the brine. 100 years pass, and the city develops around the factory, which miraculously seems to remain untouched until 2019, when a couple of kids venture inside and remove the lid of the vat, releasing Herschel from his hibernation.
The science behind how this perfect preservation was possible is hilariously glossed over, and when his only living relative is discovered, Herschel is released into his care. Great-grandson Ben (also played by Rogen) is an app developer residing in Brooklyn, and with no living family is overjoyed at the opportunity to take Herschel back to his apartment and begin introducing him to the future.
Ben has a SodaStream, so finally being able to enjoy the tickling bubbles of seltzer water is already a highlight for Herschel. Ben also owns 25 pairs of socks, which is amazing as he only has two feet! But it’s not long before Herschel begins to question why Ben doesn’t have any family photos up in his apartment and why the mobile app that Ben has been working so hard on for the last five years hasn’t really taken off. After discovering that the plot of land where his wife Sarah is buried sits right beneath a billboard advertising vodka (“Cossack vodka!”), Herschel becomes determined to raise the $200,000 needed to buy the plot of land so that he can remove the billboard.
The trailer for An American Pickle gave the impression that, despite the obvious wackiness of the plot, there was evidence of a strong family movie at the heart – a touching representation of what it would mean to be able to spend some time with one of your ancestors. There are certainly elements of that here, early on and in the latter parts of the movie. However, with their differing approaches to family values and attitudes to business, the pair soon fall out, and there is a lengthy period of bickering and backstabbing, which eventually becomes tiresome. Herschel starts setting up his own pickle business from scratch, while a jealous Ben does his very best to ruin everything. It’s a noticeable lack of focus that ultimately lets the movie down.
Despite that, it’s wonderful to see Seth Rogen in such different roles. I’m not usually a fan of his, bored of his usual stoner shtick in almost every movie he’s in. But I really enjoyed his performances in this, especially as the thickly accented Herschel, and his interactions with Ben are both charming and wonderful at times.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Venom (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
A film that leaves you in two minds.
After all the terrible reviews of this movie (“The Times” reviewer described it as “excreble” which is harsh indeed) I was steeling myself to reach for my 1* rating. I was happy to find that it wasn’t quite as bad as I was expecting it to be. Indeed parts of it were positively good fun.
The plot
Tom Hardy plays Eddie Brock, a San Franciscan investigative reporter who is engaged to hot-shot lawyer Anne Weying (Michelle WIlliams). Brock is a bit of a maverick and always tends to push things a bit far, both at work and at home. Brock targets for his latest investigation Carlton Drake (Riz Ahmed): a billionaire space pioneer (I hope the producers got WELL lawyered up!) Drake is a Bond-style megalomaniac who is intend on saving mankind by merging humans with aliens to create a symbiotic organism. Not wishing to go through all the nampy-pamby clinical trials stuff, he is doing live research on vagrants and others who “won’t be missed”… with generally negative results. Infected accidently with the symbiont called Venom Brock’s future hangs in the balance: the meld will either kill him or else a new superhero will be born. (No guessing which!)
Review
For anyone with one foot already in the Spiderverse, Eddie Brock and his alter-ego Venom have appeared before, in the convoluted and pretty poor Tobey Maguire sequel “Spider-Man 3”. In that film Eddie (played by Topher Grace) was the boyfriend of Gwen Stacey (then played by Bryce Dallas-Howard) who was similarly infected by an alien symbiote and was transformed into Venom.
This new Venom incarnation is a Sony Pictures production “with” Marvel Studios, and although featuring a Stan Lee cameo it never quite feels like a Marvel picture. Posher critics have described it as “tonally inconsistent”…. which is posh-critic language for “it’s fecking all over the place”! And they are right. It veers suddenly from high drama and sci-fi action to plodding dialogue and Deadpool-style wisecracks with clutch-smoking rapidity. As such, the film never feels like it’s decided whether it wants to be at the po-faced Captain America end of the Marvel specturn or at the wise-cracking Deadpool/GotG end.
The Turns
Tom Hardy actually gets to spend a lot of this film without a mask over his face, which is certainly a novelty! And he gives it his all acting wise which will please his army of fans. But his pairing with the Oscar-winning Michelle Williams never feels comfortable: there seems little chemistry between the pair given that they are an “item”. None of this is helped by the grindingly turgid script which gives the pair, plus Reid Scott (“Dan” from “Veep”) as the third corner in the love triangle, some truly dire dialogue to spout at each other.
An act I did like in the film was Riz Ahmed as the “really bad guy” Drake. I found Ahmed extremely annoying in “Rogue One”, but here he slides into the smarmy evil role perfectly. A better script, like a future Bond film, would have benefitted from the turn!
Woody Harrelson also turns up in a mid-credit “monkey” as the supervillain Cletus Kasady, which meant nothing to me but certainly does to comic-book fans. (By the way, there is no “monkey” at the end of the film, but there is a 6 minute clip from the upcoming “Into the Spider Verse” cartoon feature tacked onto the end – at least of this Cineworld showing – which may or may not interest you).
A technical shout-out should go to Swedish composer Ludwig Göransson (who’s previously done “Black Panther” and “Creed”): an unusual soundtrack with odd electronica, eerie electric-guitar riffs for Eddie’s theme interspersed with exciting fast-paced action beats.
Final Thoughts
I must admit that from starting with a cynical “don’t want to know” approach to the Marvel Universe, the damn thing is slowly wearing me down into being kind of intrigued with what they are going to do next. This is not a classic Marvel flick, but for me it wasn’t nearly as bad as some of the critical reviews have made it out to be. I saw this alone: and we were quite entertained.
The plot
Tom Hardy plays Eddie Brock, a San Franciscan investigative reporter who is engaged to hot-shot lawyer Anne Weying (Michelle WIlliams). Brock is a bit of a maverick and always tends to push things a bit far, both at work and at home. Brock targets for his latest investigation Carlton Drake (Riz Ahmed): a billionaire space pioneer (I hope the producers got WELL lawyered up!) Drake is a Bond-style megalomaniac who is intend on saving mankind by merging humans with aliens to create a symbiotic organism. Not wishing to go through all the nampy-pamby clinical trials stuff, he is doing live research on vagrants and others who “won’t be missed”… with generally negative results. Infected accidently with the symbiont called Venom Brock’s future hangs in the balance: the meld will either kill him or else a new superhero will be born. (No guessing which!)
Review
For anyone with one foot already in the Spiderverse, Eddie Brock and his alter-ego Venom have appeared before, in the convoluted and pretty poor Tobey Maguire sequel “Spider-Man 3”. In that film Eddie (played by Topher Grace) was the boyfriend of Gwen Stacey (then played by Bryce Dallas-Howard) who was similarly infected by an alien symbiote and was transformed into Venom.
This new Venom incarnation is a Sony Pictures production “with” Marvel Studios, and although featuring a Stan Lee cameo it never quite feels like a Marvel picture. Posher critics have described it as “tonally inconsistent”…. which is posh-critic language for “it’s fecking all over the place”! And they are right. It veers suddenly from high drama and sci-fi action to plodding dialogue and Deadpool-style wisecracks with clutch-smoking rapidity. As such, the film never feels like it’s decided whether it wants to be at the po-faced Captain America end of the Marvel specturn or at the wise-cracking Deadpool/GotG end.
The Turns
Tom Hardy actually gets to spend a lot of this film without a mask over his face, which is certainly a novelty! And he gives it his all acting wise which will please his army of fans. But his pairing with the Oscar-winning Michelle Williams never feels comfortable: there seems little chemistry between the pair given that they are an “item”. None of this is helped by the grindingly turgid script which gives the pair, plus Reid Scott (“Dan” from “Veep”) as the third corner in the love triangle, some truly dire dialogue to spout at each other.
An act I did like in the film was Riz Ahmed as the “really bad guy” Drake. I found Ahmed extremely annoying in “Rogue One”, but here he slides into the smarmy evil role perfectly. A better script, like a future Bond film, would have benefitted from the turn!
Woody Harrelson also turns up in a mid-credit “monkey” as the supervillain Cletus Kasady, which meant nothing to me but certainly does to comic-book fans. (By the way, there is no “monkey” at the end of the film, but there is a 6 minute clip from the upcoming “Into the Spider Verse” cartoon feature tacked onto the end – at least of this Cineworld showing – which may or may not interest you).
A technical shout-out should go to Swedish composer Ludwig Göransson (who’s previously done “Black Panther” and “Creed”): an unusual soundtrack with odd electronica, eerie electric-guitar riffs for Eddie’s theme interspersed with exciting fast-paced action beats.
Final Thoughts
I must admit that from starting with a cynical “don’t want to know” approach to the Marvel Universe, the damn thing is slowly wearing me down into being kind of intrigued with what they are going to do next. This is not a classic Marvel flick, but for me it wasn’t nearly as bad as some of the critical reviews have made it out to be. I saw this alone: and we were quite entertained.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Mother! (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Welcome to the Crystal Maze.
Darren Aronosfsky’s mother! is like no other film you’ll see this year: guaranteed. As a film lover, an Aronosfsky film is a bit like root canal at the dentist: you know you really need to go ahead and do it, but you know you’re not going to be very comfortable in the process.
Jennifer Lawrence (“Passengers“, “Joy“) plays “mother!” doing up a dilapidated old house in the middle of nowhere with her much older husband “Him” (Javier Bardem, “Skyfall”). he (sorry…. He) is a world-famous poet struggling to overcome a massive writing block. The situation is making things tense between the couple, and things get worse when He inexplicably invites a homeless couple “man” (Ed Harris, “Westworld”, “The Truman Show”) and “woman” (Michelle Pfeiffer, “Stardust”) to stay at the house. As things go progressively downhill, is mother losing her mind or is all the crazy stuff going on actually happening?
Jennifer Lawrence can do no wrong at the moment, and her complexion in the film is flawless: it needs to be, since she has the camera constantly about 3 inches from her face for large chunks of the movie: I sat in the very back row, and I still wasn’t far enough away! Her portrayal of a house-proud woman getting progressively more and more irritated by her guests’ inconsiderate acts – a glass? without a table mat??! – is a joy to watch. As her DIY ‘paradise’ is progressively sullied my ‘man’ and ‘woman’, so her distress grows exponentially.
Some of the supporting acting is also superb, with Ed Harris and particularly Michelle Pfeiffer enjoying themselves immensely. Also worthy of note are the brothers played by real-life brothers Brian Gleeson and Domhnall Gleeson: the latter must never sleep since he must be *constantly* on set at the moment. One of these guys in particular is very abel! (sic).
Whereas the trailer depicts this as a kind of normal haunted house spookfest, it is actually nothing of the sort: much of the action (although far-fetched) has a reasonably rational explanation (a continuation of my theme of the “physics of horror” from my last two reviews). The film is largely seen through mother!’s eyes, and the skillful cinematographer Matthew Libatique – an Aronosfsky-regular – oppressively and relentlessly delivers a uniquely tense cinematic experience. For me, for the first two thirds of the film at least, it succeeds brilliantly.
Aronosfsky is no shirker of film controversy: having Natalie Portman perform oral sex on Natalie Portman in “Black Swan” was enough to teach you that. But in the final reels of this film, Aronosfsky doesn’t just wind the dial past 10 to the Spinal Tap 11…. he keeps going right on up to 20. There are a few scenes in movies over the years that I wish I could go back and “unsee”, and this film has one of those: a truly upsetting slice of horror, playing to your worst nightmares of loss and despair. While the religious allegory in these scenes is splatted on as heavily as the splodges of mother!’s decorative plaster, they are nonetheless extremely disturbing and bound to massively divide the cinema audience. I think it’s fair to say that this DVD is not going to have “The Perfect Gift for Mother’s Day” as its marketing strapline.
Which all leaves me… where exactly? For the first time in a long time I actually have no idea! This is a film that I was willing to give an “FF” to while I was watching it, but as time has passed and I have thought more on the environmental and religious allegories, and the portrayal of the cult worship prevalent in popular X-factor celebrity, I am warming to it despite my best instincts not to. I’m not religious, but I would love to compare notes on this one with someone with strongly Christian views.
So, I’m actually going to break all the rules (a snake told me to) and not provide any rating below at this time. I might revisit it again at Christmas* to see if I can resolve it in my mind as either a movie masterpiece or over-indulgent codswallop.
* I have, and have decided to give it 4 Fads… its a film I’ve thought about a lot over the last few months.
Jennifer Lawrence (“Passengers“, “Joy“) plays “mother!” doing up a dilapidated old house in the middle of nowhere with her much older husband “Him” (Javier Bardem, “Skyfall”). he (sorry…. He) is a world-famous poet struggling to overcome a massive writing block. The situation is making things tense between the couple, and things get worse when He inexplicably invites a homeless couple “man” (Ed Harris, “Westworld”, “The Truman Show”) and “woman” (Michelle Pfeiffer, “Stardust”) to stay at the house. As things go progressively downhill, is mother losing her mind or is all the crazy stuff going on actually happening?
Jennifer Lawrence can do no wrong at the moment, and her complexion in the film is flawless: it needs to be, since she has the camera constantly about 3 inches from her face for large chunks of the movie: I sat in the very back row, and I still wasn’t far enough away! Her portrayal of a house-proud woman getting progressively more and more irritated by her guests’ inconsiderate acts – a glass? without a table mat??! – is a joy to watch. As her DIY ‘paradise’ is progressively sullied my ‘man’ and ‘woman’, so her distress grows exponentially.
Some of the supporting acting is also superb, with Ed Harris and particularly Michelle Pfeiffer enjoying themselves immensely. Also worthy of note are the brothers played by real-life brothers Brian Gleeson and Domhnall Gleeson: the latter must never sleep since he must be *constantly* on set at the moment. One of these guys in particular is very abel! (sic).
Whereas the trailer depicts this as a kind of normal haunted house spookfest, it is actually nothing of the sort: much of the action (although far-fetched) has a reasonably rational explanation (a continuation of my theme of the “physics of horror” from my last two reviews). The film is largely seen through mother!’s eyes, and the skillful cinematographer Matthew Libatique – an Aronosfsky-regular – oppressively and relentlessly delivers a uniquely tense cinematic experience. For me, for the first two thirds of the film at least, it succeeds brilliantly.
Aronosfsky is no shirker of film controversy: having Natalie Portman perform oral sex on Natalie Portman in “Black Swan” was enough to teach you that. But in the final reels of this film, Aronosfsky doesn’t just wind the dial past 10 to the Spinal Tap 11…. he keeps going right on up to 20. There are a few scenes in movies over the years that I wish I could go back and “unsee”, and this film has one of those: a truly upsetting slice of horror, playing to your worst nightmares of loss and despair. While the religious allegory in these scenes is splatted on as heavily as the splodges of mother!’s decorative plaster, they are nonetheless extremely disturbing and bound to massively divide the cinema audience. I think it’s fair to say that this DVD is not going to have “The Perfect Gift for Mother’s Day” as its marketing strapline.
Which all leaves me… where exactly? For the first time in a long time I actually have no idea! This is a film that I was willing to give an “FF” to while I was watching it, but as time has passed and I have thought more on the environmental and religious allegories, and the portrayal of the cult worship prevalent in popular X-factor celebrity, I am warming to it despite my best instincts not to. I’m not religious, but I would love to compare notes on this one with someone with strongly Christian views.
So, I’m actually going to break all the rules (a snake told me to) and not provide any rating below at this time. I might revisit it again at Christmas* to see if I can resolve it in my mind as either a movie masterpiece or over-indulgent codswallop.
* I have, and have decided to give it 4 Fads… its a film I’ve thought about a lot over the last few months.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Sleepless (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A potentially good ‘B’ movie undone.
Ecclesiastes 1:9 came up with the oft used quote that “there is nothing new under the sun”. “Sleepless” proves that in spades.
Bent copper drama? Check.
Dodgy casino owner? Check.
Nasty “Black Rain” style hoodlum? Check.
Kidnapped teen (“I WILL find you”)? Check.
Misunderstood family man? Check.
All of these standard tropes are lobbed into the movie blender and pulsed well.
Holding it all together are solid performances from Jamie Foxx (“Django Unchained”) as Vincent Downs, the cop with a dodgy background, and Michelle Monaghan (“Source Code”, “Patriot’s Day”) as the internal affairs cop doggedly on his trail.
In terms of the storyline it’s best to go into the film (as I did) with limited knowledge of the plot (on which more below). As the film opens, and playing out a strong anti-hero role, Downs with his equally dodgy partner are involved in a shootout at a drug deal in the streets of Las Vegas. This allows them to get their hands on a significant quantity of heroine. Naturally they pocket this, but unbeknownst to them the deal was between casino boss Rubino (Dermot Mulrooney, “The Grey”) and the vicious mafia son of the local Novak family, Rob (Scoot McNairy, “Argo”). For Downs the pressure is on when his teenage son Thomas ( Octavius J. Johnson) is kidnapped as a trade for the drugs.
The film delivers some good fight scenes and action, but nothing we haven’t seen before in countless other movies like Bourne. What drags the film down though is the scripting and direction. There are such a range of implausibilities on show here that it makes you wonder why anyone involved in the film didn’t just stop and say “WAIT A MINUTE HERE GUYS” and demand a rewrite.
For example, Foxx suffers a severe knife wound early in the film, but repeatedly bounces from ‘full action hero fighting machine’ mode to ‘staggering and holding his side’ mode without pause. The wound adds nothing but implausibility to the action, so why include it at all??
And a scene in an underground car park involving copious quantities of tear gas brought tears of embarrassment to my eyes: an affliction that didn’t seem to affect any of the protagonists in the film!
This is a great shame, and writer Andrea Berloff (“Straight Outta Compton”) and Swiss-born director Baran bo Odar should have more respect for their audience’s intelligence (that’s the third movie in recent weeks I’ve made that comment on… it must be the time of year!).
It’s also extremely irritating that one of the key twists in the movie (although you may guess it) is so blatantly spoiled: both by an audio line in the trailer (commented on below) and – more appallingly – by one of the two straplines on the posters (I haven’t used that one to head my post). Thankfully I never noticed this before I saw the film.
Fox and Monaghan are too good for the material but have screen chemistry that keeps the film watchable. I also thought Scoot McNairy was great as the cold-eyed crazy hoodlum and it’s also interesting to see Dermot Mulrooney, so memorable as the male lead in 1997’s “My Best Friend’s Wedding”, back in a mainstream role.
By the way, I have no idea why the film is called “Sleepless”, other than it being based on a 2011 French film called “Nuit Blanche” which was perhaps written in a way where it made more sense. Vincent is no Jack Bauer and he gets more than a small opportunity to catnap during the running time!
In summary, the movie is perfectly watchable for its action moments. In fact, as I *think* my wife, who is a great fan of “Die Hard, “Taken”, et al would like it I’ve added a half-Fad to my initial rating. And it’s done with some style such that it has the *potential* to be a good film – – which is frustrating. But in my view it’s not worth the ticket price at the cinema: wait instead for it to arrive on Amazon/Netflix.
The end of the film suggests a set-up for a sequel. I doubt this is a sequel that will ever get made.
Bent copper drama? Check.
Dodgy casino owner? Check.
Nasty “Black Rain” style hoodlum? Check.
Kidnapped teen (“I WILL find you”)? Check.
Misunderstood family man? Check.
All of these standard tropes are lobbed into the movie blender and pulsed well.
Holding it all together are solid performances from Jamie Foxx (“Django Unchained”) as Vincent Downs, the cop with a dodgy background, and Michelle Monaghan (“Source Code”, “Patriot’s Day”) as the internal affairs cop doggedly on his trail.
In terms of the storyline it’s best to go into the film (as I did) with limited knowledge of the plot (on which more below). As the film opens, and playing out a strong anti-hero role, Downs with his equally dodgy partner are involved in a shootout at a drug deal in the streets of Las Vegas. This allows them to get their hands on a significant quantity of heroine. Naturally they pocket this, but unbeknownst to them the deal was between casino boss Rubino (Dermot Mulrooney, “The Grey”) and the vicious mafia son of the local Novak family, Rob (Scoot McNairy, “Argo”). For Downs the pressure is on when his teenage son Thomas ( Octavius J. Johnson) is kidnapped as a trade for the drugs.
The film delivers some good fight scenes and action, but nothing we haven’t seen before in countless other movies like Bourne. What drags the film down though is the scripting and direction. There are such a range of implausibilities on show here that it makes you wonder why anyone involved in the film didn’t just stop and say “WAIT A MINUTE HERE GUYS” and demand a rewrite.
For example, Foxx suffers a severe knife wound early in the film, but repeatedly bounces from ‘full action hero fighting machine’ mode to ‘staggering and holding his side’ mode without pause. The wound adds nothing but implausibility to the action, so why include it at all??
And a scene in an underground car park involving copious quantities of tear gas brought tears of embarrassment to my eyes: an affliction that didn’t seem to affect any of the protagonists in the film!
This is a great shame, and writer Andrea Berloff (“Straight Outta Compton”) and Swiss-born director Baran bo Odar should have more respect for their audience’s intelligence (that’s the third movie in recent weeks I’ve made that comment on… it must be the time of year!).
It’s also extremely irritating that one of the key twists in the movie (although you may guess it) is so blatantly spoiled: both by an audio line in the trailer (commented on below) and – more appallingly – by one of the two straplines on the posters (I haven’t used that one to head my post). Thankfully I never noticed this before I saw the film.
Fox and Monaghan are too good for the material but have screen chemistry that keeps the film watchable. I also thought Scoot McNairy was great as the cold-eyed crazy hoodlum and it’s also interesting to see Dermot Mulrooney, so memorable as the male lead in 1997’s “My Best Friend’s Wedding”, back in a mainstream role.
By the way, I have no idea why the film is called “Sleepless”, other than it being based on a 2011 French film called “Nuit Blanche” which was perhaps written in a way where it made more sense. Vincent is no Jack Bauer and he gets more than a small opportunity to catnap during the running time!
In summary, the movie is perfectly watchable for its action moments. In fact, as I *think* my wife, who is a great fan of “Die Hard, “Taken”, et al would like it I’ve added a half-Fad to my initial rating. And it’s done with some style such that it has the *potential* to be a good film – – which is frustrating. But in my view it’s not worth the ticket price at the cinema: wait instead for it to arrive on Amazon/Netflix.
The end of the film suggests a set-up for a sequel. I doubt this is a sequel that will ever get made.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Jackie (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Spoiler! Her husband gets shot.
“Jackie” tells the story of the spiralling grief, loss and anger of Jackie Kennedy driven by the assassination of JFK in Dallas in November 1963. Hopping backwards and forwards in flashback, the film centres on the first interview given by Jackie (Natalie Portman, “Black Swan”) to a ‘Time’ journalist (Billy Crudup, “Watchmen”, “Spotlight”).
Through this interview we flashback to see Jackie as the young First Lady engaged in recording a TV special for a tour of the White House: nervous, unsure of herself and with a ‘baby girl’ voice. This contrasts with her demeanour in the interview which – although subject to emotional outburst and grief – is assured, confident and above all extremely assertive. We live the film through Jackie’s eyes as she experiences the arrival in Dallas, the traumatic events of November 22nd in Dealey Plaza, the return home to Washington and the complicated arrangement of the President’s funeral.
This is an acting tour de force for Natalie Portman, who is astonishingly emotional as the grief-stricken ex-first lady. She nails this role utterly and completely. Having already won the Golden Globe for an actress in a dramatic role, you would be a foolish man to bet against her not taking the Oscar. (I know I said just the other week that I though Emma Stone should get it for “La La Land” – as another Golden Globe winner, for the Comedy/Musical category – and a large part of my heart would still really like to see Stone win it…. But excellent as that performance was, this is a far more challenging role.)
In a key supporting role is Peter Sarsgaard (“The Magnificent Seven”) as Bobby Kennedy (although his lookalike is not one of the best: that accolade I would give to Gaspard Koenig, in an un-speaking role, as the young Ted Kennedy).
Also providing interesting support as Jackie’s priest is John Hurt (“Alien”, “Dr Who”) and, as Jackie’s close friend, the artist Bill Walton, is Richard E Grant (“Withnail and I”, who as he grows older is looking more and more like Geoffrey Rush – I was sure it was him!).
Director Pablo Larraín (whose previous work I am not familiar with) automatically assumes that EVERYONE has the background history to understand the narrative without further explanation: perhaps as this happened 54 years ago, this is a bit of a presumption for younger viewers? Naturally for people of my advanced years, these events are as burned into our collective psyches as the images in the Zapruder film.
While the film focuses predominantly, and brilliantly, on Jackie’s mental state, the film does gently question (via an outburst from Bobby) as to what JFK actually achieved in his all too short presidency – ‘Will he be remembered for resolving the Cuban missile crisis: something he originally created?’ rants Bobby. In reality, JFK is remembered in history for this assassination and the lost potential for what he might have done. I would have liked the script to have delved a little bit further into that collective soul-searching.
This is a very sombre movie in tone, from the bleak opening, with a soundtrack of sonorous strings, to the bleak weather-swept scenes at Arlington cemetery. The cinematography (by Stéphane Fontaine, “Rust and Bone”) cleverly contrasts between the vibrant hues of Jackie’s “Camelot” to the washed-out blueish tones of the post-assassination events. If you don’t feel depressed going into this film, you probably will be coming out! But the journey is a satisfying one nonetheless, and the script by Noah Oppenheim – in a SIGNIFICANT departure from his previous teen-flick screenplays for “Allegiant” and “The Maze Runner” – is both tight and thought-provoking.
Overall, a recommended watch which comes with a prediction: “And the Oscar goes to… Natalie Portman”.
Finally, note that for those of a squeamish disposition, there is a very graphic depiction of the assassination from Jackie’s point-of-view…. but this is not until nearly the end of the film, so you are reasonably safe until then!
Also as a final general whinge, could directors PLEASE place an embargo on the logos of more than two production companies coming up at the start of a film? This has about six of them and is farcical, aping the (very amusing) parody in “Family Guy” (as shown here).
Through this interview we flashback to see Jackie as the young First Lady engaged in recording a TV special for a tour of the White House: nervous, unsure of herself and with a ‘baby girl’ voice. This contrasts with her demeanour in the interview which – although subject to emotional outburst and grief – is assured, confident and above all extremely assertive. We live the film through Jackie’s eyes as she experiences the arrival in Dallas, the traumatic events of November 22nd in Dealey Plaza, the return home to Washington and the complicated arrangement of the President’s funeral.
This is an acting tour de force for Natalie Portman, who is astonishingly emotional as the grief-stricken ex-first lady. She nails this role utterly and completely. Having already won the Golden Globe for an actress in a dramatic role, you would be a foolish man to bet against her not taking the Oscar. (I know I said just the other week that I though Emma Stone should get it for “La La Land” – as another Golden Globe winner, for the Comedy/Musical category – and a large part of my heart would still really like to see Stone win it…. But excellent as that performance was, this is a far more challenging role.)
In a key supporting role is Peter Sarsgaard (“The Magnificent Seven”) as Bobby Kennedy (although his lookalike is not one of the best: that accolade I would give to Gaspard Koenig, in an un-speaking role, as the young Ted Kennedy).
Also providing interesting support as Jackie’s priest is John Hurt (“Alien”, “Dr Who”) and, as Jackie’s close friend, the artist Bill Walton, is Richard E Grant (“Withnail and I”, who as he grows older is looking more and more like Geoffrey Rush – I was sure it was him!).
Director Pablo Larraín (whose previous work I am not familiar with) automatically assumes that EVERYONE has the background history to understand the narrative without further explanation: perhaps as this happened 54 years ago, this is a bit of a presumption for younger viewers? Naturally for people of my advanced years, these events are as burned into our collective psyches as the images in the Zapruder film.
While the film focuses predominantly, and brilliantly, on Jackie’s mental state, the film does gently question (via an outburst from Bobby) as to what JFK actually achieved in his all too short presidency – ‘Will he be remembered for resolving the Cuban missile crisis: something he originally created?’ rants Bobby. In reality, JFK is remembered in history for this assassination and the lost potential for what he might have done. I would have liked the script to have delved a little bit further into that collective soul-searching.
This is a very sombre movie in tone, from the bleak opening, with a soundtrack of sonorous strings, to the bleak weather-swept scenes at Arlington cemetery. The cinematography (by Stéphane Fontaine, “Rust and Bone”) cleverly contrasts between the vibrant hues of Jackie’s “Camelot” to the washed-out blueish tones of the post-assassination events. If you don’t feel depressed going into this film, you probably will be coming out! But the journey is a satisfying one nonetheless, and the script by Noah Oppenheim – in a SIGNIFICANT departure from his previous teen-flick screenplays for “Allegiant” and “The Maze Runner” – is both tight and thought-provoking.
Overall, a recommended watch which comes with a prediction: “And the Oscar goes to… Natalie Portman”.
Finally, note that for those of a squeamish disposition, there is a very graphic depiction of the assassination from Jackie’s point-of-view…. but this is not until nearly the end of the film, so you are reasonably safe until then!
Also as a final general whinge, could directors PLEASE place an embargo on the logos of more than two production companies coming up at the start of a film? This has about six of them and is farcical, aping the (very amusing) parody in “Family Guy” (as shown here).
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Last Night in Soho (2021) in Movies
Nov 11, 2021
Edgar Wright’s Haunting Love Letter to the Swinging Sixties.
A young 21st-century teen walks in her nightclothes down a darkened alley emerging into a bustling 60’s Soho street across from a theatre showing “Thunderball”. She enters the Cafe de Paris with a reflection mimicking her actions but showing a very different girl. So it was that the trailer for Edgar Wright’s “Last Night in Soho” hit earlier this year.
The trailer grabbed me by the gut and firmly cemented it as a “must see” in my movie-watching schedule. Frustratingly, Covid got in my way. But now free of the wretched virus, this had just HAD be my first outing.
Plot Summary:
Eloise (Thomasin McKenzie) is a Cornish teen whose fashion and music tastes are firmly rooted in the ’60s. She is also blessed (or plagued) with having visions of people who’ve passed, including her dead mother.
Travelling to a London fashion school, Eloise is a lost soul in a raucous world. But at night, she is mystically transported back to the swinging 60’s into the body of aspiring singer Sandie (Anya Taylor-Joy). Sandie is under the thrall of ‘manager’ Jack (Matt Smith), and Eloise witnesses events that she needs to tell people about. But who would possibly believe such a tale?
Certification:
US: R. UK: 18.
Talent:
Starring: Thomasin McKenzie, Anya Taylor-Joy, Matt Smith, Terence Stamp, Diana Rigg.
Directed by: Edgar Wright.
Written by: Krysty Wilson-Cairns (based on a story by Edgar Wright).
“Last Night in Soho” Review: Positives:
This is SUCH a tour de force of filmmaking. Honestly, there were moments in here, particularly in the first half of the movie, where I was beaming from ear to ear at the audacity of it all. That ‘time travel’ reveal is even better in ‘the flesh’ than it was in the trailer, enhanced by the vibrant cinematography of Chung-hoon Chung.
Thomasin McKensie again impressed me immensely. She was of course the ‘girl in the attic’ from “Jojo Rabbit” and the best thing in the lacklustre M. Night Shyamalan feature “Old“. Anya Taylor-Joy is as spectacular as you would expect and Matt Smith also delivers, although I wasn’t completely convinced by Smith’s cockney accent. And what a wonderful thing to watch veteran actors Terence Stamp and Diana RIgg strut their stuff on the big screen. (This was Rigg’s final screen performance, and the film is dedicated to her: “For Diana”. RIP Ms Rigg.)
The combination of ‘in camera’ and special effects here are gob-smackingly effective. Some of the ‘mirror’ effects involving Eloise, Sandie and Jack in the club are gleeful. And I’m not sure how they were all done. And a dance sequence where Eloise switches to Sandie and back again is just so clever.
The Production Design is just brilliant. It oozes a combination of 60’s style and sleaze. Surely an Oscar nomination is due here.
As with other Edgar Wright movies (like “Baby Driver“) the choice of music is superb. The score is by Oscar winning composer Steven Price, but you can be sure that Wright was heavily involved in the track selections. These prominently feature a Cilla Black track – heralded by 15 string beats of total perfection – that is in my top 5 songs from the 60’s. And Anya Taylor-Joy’s haunting version of “Downtown” is just superb.
Acting Royalty…. Diana Rigg in her last role, and….
Negatives:
The second half of the film just doesn’t *quite* live up to the promise of the first half (which was running as a clear 5*s).
While the inevitable twist in the tale is clever (and unexpected), I thought it was rather clumsily introduced. (I can’t go into details without introducing spoilers, but an envelope is involved). Something more subliminal would have been my preference; something that you would have had to watch the film again to catch.
A stunning starring role for Thomasin McKenzie. Just wonderful.
Summary Thoughts on “Last Night in Soho”
I loved this one. It lived up to my expectations, and came close to “classic status”. I need to give this careful consideration as to where this sits in my “Top 10 Films of the Year”, but it is undoubtedly up there in the list.
Highly recommended, if you are content to stomach some violent (and quite disturbing) horror imagery.
The trailer grabbed me by the gut and firmly cemented it as a “must see” in my movie-watching schedule. Frustratingly, Covid got in my way. But now free of the wretched virus, this had just HAD be my first outing.
Plot Summary:
Eloise (Thomasin McKenzie) is a Cornish teen whose fashion and music tastes are firmly rooted in the ’60s. She is also blessed (or plagued) with having visions of people who’ve passed, including her dead mother.
Travelling to a London fashion school, Eloise is a lost soul in a raucous world. But at night, she is mystically transported back to the swinging 60’s into the body of aspiring singer Sandie (Anya Taylor-Joy). Sandie is under the thrall of ‘manager’ Jack (Matt Smith), and Eloise witnesses events that she needs to tell people about. But who would possibly believe such a tale?
Certification:
US: R. UK: 18.
Talent:
Starring: Thomasin McKenzie, Anya Taylor-Joy, Matt Smith, Terence Stamp, Diana Rigg.
Directed by: Edgar Wright.
Written by: Krysty Wilson-Cairns (based on a story by Edgar Wright).
“Last Night in Soho” Review: Positives:
This is SUCH a tour de force of filmmaking. Honestly, there were moments in here, particularly in the first half of the movie, where I was beaming from ear to ear at the audacity of it all. That ‘time travel’ reveal is even better in ‘the flesh’ than it was in the trailer, enhanced by the vibrant cinematography of Chung-hoon Chung.
Thomasin McKensie again impressed me immensely. She was of course the ‘girl in the attic’ from “Jojo Rabbit” and the best thing in the lacklustre M. Night Shyamalan feature “Old“. Anya Taylor-Joy is as spectacular as you would expect and Matt Smith also delivers, although I wasn’t completely convinced by Smith’s cockney accent. And what a wonderful thing to watch veteran actors Terence Stamp and Diana RIgg strut their stuff on the big screen. (This was Rigg’s final screen performance, and the film is dedicated to her: “For Diana”. RIP Ms Rigg.)
The combination of ‘in camera’ and special effects here are gob-smackingly effective. Some of the ‘mirror’ effects involving Eloise, Sandie and Jack in the club are gleeful. And I’m not sure how they were all done. And a dance sequence where Eloise switches to Sandie and back again is just so clever.
The Production Design is just brilliant. It oozes a combination of 60’s style and sleaze. Surely an Oscar nomination is due here.
As with other Edgar Wright movies (like “Baby Driver“) the choice of music is superb. The score is by Oscar winning composer Steven Price, but you can be sure that Wright was heavily involved in the track selections. These prominently feature a Cilla Black track – heralded by 15 string beats of total perfection – that is in my top 5 songs from the 60’s. And Anya Taylor-Joy’s haunting version of “Downtown” is just superb.
Acting Royalty…. Diana Rigg in her last role, and….
Negatives:
The second half of the film just doesn’t *quite* live up to the promise of the first half (which was running as a clear 5*s).
While the inevitable twist in the tale is clever (and unexpected), I thought it was rather clumsily introduced. (I can’t go into details without introducing spoilers, but an envelope is involved). Something more subliminal would have been my preference; something that you would have had to watch the film again to catch.
A stunning starring role for Thomasin McKenzie. Just wonderful.
Summary Thoughts on “Last Night in Soho”
I loved this one. It lived up to my expectations, and came close to “classic status”. I need to give this careful consideration as to where this sits in my “Top 10 Films of the Year”, but it is undoubtedly up there in the list.
Highly recommended, if you are content to stomach some violent (and quite disturbing) horror imagery.