Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Murder on the Orient Express (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
You’ll never guess who dunnit…
There’s a big problem with Kenneth Branagh’s 2017 filming of the Hercule Poirot-based murder mystery…. and that’s the 1974 Sidney Lumet classic featuring Albert Finney in the starring role. For that film was so memorable – at least, the “who” of the “whodunnit” (no spoilers here) was so memorable – that any remake is likely to be tarnished by that knowledge. If you go into this film blissfully unaware of the plot, you are a lucky man/woman. For this is a classic Agatha Christie yarn.
The irascible, borderline OCD, but undeniably great Belgian detective, Poirot, is dragged around the world by grateful police forces to help solve unsolvable crimes. After solving a case in Jerusalem, Poirot is called back to the UK with his mode of transport being the famous Orient Express. Trapped in the mountains by an avalanche, a murder is committed and with multiple suspects and a plethora of clues it is up to Poirot to solve the case.
Branagh enjoys himself enormously as Poirot, sporting the most distractingly magnificent facial hair since Daniel Day-Lewis in “The Gangs of New York”. The moustache must have had its own trailer and make-up team!
Above all, the film is glorious to look at, featuring a rich and exotic colour palette that is reminiscent of the early colour films of the 40’s. Cinematography was by Haris Zambarloukos (“Mamma Mia” and who also collaborated with Branagh on “Thor) with lots of innovative “ceiling down” shots and artful point-of-view takes that might be annoying to some but which I consider as deserving of Oscar/BAFTA nominations.
The pictures are accompanied by a lush score by Patrick Doyle (who also scored Branagh’s “Thor”). Hats off also to the special effects crew, who made the alpine bridge scenes look decidedly more alpine than where they were actually filmed (on a specially made bridge in the Surrey Hills!).
All these technical elements combine to make the film’s early stages look and feel truly epic.
And the cast… what a cast! Dame Judi Dench (“Victoria and Abdul“); Olivia Coleman (“The Lobster“); Johnny Depp (“Black Mass“); Daisy Ridley (“Star Wars: The Force Awakens“); Penélope Cruz (“Zoolander 2“); Josh Gad (Olaf!); Derek Jacobi (“I, Claudius”); Willem Dafoe (“The Great Wall“) and Michelle Pfeiffer (“mother!“). A real case again of an “oh, it’s you” film again at the cinema – when’s the last time we saw that?
It’s also great to see young Lucy Boynton, so magnificent in last year’s excellent “Sing Street“, getting an A-list role as the twitchy and disturbed countess.
With all these ingredients in the pot, it should be great, right? Unfortunately, in my view, no, not quite. The film’s opening momentum is really not maintained by the screenplay by Michael Green (“Blade Runner 2049“; “Logan“). At heart, it’s a fairly static and “stagey” piece at best, set as it is on the rather claustrophobic train (just three carriages… on the Orient Express… really?). But the tale is made even more static by the train’s derailment in the snow. Branagh and Green try to sex up the action where they can, but there are lengthy passages of fairly repetitive dialogue. One encounter in particular between Branagh and Depp seems to last interminably: you wonder if the problem was that the director wasn’t always looking on to yell “Cut”!
All this leads to the “revelation” of the murderer as being a bit of an anticlimactic “thank heavens for that” rather than the gasping denouement it should have been. (Perhaps this would be different if you didn’t know the twist).
However, these reservations aside, it’s an enjoyable night out at the flicks, although a bit of a disappointment from the level of expectation I had for it. I can’t be too grumpy about it, given it’s a return to good old-fashioned yarn-spinning at the cinema, with great visuals and an epic cast. And that has to be good news.
For sure, Branagh does make for an amusing and engaging Poirot, even if his dialogue did need some ‘tuning in’ to. There was a suggestion at the end of the film that we might be seeing his return in “Death on the Nile” – the most lush and decorous of Peter Ustinov’s outings – which I would certainly welcome. He will have to find another 10 A-list stars though to decorate the boat, which will be a challenge for casting!
The irascible, borderline OCD, but undeniably great Belgian detective, Poirot, is dragged around the world by grateful police forces to help solve unsolvable crimes. After solving a case in Jerusalem, Poirot is called back to the UK with his mode of transport being the famous Orient Express. Trapped in the mountains by an avalanche, a murder is committed and with multiple suspects and a plethora of clues it is up to Poirot to solve the case.
Branagh enjoys himself enormously as Poirot, sporting the most distractingly magnificent facial hair since Daniel Day-Lewis in “The Gangs of New York”. The moustache must have had its own trailer and make-up team!
Above all, the film is glorious to look at, featuring a rich and exotic colour palette that is reminiscent of the early colour films of the 40’s. Cinematography was by Haris Zambarloukos (“Mamma Mia” and who also collaborated with Branagh on “Thor) with lots of innovative “ceiling down” shots and artful point-of-view takes that might be annoying to some but which I consider as deserving of Oscar/BAFTA nominations.
The pictures are accompanied by a lush score by Patrick Doyle (who also scored Branagh’s “Thor”). Hats off also to the special effects crew, who made the alpine bridge scenes look decidedly more alpine than where they were actually filmed (on a specially made bridge in the Surrey Hills!).
All these technical elements combine to make the film’s early stages look and feel truly epic.
And the cast… what a cast! Dame Judi Dench (“Victoria and Abdul“); Olivia Coleman (“The Lobster“); Johnny Depp (“Black Mass“); Daisy Ridley (“Star Wars: The Force Awakens“); Penélope Cruz (“Zoolander 2“); Josh Gad (Olaf!); Derek Jacobi (“I, Claudius”); Willem Dafoe (“The Great Wall“) and Michelle Pfeiffer (“mother!“). A real case again of an “oh, it’s you” film again at the cinema – when’s the last time we saw that?
It’s also great to see young Lucy Boynton, so magnificent in last year’s excellent “Sing Street“, getting an A-list role as the twitchy and disturbed countess.
With all these ingredients in the pot, it should be great, right? Unfortunately, in my view, no, not quite. The film’s opening momentum is really not maintained by the screenplay by Michael Green (“Blade Runner 2049“; “Logan“). At heart, it’s a fairly static and “stagey” piece at best, set as it is on the rather claustrophobic train (just three carriages… on the Orient Express… really?). But the tale is made even more static by the train’s derailment in the snow. Branagh and Green try to sex up the action where they can, but there are lengthy passages of fairly repetitive dialogue. One encounter in particular between Branagh and Depp seems to last interminably: you wonder if the problem was that the director wasn’t always looking on to yell “Cut”!
All this leads to the “revelation” of the murderer as being a bit of an anticlimactic “thank heavens for that” rather than the gasping denouement it should have been. (Perhaps this would be different if you didn’t know the twist).
However, these reservations aside, it’s an enjoyable night out at the flicks, although a bit of a disappointment from the level of expectation I had for it. I can’t be too grumpy about it, given it’s a return to good old-fashioned yarn-spinning at the cinema, with great visuals and an epic cast. And that has to be good news.
For sure, Branagh does make for an amusing and engaging Poirot, even if his dialogue did need some ‘tuning in’ to. There was a suggestion at the end of the film that we might be seeing his return in “Death on the Nile” – the most lush and decorous of Peter Ustinov’s outings – which I would certainly welcome. He will have to find another 10 A-list stars though to decorate the boat, which will be a challenge for casting!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Alone in Berlin (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Small Rebellions.
Once again, World War II turns up another true story of quiet valour to turn into a motion picture. At a time when Trump is pontificating about so called “fake news”, here is a timely tale from history which centres on the battle against genuinely fake news: the Nazi propaganda machine.
After losing their only son in the French campaign, Berliners Otto (Brendan Gleeson,”Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire”) and Anna (Emma Thompson, “Saving Mr Banks“) turn against the regime and in repeated acts of rebellion Otto laboriously hand writes subversive postcards to leave in office blocks around Berlin.
Resistance is futile. Otto (Brendan Gleeson) and Anna (Emma Thompson) out on a new mission.
Out to catch him is local police investigator Escherich (Daniel Brühl) but in an age before CCTV that’s no easy task and with increasing SS pressure the stakes for Escherich steadily increase. For Otto and Anna, the stress is there but both are resigned to their fate: with their son stolen from them for an unjust cause they are an island of indifference in an unholy land. Both are ‘alone in Berlin’.
Daniel Brühl as police detective Escherich getting more than he bargained for from the SS.
After 70 years it still chills the blood to see German locations decked out in Nazi regalia, but one of the joys of this film is this rendering of life in wartime Berlin: starting with jubilation at German progress prior to D-Day and turning to despair and genuine danger as the tide turns towards 1945. In a pretty bleak film there are touches of black comedy now and then: Otto’s carpentry company is being encouraged “by the Fuhrer” to double and triple their output… of coffins.
A (very clean) Berlin, decked out with Nazi regalia.
More joy comes from the star turns of Gleeson and Thompson, both of who deliver on their emotionally challenging roles. Gleeson in particular makes a very believable German with a sour demeanor and a steely determination. But the star acting turn for me goes to the wonderful Daniel Brühl (“Rush“) as the tormented police detective, bullied into an ethical corner by the SS. The finale of the film – whilst not seeming quite believable – makes for a nicely unexpected twist.
The Nazi Womens’ League out on another fund-raising sweep, providing Thompson with one of her best scenes in the film with an Oberführer’s wife.
Based on a novel by Hans Fallada, the lead writing credits for the piece are shared between Achim von Borries and the director Vincent Perez – in a rare directorial outing for the Swiss actor. The script exudes a melancholic gloom and at times expresses beautifully both the grief and love shared by this older couple. But some of the dialogue needs more work and we don’t see enough of Thompson in the early part of the film where her motivations should be being developed. This rather comes down to a lack of focus by the director. While the primary story of the card distribution is slight, it is compelling and a detour into a sub-story about an old Jewish lodger living upstairs is unnecessary and detracts from the overall story arc. I would have far preferred if the running time had been a tight 90 minutes just focused on Otto’s mission. One final comment on the script: did I mishear that Anna claimed to have a 6 year old child during an air raid scene? I know Emma Thompson looks great for her age, but….
Otto and Elise Hampel – the real life characters on which the film’s Otto and Anna Quangel were based.
I can’t finish this without commending the beautiful piano score of Alexandre Desplat. From the first note I knew it was him – he has such a characteristic style – and his clever use of the score complements the film exquisitely. “Small” films like this tend to rather disappear into the woodwork for Oscar consideration, but here’s a soundtrack that I think should be considered: (but what do I know… when “Nocturnal Animals” wasn’t even nominated in one of the Oscar crimes of the century!).
In summary, I found this a thoughtful and thought-provoking film, that – despite some of the mean reviews I’ve seen – I thought was well crafted and with excellent production design by Jean-Vincent Puzos (“Amour”). It will be particularly appreciated by older audiences looking for an untold story from the war, and by all lovers of fine acting performances by the three leads.
After losing their only son in the French campaign, Berliners Otto (Brendan Gleeson,”Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire”) and Anna (Emma Thompson, “Saving Mr Banks“) turn against the regime and in repeated acts of rebellion Otto laboriously hand writes subversive postcards to leave in office blocks around Berlin.
Resistance is futile. Otto (Brendan Gleeson) and Anna (Emma Thompson) out on a new mission.
Out to catch him is local police investigator Escherich (Daniel Brühl) but in an age before CCTV that’s no easy task and with increasing SS pressure the stakes for Escherich steadily increase. For Otto and Anna, the stress is there but both are resigned to their fate: with their son stolen from them for an unjust cause they are an island of indifference in an unholy land. Both are ‘alone in Berlin’.
Daniel Brühl as police detective Escherich getting more than he bargained for from the SS.
After 70 years it still chills the blood to see German locations decked out in Nazi regalia, but one of the joys of this film is this rendering of life in wartime Berlin: starting with jubilation at German progress prior to D-Day and turning to despair and genuine danger as the tide turns towards 1945. In a pretty bleak film there are touches of black comedy now and then: Otto’s carpentry company is being encouraged “by the Fuhrer” to double and triple their output… of coffins.
A (very clean) Berlin, decked out with Nazi regalia.
More joy comes from the star turns of Gleeson and Thompson, both of who deliver on their emotionally challenging roles. Gleeson in particular makes a very believable German with a sour demeanor and a steely determination. But the star acting turn for me goes to the wonderful Daniel Brühl (“Rush“) as the tormented police detective, bullied into an ethical corner by the SS. The finale of the film – whilst not seeming quite believable – makes for a nicely unexpected twist.
The Nazi Womens’ League out on another fund-raising sweep, providing Thompson with one of her best scenes in the film with an Oberführer’s wife.
Based on a novel by Hans Fallada, the lead writing credits for the piece are shared between Achim von Borries and the director Vincent Perez – in a rare directorial outing for the Swiss actor. The script exudes a melancholic gloom and at times expresses beautifully both the grief and love shared by this older couple. But some of the dialogue needs more work and we don’t see enough of Thompson in the early part of the film where her motivations should be being developed. This rather comes down to a lack of focus by the director. While the primary story of the card distribution is slight, it is compelling and a detour into a sub-story about an old Jewish lodger living upstairs is unnecessary and detracts from the overall story arc. I would have far preferred if the running time had been a tight 90 minutes just focused on Otto’s mission. One final comment on the script: did I mishear that Anna claimed to have a 6 year old child during an air raid scene? I know Emma Thompson looks great for her age, but….
Otto and Elise Hampel – the real life characters on which the film’s Otto and Anna Quangel were based.
I can’t finish this without commending the beautiful piano score of Alexandre Desplat. From the first note I knew it was him – he has such a characteristic style – and his clever use of the score complements the film exquisitely. “Small” films like this tend to rather disappear into the woodwork for Oscar consideration, but here’s a soundtrack that I think should be considered: (but what do I know… when “Nocturnal Animals” wasn’t even nominated in one of the Oscar crimes of the century!).
In summary, I found this a thoughtful and thought-provoking film, that – despite some of the mean reviews I’ve seen – I thought was well crafted and with excellent production design by Jean-Vincent Puzos (“Amour”). It will be particularly appreciated by older audiences looking for an untold story from the war, and by all lovers of fine acting performances by the three leads.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Colossal (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A Marvel-ous Indie Movie
Well!! I’ve been really surprised (in a good way) by two films this year, and both have involved monsters (the first being “A Monster Calls” back in January).
It’s really difficult to categorise “Colossal” – imdb classes it as a “Comedy, Action, Drama”. Comedy? Yes, but it’s a very dark comedy indeed. Action? Hmm, not really… if you go to this expecting ‘Godzilla 2’ or some polished Marvel-style film (not that I was!) you will be sorely disappointed. Drama? This is probably the nearest match, since at its heart this is a clever study on the people and relationships at the heart of a bizarre Sci-Fi event.
Anne Hathaway (“Les Miserables”) stars as Gloria, a borderline alcoholic-waster sponging off the good-natured but controlling Tim (Dan Stevens, “Beauty and the Beast”) in his New York apartment. When Tim’s patience finally runs out, Gloria returns to her hometown to an empty house and the attentions of a former school friend, bar owner Oscar (Jason Sudeikis), who clearly holds an unhealthy fascination with her. Borrowing an idea from “A Monster Calls”, at a specific time in the US morning a huge monster appears from thin air in Seoul, South Korea, killing people and smashing buildings in a seemingly uncoordinated and random way. Bizarrely, this only happens when Gloria is standing at a particular spot in a particular kid’s playground. Could the two events possibly be related?
I always like to categorize films in my head as being “like” others, but this one’s really difficult to pin down. It borrows its main premise from a famous scene in “E.T.” (indeed one also involving alcohol) but the film’s fantasy elements and dark undertones have more similarities in style to “Jumanji”. Then again, there are elements of the Kaufman about it in that it is as weird in some places as “Being John Malkovich”.
The film stays on ‘Whimsical Street’ for the first half of the film, but then takes a sharp left turn into ‘Dark Avenue’ (and for “dark” read “extremely black and sinister”). It then becomes a far more uncomfortable watch for the viewer. The metaphor of the monster for Gloria’s growing addiction is clear, but emerging themes of control, jealousy, violent bullying and small-town social entrapment also emerge.
Here the acting talents of Hathaway and Sudeikis really come to the fore: heavyweight Hollywood talent adding some significant ‘oomph’ to what is a fairly modest indie project. Hathaway is in kooky mode here, gurning to great comic effect, and this adds warmth to a not particularly likeable character. And Sudeikis (more commonly seen in lighter and frothier comedies like “We’re the Millers” and “Horrible Bosses”) is a surprise in the role delivering some real acting grit.
The writer and director is Spaniard Nacho Vigalondo. No, me neither. But he seems to have come from nowhere to deliver this high profile cinema release, and it would not be a surprise for me to see this nominated as an original screenplay come the awards season. His quirky style is refreshing. (Hell, delivering ANY novel new summer movie that is not part of a franchise or TV re-boot is refreshing!)
The film’s not perfect, and its disjointed style can be unsettling. While the lead characters are quite well defined, others are less so. Joel in particular, played by Austin Stowell (“Whiplash“, “Bridge of Spies“), is such an irritating doormat of a character that you just want to thump him yelling “Do Something you wimp” to his face!
I am normally the first to pick scientific holes in a story, but here the story is so “out there” that the details become irrelevant, and – like “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2” – the film revels in its absurdity. (There is however a jumbo jet sized hole in the plot if you think about it!) But some of the moments of revelation (particularly one set in a wood) are brilliantly done and you are never quite sure where the film is going to go next. I was concerned that the ending would not live up to the promise of the film, but I was not disappointed.
Like “A Monster Calls” the film will probably suffer at the box office by its marketing confusing the audience. People will assume it’s possibly a “monster movie” or maybe a piece of comedy fluff (particularly with Sudeikis in the cast), but in reality it’s neither of these. It won’t be to everyone’s tastes for sure, but in the bland desert of mainstream movie releases, here is an oasis of something interesting and novel and in my book definitely worthy of your movie dollar. Recommended.
It’s really difficult to categorise “Colossal” – imdb classes it as a “Comedy, Action, Drama”. Comedy? Yes, but it’s a very dark comedy indeed. Action? Hmm, not really… if you go to this expecting ‘Godzilla 2’ or some polished Marvel-style film (not that I was!) you will be sorely disappointed. Drama? This is probably the nearest match, since at its heart this is a clever study on the people and relationships at the heart of a bizarre Sci-Fi event.
Anne Hathaway (“Les Miserables”) stars as Gloria, a borderline alcoholic-waster sponging off the good-natured but controlling Tim (Dan Stevens, “Beauty and the Beast”) in his New York apartment. When Tim’s patience finally runs out, Gloria returns to her hometown to an empty house and the attentions of a former school friend, bar owner Oscar (Jason Sudeikis), who clearly holds an unhealthy fascination with her. Borrowing an idea from “A Monster Calls”, at a specific time in the US morning a huge monster appears from thin air in Seoul, South Korea, killing people and smashing buildings in a seemingly uncoordinated and random way. Bizarrely, this only happens when Gloria is standing at a particular spot in a particular kid’s playground. Could the two events possibly be related?
I always like to categorize films in my head as being “like” others, but this one’s really difficult to pin down. It borrows its main premise from a famous scene in “E.T.” (indeed one also involving alcohol) but the film’s fantasy elements and dark undertones have more similarities in style to “Jumanji”. Then again, there are elements of the Kaufman about it in that it is as weird in some places as “Being John Malkovich”.
The film stays on ‘Whimsical Street’ for the first half of the film, but then takes a sharp left turn into ‘Dark Avenue’ (and for “dark” read “extremely black and sinister”). It then becomes a far more uncomfortable watch for the viewer. The metaphor of the monster for Gloria’s growing addiction is clear, but emerging themes of control, jealousy, violent bullying and small-town social entrapment also emerge.
Here the acting talents of Hathaway and Sudeikis really come to the fore: heavyweight Hollywood talent adding some significant ‘oomph’ to what is a fairly modest indie project. Hathaway is in kooky mode here, gurning to great comic effect, and this adds warmth to a not particularly likeable character. And Sudeikis (more commonly seen in lighter and frothier comedies like “We’re the Millers” and “Horrible Bosses”) is a surprise in the role delivering some real acting grit.
The writer and director is Spaniard Nacho Vigalondo. No, me neither. But he seems to have come from nowhere to deliver this high profile cinema release, and it would not be a surprise for me to see this nominated as an original screenplay come the awards season. His quirky style is refreshing. (Hell, delivering ANY novel new summer movie that is not part of a franchise or TV re-boot is refreshing!)
The film’s not perfect, and its disjointed style can be unsettling. While the lead characters are quite well defined, others are less so. Joel in particular, played by Austin Stowell (“Whiplash“, “Bridge of Spies“), is such an irritating doormat of a character that you just want to thump him yelling “Do Something you wimp” to his face!
I am normally the first to pick scientific holes in a story, but here the story is so “out there” that the details become irrelevant, and – like “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2” – the film revels in its absurdity. (There is however a jumbo jet sized hole in the plot if you think about it!) But some of the moments of revelation (particularly one set in a wood) are brilliantly done and you are never quite sure where the film is going to go next. I was concerned that the ending would not live up to the promise of the film, but I was not disappointed.
Like “A Monster Calls” the film will probably suffer at the box office by its marketing confusing the audience. People will assume it’s possibly a “monster movie” or maybe a piece of comedy fluff (particularly with Sudeikis in the cast), but in reality it’s neither of these. It won’t be to everyone’s tastes for sure, but in the bland desert of mainstream movie releases, here is an oasis of something interesting and novel and in my book definitely worthy of your movie dollar. Recommended.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Magnificent Seven (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A Hornery Exit.
As a big fan of the original – a staple of many Bank Holiday afternoons in my youth – I was prepared to be sniffy about this remake and came to the film on my high-horse (I left that tied to the rail outside the cinema by the way). But I was surprised to have my expectations reset.
Possibly on the basis that Trump has been given the Mexican’s a good bashing lately, the villain of the piece in this film is updated from Mexican bandit Calvera to Sacremento based land-snatcher and all round bad-egg Bartholomew Bogue (an expressionless Peter Sarsgaard). After ripping through some of the inhabitants of Rose Creek in a brutal pre-title sequence, widowed sharp-shooter Emma Cullen (Haley Bennett, “The Equalizer”) heads into the West on a recruiting mission for hired guns. She first recruits the bounty hunter Chisholm (sing “Chisum, John Chisum…”… no, sorry different Western) played by Denzel Washington. Washington matches Yul Brynner’s famous black outfit, and unlike Brynner is obviously able to finish off the ensemble naturally!
They recruit another six (who’d have thought it?) including wise-guy gambler Faraday (Chris “Guardians of the Galaxy” Pratt); famed confederate sniper Goodnight Robicheaux (Ethan Hawke); his nifty knife throwing Asian sidekick (but good for the Far East box office) Billy Rocks (Bjung-hun Lee, from Terminator: Genisys); and religious bear-of-a-man Indian-hunter Jack Horne (Vincent D’Onofrio, “Jurassic World”). After trying to whip the incompetent townsfolk into shape, and setting some Home-Alone style surprises, the stage is set for a showdown as Bogue whips up an army to re-take “his” town.
I like classic Westerns, with John Ford’s Rio Bravo being a particular favourite. In my view the problem with many modern Westerns is that they try too hard to shock (Tarentino’s recent “Hateful 8” was a case in point: a promising start ruined by gratuitous over-the-top violence). “The Magnificent Seven” doesn’t make that mistake, and while the squib-master and blood-bag boy are heavily employed throughout, nothing is too excessive: in fact, my view – and I don’t often tend in this direction – is that the censors rather over-egged the UK 12A rating on this one and could have gone with a 12. Director Antoine Fuqua has produced a film that is highly respectful of its heritage: perhaps to the point where many scenes might be deemed to be clichéd. But I personally warmed to that.
Denzel Washington was born to be in a Western like this and the emerging Chris Pratt does his star potential no harm by turning in a stellar performance adding both levity – with some whip-sharp lines – and screen presence in the role made famous by Steve McQueen. (Although no one comes close to the screen presence of McQueen…. Look up “real man” in the dictionary and his picture is there!) Also effective is Ethan Hawke in the nearest thing to the Robert Vaughan character in this film.
Where the adapted script by Richard Wenk and Nik Pizzolatto falters somewhat is in the motivations of the characters, which come across as superficial and unconvincing. (Perhaps “selling” was a whole lot easier in the Old West?) It is even unclear at the end of the film whether the survivors (and I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the seven don’t all make it!) actually take their payment, or even a “share of the gold” that the town is sitting on. It makes for an unsatisfactory closure. The degree of racial harmony present in the film is also difficult to buy into, and the script could have made something more of this.
The film soundtrack marks the swan-song of the late James Horner, so tragically killed in a plane crash last year at the age of just 61. As the natural successor to the great John Williams and the late Jerry Goldsmith, Horner’s loss was a terrible one. The film is dedicated to him. Although the soundtrack was completed by Simon Franglen, there are flourishes of classic Horner, most notably in the first Rose Creek showdown scene. There is also a treat to the ears over the closing credits which is very welcome.
Although the film draws natural comparison with its 5* classic predecessor, this is a good film in its own right – a genuinely pleasant surprise. Perhaps its done well enough that we might get to now see a remake of “The Return of the Seven”. I hope so… “the Western is dead… long live the Western”!
Possibly on the basis that Trump has been given the Mexican’s a good bashing lately, the villain of the piece in this film is updated from Mexican bandit Calvera to Sacremento based land-snatcher and all round bad-egg Bartholomew Bogue (an expressionless Peter Sarsgaard). After ripping through some of the inhabitants of Rose Creek in a brutal pre-title sequence, widowed sharp-shooter Emma Cullen (Haley Bennett, “The Equalizer”) heads into the West on a recruiting mission for hired guns. She first recruits the bounty hunter Chisholm (sing “Chisum, John Chisum…”… no, sorry different Western) played by Denzel Washington. Washington matches Yul Brynner’s famous black outfit, and unlike Brynner is obviously able to finish off the ensemble naturally!
They recruit another six (who’d have thought it?) including wise-guy gambler Faraday (Chris “Guardians of the Galaxy” Pratt); famed confederate sniper Goodnight Robicheaux (Ethan Hawke); his nifty knife throwing Asian sidekick (but good for the Far East box office) Billy Rocks (Bjung-hun Lee, from Terminator: Genisys); and religious bear-of-a-man Indian-hunter Jack Horne (Vincent D’Onofrio, “Jurassic World”). After trying to whip the incompetent townsfolk into shape, and setting some Home-Alone style surprises, the stage is set for a showdown as Bogue whips up an army to re-take “his” town.
I like classic Westerns, with John Ford’s Rio Bravo being a particular favourite. In my view the problem with many modern Westerns is that they try too hard to shock (Tarentino’s recent “Hateful 8” was a case in point: a promising start ruined by gratuitous over-the-top violence). “The Magnificent Seven” doesn’t make that mistake, and while the squib-master and blood-bag boy are heavily employed throughout, nothing is too excessive: in fact, my view – and I don’t often tend in this direction – is that the censors rather over-egged the UK 12A rating on this one and could have gone with a 12. Director Antoine Fuqua has produced a film that is highly respectful of its heritage: perhaps to the point where many scenes might be deemed to be clichéd. But I personally warmed to that.
Denzel Washington was born to be in a Western like this and the emerging Chris Pratt does his star potential no harm by turning in a stellar performance adding both levity – with some whip-sharp lines – and screen presence in the role made famous by Steve McQueen. (Although no one comes close to the screen presence of McQueen…. Look up “real man” in the dictionary and his picture is there!) Also effective is Ethan Hawke in the nearest thing to the Robert Vaughan character in this film.
Where the adapted script by Richard Wenk and Nik Pizzolatto falters somewhat is in the motivations of the characters, which come across as superficial and unconvincing. (Perhaps “selling” was a whole lot easier in the Old West?) It is even unclear at the end of the film whether the survivors (and I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the seven don’t all make it!) actually take their payment, or even a “share of the gold” that the town is sitting on. It makes for an unsatisfactory closure. The degree of racial harmony present in the film is also difficult to buy into, and the script could have made something more of this.
The film soundtrack marks the swan-song of the late James Horner, so tragically killed in a plane crash last year at the age of just 61. As the natural successor to the great John Williams and the late Jerry Goldsmith, Horner’s loss was a terrible one. The film is dedicated to him. Although the soundtrack was completed by Simon Franglen, there are flourishes of classic Horner, most notably in the first Rose Creek showdown scene. There is also a treat to the ears over the closing credits which is very welcome.
Although the film draws natural comparison with its 5* classic predecessor, this is a good film in its own right – a genuinely pleasant surprise. Perhaps its done well enough that we might get to now see a remake of “The Return of the Seven”. I hope so… “the Western is dead… long live the Western”!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Accountant (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Rain Man with a Kalashnikov.
(Another Bob the Movie Man Showcase Theatre).
The scene: studio execs in a board room in Warner Brothers. Greg Silverman, head of Creative Development walks into the room full of his most creative guys and slams a script by Bill Dubuque onto the table.
Silverman: “Affleck needs a real zinger of a film to follow his Batman work and this is it… but we we need a really riveting title… something to grab everyone’s attention and get them begging to pay their ticket money to see. Hit me!”
Creative 1: “The Autist?”
Silverman: “Like your thinking…. good Oscar associations… but perhaps a tad non-PC.”
Creative 2: “Under the Skin?”
Silverman: “Been done. Besides, don’t want everyone thinking they’re going to see THAT much of Johansson again”
A grey looking financial director, sitting in the corner: “Er… sir… I’ve got an idea….”
=====
So… it’s not the most PR-friendly title in the world, but it is a whole lot more interesting than it sounds. Ben Affleck plays the titular accountant (who may or may not be called Christian Wolff) – a sort of evil Jack Reacher of the financial world: off-the-grid behind multiple aliases and with financial fingers in more murky pies around the world than seems tasteful.
Not only is he a mathematical genius with the numbers, but is also extremely handy with his fists and an arsenal of high powered weaponry he keeps in his executive trailer home… ready to up-roots and disappear at any time.
Supported over the phone by a mysterious ‘Pepper-Potts-style’ personal assistant, who appears more machine than person, Affleck is guided from job to job, dropping in the occasional “normal” job to keep the authorities off his tail. One of these is for a bio-technology company headed up by Lamar Black (John Lithgow) who brings him in – against the wishes of his FD and long term friend Ed Chilton (Andy Umberger) – since all appears not quite right in the books. Junior accountant Dana Cummings (Anna “Pitch Perfect” Kendrick) is the young lady who has seen the discrepancy but can’t track it down in the labyrinthine accounts.
This so called ‘safe’ job lands both him and Dana in extreme danger as person or persons unknown, fronted by a hired ‘heavy’ played by Jon Bernthal, try to prevent some dodgy activities coming to the surface.
As a parallel thread, the head of the Treasury Department’s Crime Enforcement Division, Ray King (J.K. Simmons, “Whiplash”) strong-arms (for no readily apparent reason) analyst Marybeth Medina (an impressive Cynthia Addai-Robinson) into pursuing Wolff. With a keen intellect and a strong incentive she begins to close in.
Directed by Gavin O’ Connor, this – for me – is a frustratingly inconsistent film. When it flies, it really flies well, both at an action level and at a dramatic level. The flashback scenes to Wolff’s childhood are well done, showing how the autistic and needy youngster who needed compassion, quiet and understanding got the exact opposite from his militaristic father (Robert C Treveiler) to ‘jolt him out of’ his condition. It is easy to understand how he turned out the way he did.
On the flip side, the plot progression almost deliberately shines a spotlight on some questions (no spoilers) that if you ask them you immediately see the answers, resulting in most of the rest of the plot falling into place without shock or surprise. There was only one genuine twist for me, right at the end of the film, that I didn’t see coming.
The script by Bill Dubuque (“The Judge”) delivers some really nice scenes between Affleck and Kendrick, some smart (and genuinely funny) one-liners and one of the best abruptly ended speeches since Samuel L. Jackson’s in “Deep Blue Sea”. However, the whole Treasury Investigation story-line (however good it is to see J.K. Simmons act) is somewhat superfluous to the whole thing and just doesn’t work.
Kendrick and Affleck have good chemistry, with Affleck trying desperately to breathe some likeability into what is a pretty cold and calculating character. It’s hard though to empathise with someone who – albeit indirectly – is the source of such misery around the world through drugs, terrorism, dictatorships and God-knows what else. Kendrick plays kooky and naive really well, but she really ought to get some protocols sorted out around letting people into her apartment: she really doesn’t seem to learn!
It’s a nice idea and entertaining to watch, but the delivery is flawed.
The scene: studio execs in a board room in Warner Brothers. Greg Silverman, head of Creative Development walks into the room full of his most creative guys and slams a script by Bill Dubuque onto the table.
Silverman: “Affleck needs a real zinger of a film to follow his Batman work and this is it… but we we need a really riveting title… something to grab everyone’s attention and get them begging to pay their ticket money to see. Hit me!”
Creative 1: “The Autist?”
Silverman: “Like your thinking…. good Oscar associations… but perhaps a tad non-PC.”
Creative 2: “Under the Skin?”
Silverman: “Been done. Besides, don’t want everyone thinking they’re going to see THAT much of Johansson again”
A grey looking financial director, sitting in the corner: “Er… sir… I’ve got an idea….”
=====
So… it’s not the most PR-friendly title in the world, but it is a whole lot more interesting than it sounds. Ben Affleck plays the titular accountant (who may or may not be called Christian Wolff) – a sort of evil Jack Reacher of the financial world: off-the-grid behind multiple aliases and with financial fingers in more murky pies around the world than seems tasteful.
Not only is he a mathematical genius with the numbers, but is also extremely handy with his fists and an arsenal of high powered weaponry he keeps in his executive trailer home… ready to up-roots and disappear at any time.
Supported over the phone by a mysterious ‘Pepper-Potts-style’ personal assistant, who appears more machine than person, Affleck is guided from job to job, dropping in the occasional “normal” job to keep the authorities off his tail. One of these is for a bio-technology company headed up by Lamar Black (John Lithgow) who brings him in – against the wishes of his FD and long term friend Ed Chilton (Andy Umberger) – since all appears not quite right in the books. Junior accountant Dana Cummings (Anna “Pitch Perfect” Kendrick) is the young lady who has seen the discrepancy but can’t track it down in the labyrinthine accounts.
This so called ‘safe’ job lands both him and Dana in extreme danger as person or persons unknown, fronted by a hired ‘heavy’ played by Jon Bernthal, try to prevent some dodgy activities coming to the surface.
As a parallel thread, the head of the Treasury Department’s Crime Enforcement Division, Ray King (J.K. Simmons, “Whiplash”) strong-arms (for no readily apparent reason) analyst Marybeth Medina (an impressive Cynthia Addai-Robinson) into pursuing Wolff. With a keen intellect and a strong incentive she begins to close in.
Directed by Gavin O’ Connor, this – for me – is a frustratingly inconsistent film. When it flies, it really flies well, both at an action level and at a dramatic level. The flashback scenes to Wolff’s childhood are well done, showing how the autistic and needy youngster who needed compassion, quiet and understanding got the exact opposite from his militaristic father (Robert C Treveiler) to ‘jolt him out of’ his condition. It is easy to understand how he turned out the way he did.
On the flip side, the plot progression almost deliberately shines a spotlight on some questions (no spoilers) that if you ask them you immediately see the answers, resulting in most of the rest of the plot falling into place without shock or surprise. There was only one genuine twist for me, right at the end of the film, that I didn’t see coming.
The script by Bill Dubuque (“The Judge”) delivers some really nice scenes between Affleck and Kendrick, some smart (and genuinely funny) one-liners and one of the best abruptly ended speeches since Samuel L. Jackson’s in “Deep Blue Sea”. However, the whole Treasury Investigation story-line (however good it is to see J.K. Simmons act) is somewhat superfluous to the whole thing and just doesn’t work.
Kendrick and Affleck have good chemistry, with Affleck trying desperately to breathe some likeability into what is a pretty cold and calculating character. It’s hard though to empathise with someone who – albeit indirectly – is the source of such misery around the world through drugs, terrorism, dictatorships and God-knows what else. Kendrick plays kooky and naive really well, but she really ought to get some protocols sorted out around letting people into her apartment: she really doesn’t seem to learn!
It’s a nice idea and entertaining to watch, but the delivery is flawed.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Dune (2021) in Movies
Oct 28, 2021
“He’s Not The Messiah – He’s a Very Naughty Boy!”
Certain works of fiction have been labelled with the tag of “unfilmable”, and Frank Herbert’s 1965 novel “Dune” is one of those. It’s full of exposition done as internal monologues – which screams “movie voiceover”. And regular readers will know my hatred of those!
Amazingly, Denis Villeneuve manages to pull off the impossible with his version of Dune (part 1), which I saw last night as part of a Cineworld Unlimited preview event. It’s close to being a movie masterpiece.
Plot Summary:
The desert planet of Arrakis is home to the Freman tribe but is a political battleground since it is the only known source of ‘Spice’: a substance that enables interplanetary travel.
Paul (Timothée Chalamet) is the heir to the throne of the House of Atreides, headed by his father Duke Leto Atreides (Oscar Isaac). His mother (Rebecca Ferguson) is Leto’s concubine and possessed with hereditary gifts: mystical powers that make her part of a sect of galactic ‘witches’ with mystical powers. But the House of Atreides is gaining in power, and the Emperor throws a political spanner into the works by evicting the vicious House of Harkonnen from Arrakis and giving it to Atreides. This puts both Houses on the path of war.
Certification:
US: PG-13. UK: 12A.
Talent:
Starring: Timothée Chalamet, Rebecca Ferguson, Oscar Isaac, Zendaya, Jason Momoa, Stellan Skarsgård, Josh Brolin, Javier Bardem, Dave Bautista, Charlotte Rampling.
Directed by: Denis Villeneuve.
Written by: Jon Spaihts, Denis Villeneuve and Eric Roth. (Based on the novel by Frank Herbert).
“Dune” Review: Positives:
My 5*’s for this one goes for the overall vision, which is grandiose with scenes that stick in the brain. As he demonstrated in “Arrival“, Villeneuve likes to go for huge spacecraft that hang “in the sky in much the same way that bricks don’t”*. And the ships in this vision are just HUGE.
The ensemble cast does a great job, with Chalamet, Isaac and Ferguson being particularly impressive. Stellan Skarsgård (looking like he is about to tell “a very amusing story about a goat”, if you get that movie reference!) looks to have the most gruelling acting job, having to emerge from, and descend into, a bath of black goo!
Much like Villeneuve’s “Blade Runner 2049“, this movie has cinematography that is worthy of framing and sticking on your wall. (Greig Fraser is the man behind the camera here).
Hans Zimmer‘s music is phenomenal. I’m not sure it’s a good ‘sit down and listen to’ sort of soundtrack, but it fits the movie beautifully.
* I used this Douglas Adams quote for my “Arrival” review, and then Mark Kermode used the same quote: I like to think he read my review!
Negatives:
It wasn’t a problem for me, but I expect some will consider the movie to be too much mood and not enough action. I’ve seen some comment that the film was “emotionally empty”: but I really didn’t feel that, and am well-invested in the story ready for “Part 2”.
This is probably faithful to the books, but given all of the advanced spacecraft technology on show, and laser/blaster technology, it seems bonkers that when we get to hand-to-hand combat between the armies that we get into “swords and sandals” territory.
Observation:
There’s nothing new under the Tatooine suns. And so much of this film has you linking the concepts back to “Star Wars”:
“The Force” is now “The Way”
The Jedi are the ‘Ben and Jerry Set’. (Well, that’s what it sounded like to me… and I don’t even like Ice Cream!)
Both films centre on a Messiah-like “chosen one”, foretold by legend
“Spice” also features in “Star Wars” with “spice runners” (as in the Millenium Falcon doing the ‘Kessel Run’)
There’s even a ‘pit of sarlaac’ moment in “Dune”.
Of course, since Frank Herbert wrote “Dune” in 1965, there’s a significant question as to who is plagiarising who here!
Summary Thoughts on “Dune”
At 2 hours 35 minutes, it’s YET ANOTHER long movie: cementing October 2021 as the month of long movies. (I just did a quick tally, and of the six films I’ve seen this month they average 139 minutes in length: and that’s with “Venom: Let There Be Carnage” dragging the average down!)
But this is a movie that MUST be seen on the big screen. It’s a memorable movie experience and highly recommended.
I can’t wait for Villeneuve’s “Part 2”, currently in pre-production.
Amazingly, Denis Villeneuve manages to pull off the impossible with his version of Dune (part 1), which I saw last night as part of a Cineworld Unlimited preview event. It’s close to being a movie masterpiece.
Plot Summary:
The desert planet of Arrakis is home to the Freman tribe but is a political battleground since it is the only known source of ‘Spice’: a substance that enables interplanetary travel.
Paul (Timothée Chalamet) is the heir to the throne of the House of Atreides, headed by his father Duke Leto Atreides (Oscar Isaac). His mother (Rebecca Ferguson) is Leto’s concubine and possessed with hereditary gifts: mystical powers that make her part of a sect of galactic ‘witches’ with mystical powers. But the House of Atreides is gaining in power, and the Emperor throws a political spanner into the works by evicting the vicious House of Harkonnen from Arrakis and giving it to Atreides. This puts both Houses on the path of war.
Certification:
US: PG-13. UK: 12A.
Talent:
Starring: Timothée Chalamet, Rebecca Ferguson, Oscar Isaac, Zendaya, Jason Momoa, Stellan Skarsgård, Josh Brolin, Javier Bardem, Dave Bautista, Charlotte Rampling.
Directed by: Denis Villeneuve.
Written by: Jon Spaihts, Denis Villeneuve and Eric Roth. (Based on the novel by Frank Herbert).
“Dune” Review: Positives:
My 5*’s for this one goes for the overall vision, which is grandiose with scenes that stick in the brain. As he demonstrated in “Arrival“, Villeneuve likes to go for huge spacecraft that hang “in the sky in much the same way that bricks don’t”*. And the ships in this vision are just HUGE.
The ensemble cast does a great job, with Chalamet, Isaac and Ferguson being particularly impressive. Stellan Skarsgård (looking like he is about to tell “a very amusing story about a goat”, if you get that movie reference!) looks to have the most gruelling acting job, having to emerge from, and descend into, a bath of black goo!
Much like Villeneuve’s “Blade Runner 2049“, this movie has cinematography that is worthy of framing and sticking on your wall. (Greig Fraser is the man behind the camera here).
Hans Zimmer‘s music is phenomenal. I’m not sure it’s a good ‘sit down and listen to’ sort of soundtrack, but it fits the movie beautifully.
* I used this Douglas Adams quote for my “Arrival” review, and then Mark Kermode used the same quote: I like to think he read my review!
Negatives:
It wasn’t a problem for me, but I expect some will consider the movie to be too much mood and not enough action. I’ve seen some comment that the film was “emotionally empty”: but I really didn’t feel that, and am well-invested in the story ready for “Part 2”.
This is probably faithful to the books, but given all of the advanced spacecraft technology on show, and laser/blaster technology, it seems bonkers that when we get to hand-to-hand combat between the armies that we get into “swords and sandals” territory.
Observation:
There’s nothing new under the Tatooine suns. And so much of this film has you linking the concepts back to “Star Wars”:
“The Force” is now “The Way”
The Jedi are the ‘Ben and Jerry Set’. (Well, that’s what it sounded like to me… and I don’t even like Ice Cream!)
Both films centre on a Messiah-like “chosen one”, foretold by legend
“Spice” also features in “Star Wars” with “spice runners” (as in the Millenium Falcon doing the ‘Kessel Run’)
There’s even a ‘pit of sarlaac’ moment in “Dune”.
Of course, since Frank Herbert wrote “Dune” in 1965, there’s a significant question as to who is plagiarising who here!
Summary Thoughts on “Dune”
At 2 hours 35 minutes, it’s YET ANOTHER long movie: cementing October 2021 as the month of long movies. (I just did a quick tally, and of the six films I’ve seen this month they average 139 minutes in length: and that’s with “Venom: Let There Be Carnage” dragging the average down!)
But this is a movie that MUST be seen on the big screen. It’s a memorable movie experience and highly recommended.
I can’t wait for Villeneuve’s “Part 2”, currently in pre-production.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated West Side Story (2021) in Movies
Mar 7, 2022
Very Good...but could have (SHOULD HAVE) been GREAT
One of the biggest disappointments in watching a Motion Picture is when a Film has all of the ingredients to be a GREAT film, but is knocked off this tier by one flaw - and sometimes - is knocked down to merely good by an egregious flaw.
Such is the case with Stephen Spielberg’s adaptation of the 1957 Broadway Musical WEST SIDE STORY - it has all of the ingredients to be considered a great film, but it has a problem at it’s core that knocks it down to very good (and maybe just “good”).
The 1961 version of West Side Story, of course, swept the 1962 Oscars, winning 10 Oscars - including Best Picture. This musical, of course, is based on William Shakespeare’s Romeo & Juliet about a doomed love relationship set in a time of battling factions.
There is much to like in this adaptation - and let’s start with Spielberg’s Oscar nominated Direction. It is “spot-on”, for the most part in this telling of this tale, keeping the events rolling, and the tension taught (and rising) throughout the course of the film and orchestrating well deserved Production Design, Sound, Cinematography and Costume Oscar nominations. This film is a treat to watch (and listen to) and is the very definition of a film deserving of Awards. These are all top notch professionals in their fields delivering top notch results and having the Songs of Leonard Bernstein (Music) and Stephen Sondheim (Lyrics) so beautifully depicted is a treat, indeed.
Spielberg, wisely, ethnically cast this movie appropriately. Having Latino performers playing one faction of these warring entities and White performers playing the Anglos in this film is the correct move. Spielberg (and playwright Tony Kushner who adapted Arthur Laurents book) decided to have some of the scenes performed in Spanish (as they would be in “real life”) with no subtitles. As a non-Spanish speaking Anglo, these scenes worked very well for me.
Add to all of this strong performances across the cast. David Alvarez as Bernardo, Mike Faist as Riff, Josh Andres Rivera as Chino all shine as does Iris Menas as Anybodys. Stealing the show, of course, is Ariana DeBose (HAMILTON) as the hot-blooded Anita, a performance that will, IMHO, win the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress. If she does win, she will be the 2nd Actress to win the Oscar for playing this role in a film. Rita Moreno won it in 1961 - and let’s talk about her work in this film. Spielberg, wisely, gender-swapped the “Doc” role in this film - and gave it to Moreno. Her Valentino is the heart and soul of this film and it was a risky, and wise, choice to give Valentino the song “Somewhere” - and it works beautifully. I would have been happy to see the EGOT winning, 90-something year old Moreno get an Oscar nomination as well.
You will notice that the 2 leads - Tony (Ansel Elgort) and Maria (Rachel Zegler) have yet to be mentioned and, therein, lies the problem with this film.
Individually, their performances are “good”. Zegler’s Maria is young, sweet and innocent and she is “pitch-perfect” for this role. Most critics point to Elgort’s work as the reason that this film falls short of greatness and I think that this is unfair to Elgort. Remember, Tony has been tucked away in jail for a few years for almost killing a rival gang member with his fists, so he needs to be somewhat older than the others and he needs to have a temper simmering underneath that is ready to explode. Elgort plays this role as Directed by Spielberg and is a good fit for the interpretation of this role as formed through the eyes of his talented Director.
The issue is when Tony and Maria are put together on the screen - there just is no chemistry between the two and the age difference (at least how the 2 characters look and are portrayed on screen) is jarring and is almost creepy. I never felt the love connection between Tony and Maria, a factor that is so important to the spine of this film that when it is missing - as it is here - the movie fell flat.
Ultimately, you have to fault the Director for this and that is too bad, for the other aspects of the film - and Spielberg’s Direction - are so good and so strong that the disappointment of the black hole that is central to this film is crushing.
Letter Grade: A- (heading towards B+)
8 stars out of 10 (it could have…SHOULD HAVE…been a 9 or a 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Such is the case with Stephen Spielberg’s adaptation of the 1957 Broadway Musical WEST SIDE STORY - it has all of the ingredients to be considered a great film, but it has a problem at it’s core that knocks it down to very good (and maybe just “good”).
The 1961 version of West Side Story, of course, swept the 1962 Oscars, winning 10 Oscars - including Best Picture. This musical, of course, is based on William Shakespeare’s Romeo & Juliet about a doomed love relationship set in a time of battling factions.
There is much to like in this adaptation - and let’s start with Spielberg’s Oscar nominated Direction. It is “spot-on”, for the most part in this telling of this tale, keeping the events rolling, and the tension taught (and rising) throughout the course of the film and orchestrating well deserved Production Design, Sound, Cinematography and Costume Oscar nominations. This film is a treat to watch (and listen to) and is the very definition of a film deserving of Awards. These are all top notch professionals in their fields delivering top notch results and having the Songs of Leonard Bernstein (Music) and Stephen Sondheim (Lyrics) so beautifully depicted is a treat, indeed.
Spielberg, wisely, ethnically cast this movie appropriately. Having Latino performers playing one faction of these warring entities and White performers playing the Anglos in this film is the correct move. Spielberg (and playwright Tony Kushner who adapted Arthur Laurents book) decided to have some of the scenes performed in Spanish (as they would be in “real life”) with no subtitles. As a non-Spanish speaking Anglo, these scenes worked very well for me.
Add to all of this strong performances across the cast. David Alvarez as Bernardo, Mike Faist as Riff, Josh Andres Rivera as Chino all shine as does Iris Menas as Anybodys. Stealing the show, of course, is Ariana DeBose (HAMILTON) as the hot-blooded Anita, a performance that will, IMHO, win the Oscar for Best Supporting Actress. If she does win, she will be the 2nd Actress to win the Oscar for playing this role in a film. Rita Moreno won it in 1961 - and let’s talk about her work in this film. Spielberg, wisely, gender-swapped the “Doc” role in this film - and gave it to Moreno. Her Valentino is the heart and soul of this film and it was a risky, and wise, choice to give Valentino the song “Somewhere” - and it works beautifully. I would have been happy to see the EGOT winning, 90-something year old Moreno get an Oscar nomination as well.
You will notice that the 2 leads - Tony (Ansel Elgort) and Maria (Rachel Zegler) have yet to be mentioned and, therein, lies the problem with this film.
Individually, their performances are “good”. Zegler’s Maria is young, sweet and innocent and she is “pitch-perfect” for this role. Most critics point to Elgort’s work as the reason that this film falls short of greatness and I think that this is unfair to Elgort. Remember, Tony has been tucked away in jail for a few years for almost killing a rival gang member with his fists, so he needs to be somewhat older than the others and he needs to have a temper simmering underneath that is ready to explode. Elgort plays this role as Directed by Spielberg and is a good fit for the interpretation of this role as formed through the eyes of his talented Director.
The issue is when Tony and Maria are put together on the screen - there just is no chemistry between the two and the age difference (at least how the 2 characters look and are portrayed on screen) is jarring and is almost creepy. I never felt the love connection between Tony and Maria, a factor that is so important to the spine of this film that when it is missing - as it is here - the movie fell flat.
Ultimately, you have to fault the Director for this and that is too bad, for the other aspects of the film - and Spielberg’s Direction - are so good and so strong that the disappointment of the black hole that is central to this film is crushing.
Letter Grade: A- (heading towards B+)
8 stars out of 10 (it could have…SHOULD HAVE…been a 9 or a 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
okletmereviewit (4 KP) rated Boo! A Madea Halloween (2016) in Movies
May 11, 2018
good comedy movie for halloween
Contains spoilers, click to show
Hellur!!! OK so if you are looking for a good comedy movie for halloween (I know not typically a genre that you look for this time of year) then look no further. If you are a Tyler Perry fan or a fan of Madea you are going to be pleasantly surprised that this movie isn't a flop like (in my humble opinion) A Madea Christmas. Now since the early days I have loved the Madea character and the good wholesome values that Mr. Perry brings to the big screen. Sometimes they can "reach" and other times its just good fun.
In this movie, we find a grown 17yr old Tiffany (played by Diamond White) Brian's Daughter who we first met in Diary of a Mad Black Woman as a little girl (played by Tiffany Evens) and some girlfriends walking home from school, where they come across a Frat House with overly douchey College guys who are cat calling the young high school girls as they walk past their house.
They all try to talk to them and of course they only have one thing on their mind while talking to the girls. They invite them to a Halloween bash that they hold every year and about that time a very angry Brian pulls up and has a verbal confrontation with these guys. Embarrassed by the incident Tiffany is angry and talks back to Brian in front of her girlfriends and the Frat boys. Later we find Tiffany and her friend Aday (played by Liz Koshy) scheming in Tiffany's room about how they are going to sneak out after Brian leaves for work for the weekend.
Brian after finding out that his daughter is going to be meeting up with the boys later, calls Madea to come by and stay with the girls so that she can keep them in line. Well Madea, Joe, Aunt Bam, and Hattie, all show up to the house, where they witness the disrespectful nature in which Tiffany speaks to Brian and how she "throws shade" at the "old people" who are there to thwart her plans to go to the college frat party. Antics ensue as Tiffany decides to play a prank on Madea, Joe, Bam, and Hattie, and tell them a spooky story about how their house is haunted and that the only way to be safe is to go to bed before 10pm. After this the girls sneak out of the house to attend the party. Madea, goes to check up on the girls after some time has passed, and discovers that they are not in bed. Madea rallies up the troop (Bam and Hattie) and heads down to the frat party. When they pull up Madea is accosted by some frat boys on the front steps and after quickly putting them in place, she begins to search the party for Tiffany and Aday. When their friends find out that Tiffany's aunt is looking for her, they are quickly taken outside and Madea is hoisted up by a bunch of angry and drunk party goers and is thrown out the door.
"Mad as hell" Madea returns to Brian's house and calls the cops on the party and has it shut down. The frat boys take it on themselves to get back at Madea. Meanwhile, Tiffany comes downstairs and confronts Madea about what was going on acting like she had been upstairs sleeping in her dad's room the whole time. The frat boys begin messing with Madea, Joe, Bam, and Hattie, scaring them. At which point a couple of the guys, dress up like clowns and stalk Madea, Bam, and Hattie through out the house, eventually causing them to get in Madea's car and flee.
As they head down a dark road Madea's car breaks down. Madea and Hattie get out to try and see what is wrong with the car. About that time shadowy figures begin to appear in the woods surrounding them, and begin chasing them. Madea kicks it into high gear and leaves everyone in the dust and runs into the church where Aday's father the Reverend (Javon Johnson) is the preacher at, asking to be saved from the "demons and clowns and monkeys" and stuff that were chasing her. Aday comes out and tells Madea and the others that it was all just a prank that the frat boys were pulling and that none of it was real. Madea then decides to have some "hullerween" fun of her own by pulling a fast one on the boys. The film ends with a positive message about love, trust, and respect, and Madea running from "the po po".
You are in for a fun time and a good belly laugh. I hope you all take time to get out to see this great movie that is sure to become a family holiday classic.
In this movie, we find a grown 17yr old Tiffany (played by Diamond White) Brian's Daughter who we first met in Diary of a Mad Black Woman as a little girl (played by Tiffany Evens) and some girlfriends walking home from school, where they come across a Frat House with overly douchey College guys who are cat calling the young high school girls as they walk past their house.
They all try to talk to them and of course they only have one thing on their mind while talking to the girls. They invite them to a Halloween bash that they hold every year and about that time a very angry Brian pulls up and has a verbal confrontation with these guys. Embarrassed by the incident Tiffany is angry and talks back to Brian in front of her girlfriends and the Frat boys. Later we find Tiffany and her friend Aday (played by Liz Koshy) scheming in Tiffany's room about how they are going to sneak out after Brian leaves for work for the weekend.
Brian after finding out that his daughter is going to be meeting up with the boys later, calls Madea to come by and stay with the girls so that she can keep them in line. Well Madea, Joe, Aunt Bam, and Hattie, all show up to the house, where they witness the disrespectful nature in which Tiffany speaks to Brian and how she "throws shade" at the "old people" who are there to thwart her plans to go to the college frat party. Antics ensue as Tiffany decides to play a prank on Madea, Joe, Bam, and Hattie, and tell them a spooky story about how their house is haunted and that the only way to be safe is to go to bed before 10pm. After this the girls sneak out of the house to attend the party. Madea, goes to check up on the girls after some time has passed, and discovers that they are not in bed. Madea rallies up the troop (Bam and Hattie) and heads down to the frat party. When they pull up Madea is accosted by some frat boys on the front steps and after quickly putting them in place, she begins to search the party for Tiffany and Aday. When their friends find out that Tiffany's aunt is looking for her, they are quickly taken outside and Madea is hoisted up by a bunch of angry and drunk party goers and is thrown out the door.
"Mad as hell" Madea returns to Brian's house and calls the cops on the party and has it shut down. The frat boys take it on themselves to get back at Madea. Meanwhile, Tiffany comes downstairs and confronts Madea about what was going on acting like she had been upstairs sleeping in her dad's room the whole time. The frat boys begin messing with Madea, Joe, Bam, and Hattie, scaring them. At which point a couple of the guys, dress up like clowns and stalk Madea, Bam, and Hattie through out the house, eventually causing them to get in Madea's car and flee.
As they head down a dark road Madea's car breaks down. Madea and Hattie get out to try and see what is wrong with the car. About that time shadowy figures begin to appear in the woods surrounding them, and begin chasing them. Madea kicks it into high gear and leaves everyone in the dust and runs into the church where Aday's father the Reverend (Javon Johnson) is the preacher at, asking to be saved from the "demons and clowns and monkeys" and stuff that were chasing her. Aday comes out and tells Madea and the others that it was all just a prank that the frat boys were pulling and that none of it was real. Madea then decides to have some "hullerween" fun of her own by pulling a fast one on the boys. The film ends with a positive message about love, trust, and respect, and Madea running from "the po po".
You are in for a fun time and a good belly laugh. I hope you all take time to get out to see this great movie that is sure to become a family holiday classic.
Rachel King (13 KP) rated The Lens and the Looker in Books
Feb 11, 2019
The premise of this book was quite intriguing, so I had high hopes to see how this concept of "History Camps" played out using the city of Verona in the year 1347. What I did not really understand was why Hansum and Lincoln were specifically cast as lens-maker apprentices. Kaufman goes into extreme detail regarding the intricacies of making lenses for eye glasses with rudimentary tools of that time period, and quite a bit of the book is devoted to the education of the process and the modernization of the tools used. Seeing the lens-making business in practice in the "real" Verona showed that the "lenses for the eyes" contributed as more of a novelty for the wealthy and educated than a wide-spread tool used by the masses. In contrast, Shamira's role as kitchen girl made much more sense to me, as that is a generic role that would not necessarily impede the progression of plot.
Backing up, I was very interested in the present-day time period of 2347 and the few details that Kaufman spared regarding this society. Unfortunately, not much is explained about how this society came to be. A brief explanation is given for the planetary population of 300 million, along with other random details interspersed throughout the book, such as every child born is paired with an A.I., people are implanted with a device that keeps disease and infection at bay, and parents are only allowed to have one child with a lottery sometimes allowing for a second child. The purpose of the History Camps are explained through the rebellious attitudes of the three main characters and how they can easily manipulate the system for their own entertainment. As a parent, the word that continually echoed through my head regarding these children in the Hard-Time History Camp is "Spoiled!" Though they are supposed to be learning about how the rebellion of the human populations of the past caused everything from war, to disease, to poverty and famine, the way the children are coddled and protected from any sort of real pain or hardship makes me wonder how these History Camps ever accomplished anything of lasting value in any child.
Once the children are brought to the real Verona and abandoned as orphans, they finally begin to get a taste of real difficulty and hardship, but this is where the believability ends for me. The children had a single day in the History Camp Verona to get acquainted with their roles, and they show up in the real Verona as near-experts, maneuvering the details of their jobs to accommodate for comfort and ease of use that the family they work for is not familiar with, of course all with the help and direction of a very convenient genie. On top of all of this, the three children become agreeable, cooperative, and hard-working practically overnight, with little sign of the rebellious tendencies that put them in a History Camp in the first place. These transitions in character development felt forced to me.
Another aspect that really bugged me from the beginning of the book was the awkwardness of the dialog throughout the book, specifically regarding the children's speech. It felt stilted and over-simplified, and slowed down my reading because I consistently felt that children today did not speak like this. Some of the speech of the people native to the real Verona also seemed strange, but I attributed that to the speech of the time period.
Many of the characters took on unique facets that made them rather memorable to me, such as Ugilino's looks and arrogance, Signora della Cappa's madness, and Shamira's artistic inclinations. The budding romance between Hansum, or "Romero", and Guilietta copies the Shakespearean play, "Romeo and Juliet", in many ways, down to the presence of a Father Lurenzano, and I have to wonder about Kaufman's motivations for working this tale into the plot. And again, their romance also felt forced and over-the-top, missing the reality-warping conviction that is obvious in the original Shakespeare story.
I also have to wonder how these advancements that the three children are introducing to 1347 Verona are actually affecting the progression of time, since this is a much harped-upon concern regarding time travel. The only thing that is apparent to both the children and the reader is the quaint changes made to the appearance of the genie. Something else that is also mentioned early on is that this is also the same time period as the Black Plague, which has yet to make an appearance. Hopefully, the next book in the trilogy will address these things, The Bronze and the Brimstone: The Verona Trilogy, Book 2.
This book seemed geared to appeal to pre-teens and young teens in many ways, but as an adult reader, it left much to be desired for me.
Backing up, I was very interested in the present-day time period of 2347 and the few details that Kaufman spared regarding this society. Unfortunately, not much is explained about how this society came to be. A brief explanation is given for the planetary population of 300 million, along with other random details interspersed throughout the book, such as every child born is paired with an A.I., people are implanted with a device that keeps disease and infection at bay, and parents are only allowed to have one child with a lottery sometimes allowing for a second child. The purpose of the History Camps are explained through the rebellious attitudes of the three main characters and how they can easily manipulate the system for their own entertainment. As a parent, the word that continually echoed through my head regarding these children in the Hard-Time History Camp is "Spoiled!" Though they are supposed to be learning about how the rebellion of the human populations of the past caused everything from war, to disease, to poverty and famine, the way the children are coddled and protected from any sort of real pain or hardship makes me wonder how these History Camps ever accomplished anything of lasting value in any child.
Once the children are brought to the real Verona and abandoned as orphans, they finally begin to get a taste of real difficulty and hardship, but this is where the believability ends for me. The children had a single day in the History Camp Verona to get acquainted with their roles, and they show up in the real Verona as near-experts, maneuvering the details of their jobs to accommodate for comfort and ease of use that the family they work for is not familiar with, of course all with the help and direction of a very convenient genie. On top of all of this, the three children become agreeable, cooperative, and hard-working practically overnight, with little sign of the rebellious tendencies that put them in a History Camp in the first place. These transitions in character development felt forced to me.
Another aspect that really bugged me from the beginning of the book was the awkwardness of the dialog throughout the book, specifically regarding the children's speech. It felt stilted and over-simplified, and slowed down my reading because I consistently felt that children today did not speak like this. Some of the speech of the people native to the real Verona also seemed strange, but I attributed that to the speech of the time period.
Many of the characters took on unique facets that made them rather memorable to me, such as Ugilino's looks and arrogance, Signora della Cappa's madness, and Shamira's artistic inclinations. The budding romance between Hansum, or "Romero", and Guilietta copies the Shakespearean play, "Romeo and Juliet", in many ways, down to the presence of a Father Lurenzano, and I have to wonder about Kaufman's motivations for working this tale into the plot. And again, their romance also felt forced and over-the-top, missing the reality-warping conviction that is obvious in the original Shakespeare story.
I also have to wonder how these advancements that the three children are introducing to 1347 Verona are actually affecting the progression of time, since this is a much harped-upon concern regarding time travel. The only thing that is apparent to both the children and the reader is the quaint changes made to the appearance of the genie. Something else that is also mentioned early on is that this is also the same time period as the Black Plague, which has yet to make an appearance. Hopefully, the next book in the trilogy will address these things, The Bronze and the Brimstone: The Verona Trilogy, Book 2.
This book seemed geared to appeal to pre-teens and young teens in many ways, but as an adult reader, it left much to be desired for me.
The first half of The Serpent and the Moon mainly deals with Francois I's reign as king and has little to do with the love triangle. Frankly, the whole book itself hasn't much to do with the love triangle or "one of the great love stories of all time," but more to do with the political intrigue of Henri I and his father's reigns. Oh, and lest I forget, Henri, Diane, and both of their symbols, monograms, etc. I honestly don't know what the whole fascination of that was all about, but it showed up everywhere.
On page 187 the princess tells us that it is a man's way of thinking that Diane wouldn't have become Henri's mistress if he hadn't become dauphin. I disagree, it is a realist's view, and frankly, I think it's fully possible that was how it started. Yes, maybe she was flattered by his attention too, but to consider having him as a lover in light of how much she was in his life growing up, it's a bit creepy. Oedipus comes to mind. I believe he was infatuated with her from a young age and it most likely progressed into love, for both of them. I envision her grabbing the chance at being the mistress of a king and being older, she knew how to mould and persuade him. Whether or not it was a true love story, I really don't know; I'm not sure anyone does and I don't care all that much.
As many other reviewers have stated, there is an obvious bias. The readers are warned in the introduction, but even if you know that, there's still the possibility that the work as a whole might be neutral. Unfortunately, that's not the case. Maybe if it had only been a slight bias, I wouldn't have cared so much, but when an author heaps praise on one person and how they accomplish everything, and then turn around and bash someone else for the exact same thing. Well, that's just hypocrisy.
From the book, the author would have you believe that Diane de Poitiers got to where she was merely by being a good, honest, gracious, and pious woman and Catherine de' Medici did it by being a cold, heartless, evil, spiteful person. I'm sorry but you cannot have climbed to the heights Diane did, especially in those times, without being conniving in one way or the other. I'm sure she did the same things Catherine did, so quit holding Diane up on a pedestal; she's really not a goddess, just a woman. Diane is a white light, Catherine is black as death and there isn't any grey between them for most of the book. By the end of the book I really took the "history" lightly, mainly that of these two women, more than anything else; it was just an unfair assessment. And with the author's snarky and catty remarks directed towards Catherine, saying she has a "fat little heart," well, that was just uncalled for. Then at the end, her words were so disgusting about Catherine's behavior towards Diane, saying how petty she was and she did things purely due to "feminine spite". Catherine could have done much worse to her but she didn't! Of course, Ms. Perfect D. was always so respectful and exemplary of Catherine. Give me a break. Maybe some of the things said in the book were true about both women, but then again, maybe not. Most is lost to history.
If Princess Michael of Kent's plan was for me to sympathize and idolize Diane de Poitiers, as she does, it backfired. Now I don't ever care to ever hear about her again, and I love history of all kinds. On the other hand, I have already ordered two books about Catherine de' Medici from the library. Most likely the opposite of what she wanted. I honestly don't blame Catherine if she was bitter, who wouldn't be in that situation? Even if it was a different time, circumstance, and an arranged marriage? I refuse to believe Diane was this perfect being, a goddess, virtuous as can be, a victim - nobody is all these things and I don't know why the author cannot see any imperfections and insists on romanticizing her.
Even though I hated how biased this book was, I still appreciate the amount of research this must have taken, it was fairly well-written in form, and there was loads of information. I'd only recommend this to Catherine haters, loathers, or serious dislikers. With the princess's flair for the dramatic and speculation on feelings and actions, she might want to focus on writing works of fiction instead. I have no desire to read anything by this author again.
On page 187 the princess tells us that it is a man's way of thinking that Diane wouldn't have become Henri's mistress if he hadn't become dauphin. I disagree, it is a realist's view, and frankly, I think it's fully possible that was how it started. Yes, maybe she was flattered by his attention too, but to consider having him as a lover in light of how much she was in his life growing up, it's a bit creepy. Oedipus comes to mind. I believe he was infatuated with her from a young age and it most likely progressed into love, for both of them. I envision her grabbing the chance at being the mistress of a king and being older, she knew how to mould and persuade him. Whether or not it was a true love story, I really don't know; I'm not sure anyone does and I don't care all that much.
As many other reviewers have stated, there is an obvious bias. The readers are warned in the introduction, but even if you know that, there's still the possibility that the work as a whole might be neutral. Unfortunately, that's not the case. Maybe if it had only been a slight bias, I wouldn't have cared so much, but when an author heaps praise on one person and how they accomplish everything, and then turn around and bash someone else for the exact same thing. Well, that's just hypocrisy.
From the book, the author would have you believe that Diane de Poitiers got to where she was merely by being a good, honest, gracious, and pious woman and Catherine de' Medici did it by being a cold, heartless, evil, spiteful person. I'm sorry but you cannot have climbed to the heights Diane did, especially in those times, without being conniving in one way or the other. I'm sure she did the same things Catherine did, so quit holding Diane up on a pedestal; she's really not a goddess, just a woman. Diane is a white light, Catherine is black as death and there isn't any grey between them for most of the book. By the end of the book I really took the "history" lightly, mainly that of these two women, more than anything else; it was just an unfair assessment. And with the author's snarky and catty remarks directed towards Catherine, saying she has a "fat little heart," well, that was just uncalled for. Then at the end, her words were so disgusting about Catherine's behavior towards Diane, saying how petty she was and she did things purely due to "feminine spite". Catherine could have done much worse to her but she didn't! Of course, Ms. Perfect D. was always so respectful and exemplary of Catherine. Give me a break. Maybe some of the things said in the book were true about both women, but then again, maybe not. Most is lost to history.
If Princess Michael of Kent's plan was for me to sympathize and idolize Diane de Poitiers, as she does, it backfired. Now I don't ever care to ever hear about her again, and I love history of all kinds. On the other hand, I have already ordered two books about Catherine de' Medici from the library. Most likely the opposite of what she wanted. I honestly don't blame Catherine if she was bitter, who wouldn't be in that situation? Even if it was a different time, circumstance, and an arranged marriage? I refuse to believe Diane was this perfect being, a goddess, virtuous as can be, a victim - nobody is all these things and I don't know why the author cannot see any imperfections and insists on romanticizing her.
Even though I hated how biased this book was, I still appreciate the amount of research this must have taken, it was fairly well-written in form, and there was loads of information. I'd only recommend this to Catherine haters, loathers, or serious dislikers. With the princess's flair for the dramatic and speculation on feelings and actions, she might want to focus on writing works of fiction instead. I have no desire to read anything by this author again.