Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Trial of the Chicago 7 (2020) in Movies
Mar 28, 2021
Strong Ensemble Work
The good thing about my yearly exercise to check out all of the Oscar Nominated films in the "Major" Categories is that it forces me to watch films that are "one my list" but I just haven't gotten to them. THE TRIAL OF THE CHICAGO 7 is one of those types of films - an Aaron Sorkin Written and Directed project with a stellar cast about an important moment in United States History.
And...I'm glad I "forced myself" to watch this, for TRIAL OF THE CHICAGO 7 just might end up being my favorite film of 2020. It tells the tale of the trial of 8 (not 7 - they explain that difference in the film) leaders of revolutionary groups in the turbulent times that were the late 1960's in the United States and this film grasps the stakes that both sides are faced with in this historic time.
It all starts, of course, with the Writing and Directing of Aaron Sorkin (TV's THE WEST WING, A FEW GOOD MEN, MOLLY'S GAME) and it is some of his best work. Sorkin's writing style lends itself to this type of multi-player, multi-storyline story that all culminates into one story at the end. The words coming out of his character's mouths are insightful and true (if a bit over-blown for these characters) and they make you understand these characters - and their motivations - very well (whether the character is considered a "good" guy or a "bad" guy in this film).
The pedigree of Sorkin draws some wonderful actors to his works and THE TRIAL OF THE CHICAGO 7 is no different. Eddie Redmayne (Oscar Winner for THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING), Mark Rylance (Oscar Winner for BRIDGE OF SPIES), Ben Shenkman (Angels in America) and Joseph Gordon-Levitt (INCEPTION) all are at the top of their (considerably strong) games and Director/Writer Sorkin lets them all shine.
These 4 are good - but the next 6 are even better (yes...there is that many good to great performances in this film). Let's start with Jeremy Strong's (THE BIG SHORT) Jerry Rubin and Sacha Baron Cohen (BORAT) in his Oscar Nominated role of Abbie Hoffman. The embody the hippie culture of the '60's and bring gravitas and humor to the proceedings. Cohen earns his Oscar nomination by his "showey" role, but I would have been happy with just about any of the main Actor's being nominated.
Yahya Adbul-Mateen II (AQUAMAN) is powerful as Bobby Seale - the Black Panther Leader who is railroaded into this trial. He is supported by his friend, Fred Hampton - who I was glad to have learned more about in another Oscar nominated film this year, JUDAS AND THE BLACK MESSIAH.
Special notice needs to be made of a few veteran performers in this film - John Carrol Lynch (FARGO) has become a "mark of excellence" for me in films. Whenever he shows up in a project, I know that it will be worth my while for no other reason than his performance, and this film is no exception and Frank Langella EXCELS in the role of the Judge in the case, Julius Hoffman, and he is - beyond a doubt - the "bad guy" in this film, but he brings a humanity to his character and I "loved to hate" him. This performance stuck with me and I think that Langella deserved an Oscar nomination.
Finally...there is an extended cameo from a well known Hollywood performer (who I will not name, for I do not wish to spoil his appearance) as former Attorney General Ramsey Clark. This character was built up prior to his appearance as a powerhouse, and this actor did not disappoint.
This is a fantastic ensemble film that really transported me back to the '60's and the message at the heart of this film are as relevant today as back then. As I stated above, this is currently my favorite film of 2020, and it will only be replaced at the top by something very, very special
TRIAL OF THE CHICAGO 7 is currently streaming on Netflix and I highly recommend that you check it out.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And...I'm glad I "forced myself" to watch this, for TRIAL OF THE CHICAGO 7 just might end up being my favorite film of 2020. It tells the tale of the trial of 8 (not 7 - they explain that difference in the film) leaders of revolutionary groups in the turbulent times that were the late 1960's in the United States and this film grasps the stakes that both sides are faced with in this historic time.
It all starts, of course, with the Writing and Directing of Aaron Sorkin (TV's THE WEST WING, A FEW GOOD MEN, MOLLY'S GAME) and it is some of his best work. Sorkin's writing style lends itself to this type of multi-player, multi-storyline story that all culminates into one story at the end. The words coming out of his character's mouths are insightful and true (if a bit over-blown for these characters) and they make you understand these characters - and their motivations - very well (whether the character is considered a "good" guy or a "bad" guy in this film).
The pedigree of Sorkin draws some wonderful actors to his works and THE TRIAL OF THE CHICAGO 7 is no different. Eddie Redmayne (Oscar Winner for THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING), Mark Rylance (Oscar Winner for BRIDGE OF SPIES), Ben Shenkman (Angels in America) and Joseph Gordon-Levitt (INCEPTION) all are at the top of their (considerably strong) games and Director/Writer Sorkin lets them all shine.
These 4 are good - but the next 6 are even better (yes...there is that many good to great performances in this film). Let's start with Jeremy Strong's (THE BIG SHORT) Jerry Rubin and Sacha Baron Cohen (BORAT) in his Oscar Nominated role of Abbie Hoffman. The embody the hippie culture of the '60's and bring gravitas and humor to the proceedings. Cohen earns his Oscar nomination by his "showey" role, but I would have been happy with just about any of the main Actor's being nominated.
Yahya Adbul-Mateen II (AQUAMAN) is powerful as Bobby Seale - the Black Panther Leader who is railroaded into this trial. He is supported by his friend, Fred Hampton - who I was glad to have learned more about in another Oscar nominated film this year, JUDAS AND THE BLACK MESSIAH.
Special notice needs to be made of a few veteran performers in this film - John Carrol Lynch (FARGO) has become a "mark of excellence" for me in films. Whenever he shows up in a project, I know that it will be worth my while for no other reason than his performance, and this film is no exception and Frank Langella EXCELS in the role of the Judge in the case, Julius Hoffman, and he is - beyond a doubt - the "bad guy" in this film, but he brings a humanity to his character and I "loved to hate" him. This performance stuck with me and I think that Langella deserved an Oscar nomination.
Finally...there is an extended cameo from a well known Hollywood performer (who I will not name, for I do not wish to spoil his appearance) as former Attorney General Ramsey Clark. This character was built up prior to his appearance as a powerhouse, and this actor did not disappoint.
This is a fantastic ensemble film that really transported me back to the '60's and the message at the heart of this film are as relevant today as back then. As I stated above, this is currently my favorite film of 2020, and it will only be replaced at the top by something very, very special
TRIAL OF THE CHICAGO 7 is currently streaming on Netflix and I highly recommend that you check it out.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
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.)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Rambo: Last Blood (2019) in Movies
Sep 24, 2019
Not really a "Rambo" flick...but kind of is (if you squint)...
The "final" installment in the Sylvester Stallone as John Rambo series of films (the 5th!) RAMBO: LAST BLOOD is one of those hybrid type of films that is really two 45-50 minute films put together to give you one 1 hour, 45 minute adventure. These two film-ettes are clear throwbacks to 2 other films.
"Oh...you say...they are paying homage to previous RAMBO films, like the first one FIRST BLOOD and the best one RAMBO..." and...that would make sense and give a reason for this character to re-emerge, but this is NOT what is happening here.
The first half of this film has been done better as the Liam Neeson film TAKEN while the 2nd half of this film is a clear homage to HOME ALONE - or as I call it BLOODY HOME ALONE. So, instead of the crooks being comically hurt, they are dismembered, disemboweled, be-headed and run through the middle with pointy stuff.
All with lots and lots of blood spurting everywhere.
Inexplicably, Sylvester Stallone agreed to revise his John Rambo personae after 11 years away from it and he is showing every moment of his 73 years of age in this role. To say that Stallone is a little "long in the tooth" for this type of action/beat 'em up role would be doing a disservice to the term "long in the tooth".
As is fairly typical in these types of films, the plot is fairly straightforward - John Rambo is living a peaceful existence until someone close to him is kidnapped by bad guys south of the border, so Rambo goes in search of her (that's the first half of the film - the TAKEN portion). And...this part of the film is...okay (just...okay). The "good guys" around Rambo are nice (enough) and he is joined by a crusading journalist who also has had someone kidnapped so you think he might be joined by a ragtag group of "frenemies" to fight a common enemy...but...Rambo goes in "mano a mano" (this is a Stallone/Rambo film after all) and this part of the film, ultimately, fails to deliver the goods and falls flat.
Director Adrian Grunberg (the immortal GET THE GRINGO...yeah, I've never heard of it, either) sets up at the beginning of this movie some interesting side characters (the journalist, the one time bad guy who is now out of the bad guy business and might have a redemption-type arc, the plucky teenager) and some interesting character traits (PTSD, Concussion symptoms) that our hero is suffering from. All of these elements should have/could have been utilized to bring some interesting twists to the action scenes - but they are all quickly...and promptly...dropped to show Stallone being macho and killing bad guys on his way to fulfilling the goal of the first half of the film.
And then comes the 2nd half.
The bad guys come to Rambo's Ranch to exact some revenge (I can see a bobby-trapped Halloween-type walk through haunted house coming to a corn field near you this fall). Any pretense of plot, character development, etc. is gone in a hot minute as this part of the film is all about the bloody Home Alone-type booby-traps at the ranch. Wanna see someone get a pitchfork to the face? Check! Wanna see someone get their arm chopped off with a machete? Check! How about falling through a trap door onto some spikes? You got it! And it just gets bigger, bloodier and more comedicly-"awesome-gruesome" as we go. If you enjoy this type of thing (and...I gotta admit...I do) then this is pretty entertaining.
Ridiculous? Yes. Is Stallone too old for this type of film? Yes. Over-the-top? Of course. A good film with strong characters? Heck no.
But that's not what we came to see. If you can get through the fairly slow (and poorly written) first half of this film, the 2nd half is bloody good fun.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10 - just know what kind of film you are watching) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
"Oh...you say...they are paying homage to previous RAMBO films, like the first one FIRST BLOOD and the best one RAMBO..." and...that would make sense and give a reason for this character to re-emerge, but this is NOT what is happening here.
The first half of this film has been done better as the Liam Neeson film TAKEN while the 2nd half of this film is a clear homage to HOME ALONE - or as I call it BLOODY HOME ALONE. So, instead of the crooks being comically hurt, they are dismembered, disemboweled, be-headed and run through the middle with pointy stuff.
All with lots and lots of blood spurting everywhere.
Inexplicably, Sylvester Stallone agreed to revise his John Rambo personae after 11 years away from it and he is showing every moment of his 73 years of age in this role. To say that Stallone is a little "long in the tooth" for this type of action/beat 'em up role would be doing a disservice to the term "long in the tooth".
As is fairly typical in these types of films, the plot is fairly straightforward - John Rambo is living a peaceful existence until someone close to him is kidnapped by bad guys south of the border, so Rambo goes in search of her (that's the first half of the film - the TAKEN portion). And...this part of the film is...okay (just...okay). The "good guys" around Rambo are nice (enough) and he is joined by a crusading journalist who also has had someone kidnapped so you think he might be joined by a ragtag group of "frenemies" to fight a common enemy...but...Rambo goes in "mano a mano" (this is a Stallone/Rambo film after all) and this part of the film, ultimately, fails to deliver the goods and falls flat.
Director Adrian Grunberg (the immortal GET THE GRINGO...yeah, I've never heard of it, either) sets up at the beginning of this movie some interesting side characters (the journalist, the one time bad guy who is now out of the bad guy business and might have a redemption-type arc, the plucky teenager) and some interesting character traits (PTSD, Concussion symptoms) that our hero is suffering from. All of these elements should have/could have been utilized to bring some interesting twists to the action scenes - but they are all quickly...and promptly...dropped to show Stallone being macho and killing bad guys on his way to fulfilling the goal of the first half of the film.
And then comes the 2nd half.
The bad guys come to Rambo's Ranch to exact some revenge (I can see a bobby-trapped Halloween-type walk through haunted house coming to a corn field near you this fall). Any pretense of plot, character development, etc. is gone in a hot minute as this part of the film is all about the bloody Home Alone-type booby-traps at the ranch. Wanna see someone get a pitchfork to the face? Check! Wanna see someone get their arm chopped off with a machete? Check! How about falling through a trap door onto some spikes? You got it! And it just gets bigger, bloodier and more comedicly-"awesome-gruesome" as we go. If you enjoy this type of thing (and...I gotta admit...I do) then this is pretty entertaining.
Ridiculous? Yes. Is Stallone too old for this type of film? Yes. Over-the-top? Of course. A good film with strong characters? Heck no.
But that's not what we came to see. If you can get through the fairly slow (and poorly written) first half of this film, the 2nd half is bloody good fun.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10 - just know what kind of film you are watching) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis).
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Stan & Ollie (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
When the laughter has to end.
The problem with any comedy double act is that if illness or death get in the way (think Dustin Gee and Les Dennis; or Morecambe and Wise) the wheels can come off for the other partner. “Stan and Ollie” tells the story of the comic duo starting in 1937 when they reached their peak of global popularity, albeit when Laurel was hardly on speaking terms with their long-term producer Hal Roach (Danny Huston).
As you might guess from this, the emotional direction for the film is downwards, but not necessarily in a totally depressing way. The film depicts the duo’s tour of Laurel’s native country (he was born in Lancashire) and this has its ups as well as its downs.
Not knowing their life story, this is one where when the trailer came on I shut my eyes and plugged my ears so as to avoid spoilers: as such I will say nothing further on the details of the plot.
My wife and I were reminiscing after seeing this flick about how our parents used to crack up over the film antics of Laurel and Hardy. And they were, in their own slapstick way, very funny indeed. The film manages to recreate (impecably) some of their more famous routines and parodies others: their travel trunk gallops to the bottom of the station steps, mimicking the famous scenes with a piano from 1932’s “The Music Box”. “Do we really need that trunk” Hardy deadpans to Laurel.
The turns
There are four star turns at the heart of the film and they are John C. Reilly as Ollie; Steve Coogan as Stan; Shirley Henderson (forever to be referenced as “Moaning Myrtle”) as Ollie’s wife Lucille and Nina Arianda (so memorable as the ‘pointer outer’ in the ‘Emperor’s New Clothes’ segment of “Florence Foster Jenkins“) as Stan’s latest wife Ida.
Coogan and Reilly do an outstanding job of impersonating the comic duo. Both are simply brilliant, playing up to their public personas when visible but subtly delivering similar traits in private. Of the two, John C. Reilly’s performance is the most memorable: he IS Oliver Hardy. Not taking too much away from the other performance, but there are a few times when Coogan poked through the illusion (like a Partridge sticking its head out from a Pear Tree you might say).
Henderson and Arianda also add tremendous heart to the drama, and Arianda’s Ida in particular is hilarious. Also delivering a fabulous supporting role is Rufus Jones as the famous impressario Bernard Delfont: all smarm and Machiavellian chicanery that adds a different shape of comedy to the film.
Another Fine Mess?
Actually, no: it’s one of those pleasant and untaxing cinema experiences that older audiences in particular will really enjoy. However, the film’s far from perfect in my view: the flash-forwards/flash-backs I felt made the story bitty and disjointed; and ultimately the life story of the duo doesn’t have a huge depth of drama in it to amaze or excite, the way that 2004’s “Beyond the Sea” (the biopic of Bobby Darin) did for example. But the film never gets boring or disappoints.
I’d like to say that the script by Jeff Pope (“Philomena“) is historically accurate, but a look at the wikipedia entries for the pair show that it was far from that. Yes, the tours of the UK and Europe did happen, but over multiple years and the actual events in their lives are telescoped into a single trip for dramatic purposes. But I think the essence of the pair comes across nicely. Laurel’s wikipedia entry records a nice death-bed scene that sums up the guy:
“Minutes before his death, he told his nurse that he would not mind going skiing, and she replied that she was not aware that he was a skier. “I’m not,” said Laurel, “I’d rather be doing that than this!” A few minutes later, the nurse looked in on him again and found that he had died quietly in his armchair.”
“Stan and Ollie” has a few preview screenings before the New Year, but goes on UK general release on January 11th. Recommended.
As you might guess from this, the emotional direction for the film is downwards, but not necessarily in a totally depressing way. The film depicts the duo’s tour of Laurel’s native country (he was born in Lancashire) and this has its ups as well as its downs.
Not knowing their life story, this is one where when the trailer came on I shut my eyes and plugged my ears so as to avoid spoilers: as such I will say nothing further on the details of the plot.
My wife and I were reminiscing after seeing this flick about how our parents used to crack up over the film antics of Laurel and Hardy. And they were, in their own slapstick way, very funny indeed. The film manages to recreate (impecably) some of their more famous routines and parodies others: their travel trunk gallops to the bottom of the station steps, mimicking the famous scenes with a piano from 1932’s “The Music Box”. “Do we really need that trunk” Hardy deadpans to Laurel.
The turns
There are four star turns at the heart of the film and they are John C. Reilly as Ollie; Steve Coogan as Stan; Shirley Henderson (forever to be referenced as “Moaning Myrtle”) as Ollie’s wife Lucille and Nina Arianda (so memorable as the ‘pointer outer’ in the ‘Emperor’s New Clothes’ segment of “Florence Foster Jenkins“) as Stan’s latest wife Ida.
Coogan and Reilly do an outstanding job of impersonating the comic duo. Both are simply brilliant, playing up to their public personas when visible but subtly delivering similar traits in private. Of the two, John C. Reilly’s performance is the most memorable: he IS Oliver Hardy. Not taking too much away from the other performance, but there are a few times when Coogan poked through the illusion (like a Partridge sticking its head out from a Pear Tree you might say).
Henderson and Arianda also add tremendous heart to the drama, and Arianda’s Ida in particular is hilarious. Also delivering a fabulous supporting role is Rufus Jones as the famous impressario Bernard Delfont: all smarm and Machiavellian chicanery that adds a different shape of comedy to the film.
Another Fine Mess?
Actually, no: it’s one of those pleasant and untaxing cinema experiences that older audiences in particular will really enjoy. However, the film’s far from perfect in my view: the flash-forwards/flash-backs I felt made the story bitty and disjointed; and ultimately the life story of the duo doesn’t have a huge depth of drama in it to amaze or excite, the way that 2004’s “Beyond the Sea” (the biopic of Bobby Darin) did for example. But the film never gets boring or disappoints.
I’d like to say that the script by Jeff Pope (“Philomena“) is historically accurate, but a look at the wikipedia entries for the pair show that it was far from that. Yes, the tours of the UK and Europe did happen, but over multiple years and the actual events in their lives are telescoped into a single trip for dramatic purposes. But I think the essence of the pair comes across nicely. Laurel’s wikipedia entry records a nice death-bed scene that sums up the guy:
“Minutes before his death, he told his nurse that he would not mind going skiing, and she replied that she was not aware that he was a skier. “I’m not,” said Laurel, “I’d rather be doing that than this!” A few minutes later, the nurse looked in on him again and found that he had died quietly in his armchair.”
“Stan and Ollie” has a few preview screenings before the New Year, but goes on UK general release on January 11th. Recommended.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Nocturnal Animals (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Putting the crisis into mid-life crisis.
“Do you think your life has turned into something you never intended?” So asks Susan Morrow (Amy Adams) to her young assistant, who obviously looks baffled. “Of course, not – you’re still young”. Susan is in a mid-life crisis. While successful within the opulent Los Angeles art scene her personal life is crashing to the ground around her: her marriage (to Hutton (Armie Hammer, “The Man From Uncle”) ) appears to be cooling fast amid financial worries.
In the midst of this rudderless time a manuscript from her ex-husband, struggling writer Edward Sheffield (Jake Gyllenhaal), turns up out of the blue. As we see in flashback, Edward is a man let down on multiple levels by Susan in the past. His novel – “Nocturnal Animals”, dedicated to Susan – is a primal scream of twenty years worth of hurt, pain, regret and vengeance; a railing against a loss of love; a railing against a loss of life.
As Susan painfully turns the pages we live the book as a ‘film within a film’ – with characters casually modelled on Edward, Susan and Susan’s daughter, actually played by Gyllenhaal, Amy-Adams-lookalike Isla Fisher (“Grimsby”) and Ellie Bamber (“Pride and Prejudice and Zombies”) respectively. The insomniac Susan is seriously moved. She feels likes someone who’s fallen asleep on the train of life and doesn’t recognise any of the stations when she wakes up. How will Susan’s regrets translate into action? Should she take up Edwards offer to meet up for dinner?
This Tom Ford film – only his second after the wildly successful “A Single Man” in 2009 – is a challenging film to watch. The opening titles of naked overweight woman ‘twerkers’ is challenging enough (#wobble). After this shocking opening (that morphs into an art gallery installation) the LA scenes have a gloriously Hitchcockian/noir feel to them, being gorgeously filmed by cinematographer Seamus McGarvey (“The Accountant”, “The Avengers”) – an Oscar nomination I would suggest should be in the offing.
And then comes the start of the “book” segment: one of the most uncomfortably tense scenes I’ve seen this year. A Texan family horror film featuring a lonely highway and a trio of “deplorables” (to quote an unfortunate put-down by Hilary Clinton). As stark contrast to the sharp lines and glamour of LA, these scenes are reminiscent of “No Country for Old Men” with a searingly unpleasant performance from Aaron Taylor-Johnson (“Kick-Ass”) and an equally queasy turn by local law enforcer Bobby Andes (Michael Shannon, Zod in “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice”). Either or both of these gentlemen could be contenders for a Supporting Actor nomination. The tension is superbly notched up by a mesmerising cello/violin score by Polish composer Abel Korzeniowski.
Amy Adams is fantastic in the leading role (what with “Arrival” this month, this is quite a month for the actress) as is Jake Gyllenhaal, channelling so much emotion, angst and guilt at his own impotence. After “Nightcrawler” Gyllenhaal is building up a formidable reputation that must translate into an Oscar some time soon: possibly this is it. Some excellent cameos from Laura Linney (as Susan’s sad-eyed mother) and Michael Sheen (in a superb purple jacket) rounds off an excellent ensemble cast.
The concept of a “film within a film” is not new. The most memorable example (I realise with a shock – #midlifecrisis) was “The French Lieutenant’s Woman” with a young but striking Meryl Streep 35 years ago. Here the LA sequence, the book and the flashback scenes are beautifully merged into a seamless whole where you never seem to get lost or disorientated.
If there is a criticism to be made, the second half of the ‘book’ is not as satisfying as the first with some rather clunky plot points that fall a little too easily.
However, this is a nuanced film where every step and every scene feels sculpted and filled with meaning. It is a film that deserves repeat viewings, since it raises questions and thoughts that survive long after the lights have come up. Tom Ford’s output may be of a sparsity of Kubrick proportions, but like Kubrick his output is certainly worth waiting for.
Recommended, but go mentally prepared: this was a UK 15 certificate, but it felt like it should be more of a UK 18.
In the midst of this rudderless time a manuscript from her ex-husband, struggling writer Edward Sheffield (Jake Gyllenhaal), turns up out of the blue. As we see in flashback, Edward is a man let down on multiple levels by Susan in the past. His novel – “Nocturnal Animals”, dedicated to Susan – is a primal scream of twenty years worth of hurt, pain, regret and vengeance; a railing against a loss of love; a railing against a loss of life.
As Susan painfully turns the pages we live the book as a ‘film within a film’ – with characters casually modelled on Edward, Susan and Susan’s daughter, actually played by Gyllenhaal, Amy-Adams-lookalike Isla Fisher (“Grimsby”) and Ellie Bamber (“Pride and Prejudice and Zombies”) respectively. The insomniac Susan is seriously moved. She feels likes someone who’s fallen asleep on the train of life and doesn’t recognise any of the stations when she wakes up. How will Susan’s regrets translate into action? Should she take up Edwards offer to meet up for dinner?
This Tom Ford film – only his second after the wildly successful “A Single Man” in 2009 – is a challenging film to watch. The opening titles of naked overweight woman ‘twerkers’ is challenging enough (#wobble). After this shocking opening (that morphs into an art gallery installation) the LA scenes have a gloriously Hitchcockian/noir feel to them, being gorgeously filmed by cinematographer Seamus McGarvey (“The Accountant”, “The Avengers”) – an Oscar nomination I would suggest should be in the offing.
And then comes the start of the “book” segment: one of the most uncomfortably tense scenes I’ve seen this year. A Texan family horror film featuring a lonely highway and a trio of “deplorables” (to quote an unfortunate put-down by Hilary Clinton). As stark contrast to the sharp lines and glamour of LA, these scenes are reminiscent of “No Country for Old Men” with a searingly unpleasant performance from Aaron Taylor-Johnson (“Kick-Ass”) and an equally queasy turn by local law enforcer Bobby Andes (Michael Shannon, Zod in “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice”). Either or both of these gentlemen could be contenders for a Supporting Actor nomination. The tension is superbly notched up by a mesmerising cello/violin score by Polish composer Abel Korzeniowski.
Amy Adams is fantastic in the leading role (what with “Arrival” this month, this is quite a month for the actress) as is Jake Gyllenhaal, channelling so much emotion, angst and guilt at his own impotence. After “Nightcrawler” Gyllenhaal is building up a formidable reputation that must translate into an Oscar some time soon: possibly this is it. Some excellent cameos from Laura Linney (as Susan’s sad-eyed mother) and Michael Sheen (in a superb purple jacket) rounds off an excellent ensemble cast.
The concept of a “film within a film” is not new. The most memorable example (I realise with a shock – #midlifecrisis) was “The French Lieutenant’s Woman” with a young but striking Meryl Streep 35 years ago. Here the LA sequence, the book and the flashback scenes are beautifully merged into a seamless whole where you never seem to get lost or disorientated.
If there is a criticism to be made, the second half of the ‘book’ is not as satisfying as the first with some rather clunky plot points that fall a little too easily.
However, this is a nuanced film where every step and every scene feels sculpted and filled with meaning. It is a film that deserves repeat viewings, since it raises questions and thoughts that survive long after the lights have come up. Tom Ford’s output may be of a sparsity of Kubrick proportions, but like Kubrick his output is certainly worth waiting for.
Recommended, but go mentally prepared: this was a UK 15 certificate, but it felt like it should be more of a UK 18.
theVman (16 KP) rated Twin Peaks - Season 3 in TV
May 22, 2017
The Cast (1 more)
The new mysterys
Lack of the familar Twin Peaks stuff (2 more)
The way the story unfolds
Very Slow
The first four episodes
Twin Peaks: The Return
*** Ive tried to write this as spoiler free as i can, you may find some in here but nothing that i think would ruin watching the show for you ***
I don’t think it will come to anyones surprise to say that the first four episodes of Twin Peaks return are strange. But maybe not in the way that we know and love.
I found these first four episodes difficult to enjoy not because they were bad, but because it was not what I was expecting at all. I wanted the key things that I love about Twin Peaks to be there, the returning characters, the iconic score by Angleo Badalamenti, the quirky weirdness grounded by soap opera like stories. I wanted the dark seriousness of murder, lust and money, beautifully intertwined with the ridiculousness of silent drape runners, saving the pine weasel and miss twin peaks contests.Unfortunately I found very little of any of what I wanted.
Yes Cooper is back or more accurately Kyle Maclachlan is back but has yet to act or sound anything like Special Agent Dale Cooper at all, the story calling for him to play a very lifeless rendition of his former glory. Other familiar faces have shown up along the way, but not very many and for not very long at all.
What we have is something very Lynchian, long drawn out scenes, especially in The Black Lodge that after extended moments of a droning humming score and lot of not a lot going on in slow motion followed by more not a lot going on but this time with a white horse or a talking lump of flesh on a leafless tree in the picture, it starts to feel like a lot of weird stuff just for sheer sake of being weird.
Fans of the previous seasons of Twin Peaks might be left wondering what is going on with the stories that were left open, is Leo still holding that rope in his mouth, what happened after the explosion in the bank vault, and what the hell has happened to Annie – well you wont find any of these answers here. Instead we are given a whole bunch of new characters, who’s stories we are still trying to figure out and how they are related to the events of Twin Peaks, which is a made into a bigger and more confusing mystery seeing as none of them actually take place in Twin Peaks at all. In fact, the most recognisable place in the first few hours is The Black Lodge, which features extensively in the first two episodes before “Cooper” bizarrely ends up in Las Vegas. Also knocking us out of our comfort zone and driving home the fact that this is not the same kind of Twin Peaks show we are used to, are the occasional F bombs being dropped and the coy sexiness that flowed through the show has been replaced with plain nudity.
We have been given vision that is pure David Lynch. He produces some fantastical imagery and some unnerving editing that is like watching Eraserhead, Lost Highway and Fire Walk With Me all at the same time on the same screen. As a piece of art it has its place amongst Lynch fans, but as a piece of entertainment for prime time television, it missed the mark for me, and as a return to Twin Peaks, it should be ashamed of itself, as apart from 30 seconds or so in episode 4 where here the familiar twangs of the original score, I didn’t feel like there was any return to that great tv show from the early 90s. There is the odd nugget of new that will keep me watching, Naomi Watts and Matthew Lillard have joined the team in what promises to be entertaining roles, there is a glass box that is being kept in some kind of secret bunker under constant video monitoring that seems to have something to do with The Black Lodge, the log lady is getting message from her log again, a body that doesn’t belong to its head and we are still hanging out at the Bang Bang Bar with Bobby, Shelley and James even if it was for far too brief at time.
Overall: It didn’t deliver on its promise, or give me what I wanted, but there is still a lot more episodes to come. I cant think of another show that would get away with such a slow build or lack of deliverance than the new third season of Twin Peaks.
*** Ive tried to write this as spoiler free as i can, you may find some in here but nothing that i think would ruin watching the show for you ***
I don’t think it will come to anyones surprise to say that the first four episodes of Twin Peaks return are strange. But maybe not in the way that we know and love.
I found these first four episodes difficult to enjoy not because they were bad, but because it was not what I was expecting at all. I wanted the key things that I love about Twin Peaks to be there, the returning characters, the iconic score by Angleo Badalamenti, the quirky weirdness grounded by soap opera like stories. I wanted the dark seriousness of murder, lust and money, beautifully intertwined with the ridiculousness of silent drape runners, saving the pine weasel and miss twin peaks contests.Unfortunately I found very little of any of what I wanted.
Yes Cooper is back or more accurately Kyle Maclachlan is back but has yet to act or sound anything like Special Agent Dale Cooper at all, the story calling for him to play a very lifeless rendition of his former glory. Other familiar faces have shown up along the way, but not very many and for not very long at all.
What we have is something very Lynchian, long drawn out scenes, especially in The Black Lodge that after extended moments of a droning humming score and lot of not a lot going on in slow motion followed by more not a lot going on but this time with a white horse or a talking lump of flesh on a leafless tree in the picture, it starts to feel like a lot of weird stuff just for sheer sake of being weird.
Fans of the previous seasons of Twin Peaks might be left wondering what is going on with the stories that were left open, is Leo still holding that rope in his mouth, what happened after the explosion in the bank vault, and what the hell has happened to Annie – well you wont find any of these answers here. Instead we are given a whole bunch of new characters, who’s stories we are still trying to figure out and how they are related to the events of Twin Peaks, which is a made into a bigger and more confusing mystery seeing as none of them actually take place in Twin Peaks at all. In fact, the most recognisable place in the first few hours is The Black Lodge, which features extensively in the first two episodes before “Cooper” bizarrely ends up in Las Vegas. Also knocking us out of our comfort zone and driving home the fact that this is not the same kind of Twin Peaks show we are used to, are the occasional F bombs being dropped and the coy sexiness that flowed through the show has been replaced with plain nudity.
We have been given vision that is pure David Lynch. He produces some fantastical imagery and some unnerving editing that is like watching Eraserhead, Lost Highway and Fire Walk With Me all at the same time on the same screen. As a piece of art it has its place amongst Lynch fans, but as a piece of entertainment for prime time television, it missed the mark for me, and as a return to Twin Peaks, it should be ashamed of itself, as apart from 30 seconds or so in episode 4 where here the familiar twangs of the original score, I didn’t feel like there was any return to that great tv show from the early 90s. There is the odd nugget of new that will keep me watching, Naomi Watts and Matthew Lillard have joined the team in what promises to be entertaining roles, there is a glass box that is being kept in some kind of secret bunker under constant video monitoring that seems to have something to do with The Black Lodge, the log lady is getting message from her log again, a body that doesn’t belong to its head and we are still hanging out at the Bang Bang Bar with Bobby, Shelley and James even if it was for far too brief at time.
Overall: It didn’t deliver on its promise, or give me what I wanted, but there is still a lot more episodes to come. I cant think of another show that would get away with such a slow build or lack of deliverance than the new third season of Twin Peaks.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019) in Movies
May 31, 2019 (Updated May 31, 2019)
Well, I liked it!
Before heading into Godzilla: King of the Monsters, I saw a lot of wildly mixed reviews online. People were either hating it or loving it, with nobody really feeling anything in-between. Even those cinema goers who were fully prepared for nothing more than a bunch of big monsters fighting alongside insignificant human bystanders were coming away from it fuming. Well, I’m happy to say that I’m putting myself firmly in the ‘loved it’ category, although I do understand and appreciate a lot of the issues that the haters have with it.
Since his appearance in the 2014 movie, and his involvement in the destruction of San Francisco, Godzilla has been keeping a fairly low profile beneath the ocean. He is now closely monitored by monster organisation Monarch, who were introduced to us previously, most notably in the movie Kong: Skull Island. They have a number of outposts dotted around the globe, where they are also tracking various other ‘titans’, most of which are lying dormant. Monarch is currently involved in a conflict with the military, who would rather see the titans wiped out than try and co-exist with them in the way our ancestors did.
In a Chinese outpost, we meet Dr Emma Russell (Vera Farmiga), who is working on a device called ORCA, something which will hopefully allow us to communicate with and control the titans. She’s there with daughter Madison (Millie Bobby Brown) as they test out ORCA on newly hatched titan larva Mothra. Emma’s estranged husband Mark (Kyle Chandler), who helped develop the ORCA device with her, is currently leading a much simpler life, photographing wolves out in the wild having completely distanced himself from Monarch and the titans.
Things start to go wrong though when eco-terrorist Jonah Alan (Charles Dance) kidnaps Emma and Madison, along with the ORCA device. He wants to use ORCA to wake up the remaining titans and there’s a lot of talk about cleansing the earth, restoring balance etc, something which continues to be the motivational theme throughout the movie.
Jonah and his team, with help from Emma, break free a three-headed monster called Ghidorah from within the Antarctic ice, and that’s when things really kick off. Ghidorah assumes the position of King of the Monsters and he and the other titans begin wreaking havoc on planet Earth. When word reaches Mark that his wife and daughter are in danger, not to mention the rest of the world, he returns to work with Monarch. Meanwhile, Godzilla has resurfaced and is en route to Ghidorah, looking for a fight. At the same time Mothra takes herself off to a waterfall, cocooning herself so that she can gloriously emerge a bit later on in the movie.
Godzilla takes a bit of a pounding from Ghidorah, sustaining some serious damage and leaving the fate of the world in jeopardy. But, the fact that the title of this movie declares Godzilla to be the King of Monsters, along with the promotional material for next years ‘Godzilla Vs Kong’ movie that has begun emerging online, should give you a pretty good idea as to whether or not he makes a comeback.
Unfortunately, a lot of the action takes place in murky, rainy darkness, which is disappointing considering all of the marketing artwork that depicts the monsters and their battles in bright, vibrant colour. At times, far too many quick cuts make things difficult to follow – zipping between the action, the destruction and the humans that are in danger because of it. Cutting to the human cast does help to give us a sense of scale and panic but, at this point, they’ve all just become a little irrelevant. A lot of time is spent early on in the movie, introducing us to a lot of characters, with even more to come later on, but the majority of them just have very little to do or be concerned about when the monster fighting begins.
On the flip-side to all of that though, there are more than enough occasions where we find a downtrodden and seriously pissed off Godzilla handing out a satisfying series of beatings to the pretenders to his throne. I became fully invested in the huge scale of it all and what was at stake for the world. Overall I just found the whole thing really enjoyable.
Since his appearance in the 2014 movie, and his involvement in the destruction of San Francisco, Godzilla has been keeping a fairly low profile beneath the ocean. He is now closely monitored by monster organisation Monarch, who were introduced to us previously, most notably in the movie Kong: Skull Island. They have a number of outposts dotted around the globe, where they are also tracking various other ‘titans’, most of which are lying dormant. Monarch is currently involved in a conflict with the military, who would rather see the titans wiped out than try and co-exist with them in the way our ancestors did.
In a Chinese outpost, we meet Dr Emma Russell (Vera Farmiga), who is working on a device called ORCA, something which will hopefully allow us to communicate with and control the titans. She’s there with daughter Madison (Millie Bobby Brown) as they test out ORCA on newly hatched titan larva Mothra. Emma’s estranged husband Mark (Kyle Chandler), who helped develop the ORCA device with her, is currently leading a much simpler life, photographing wolves out in the wild having completely distanced himself from Monarch and the titans.
Things start to go wrong though when eco-terrorist Jonah Alan (Charles Dance) kidnaps Emma and Madison, along with the ORCA device. He wants to use ORCA to wake up the remaining titans and there’s a lot of talk about cleansing the earth, restoring balance etc, something which continues to be the motivational theme throughout the movie.
Jonah and his team, with help from Emma, break free a three-headed monster called Ghidorah from within the Antarctic ice, and that’s when things really kick off. Ghidorah assumes the position of King of the Monsters and he and the other titans begin wreaking havoc on planet Earth. When word reaches Mark that his wife and daughter are in danger, not to mention the rest of the world, he returns to work with Monarch. Meanwhile, Godzilla has resurfaced and is en route to Ghidorah, looking for a fight. At the same time Mothra takes herself off to a waterfall, cocooning herself so that she can gloriously emerge a bit later on in the movie.
Godzilla takes a bit of a pounding from Ghidorah, sustaining some serious damage and leaving the fate of the world in jeopardy. But, the fact that the title of this movie declares Godzilla to be the King of Monsters, along with the promotional material for next years ‘Godzilla Vs Kong’ movie that has begun emerging online, should give you a pretty good idea as to whether or not he makes a comeback.
Unfortunately, a lot of the action takes place in murky, rainy darkness, which is disappointing considering all of the marketing artwork that depicts the monsters and their battles in bright, vibrant colour. At times, far too many quick cuts make things difficult to follow – zipping between the action, the destruction and the humans that are in danger because of it. Cutting to the human cast does help to give us a sense of scale and panic but, at this point, they’ve all just become a little irrelevant. A lot of time is spent early on in the movie, introducing us to a lot of characters, with even more to come later on, but the majority of them just have very little to do or be concerned about when the monster fighting begins.
On the flip-side to all of that though, there are more than enough occasions where we find a downtrodden and seriously pissed off Godzilla handing out a satisfying series of beatings to the pretenders to his throne. I became fully invested in the huge scale of it all and what was at stake for the world. Overall I just found the whole thing really enjoyable.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Carriers (2009) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Brian and Danny grew up as two brothers who were relatively close to one another. They cherish the memories they have of Turtle Beach, a beach their family vacationed to every summer. The abandoned motel in Turtle Beach may be their best bet of surviving the highly contagious disease that now plagues the entire country and possibly the world. Not much is known about the virus other than the victims coughing up blood and bleeding from the ears as their condition worsens. Brian actually came up with a few rules that will hopefully get him, his girlfriend Bobby, his brother Danny, and Danny's friend Kate through this disease ridden world to Turtle Beach clean. The rules include avoiding the infected at all costs, disinfecting anything they've touched in the past 24 hours, and that the infected are already dead as there is no cure. You may survive if you stick to the rules, but actually abiding by them is an entirely different story.
Right off the bat, people are probably going to compare Carriers to Zombieland because of the rules. Carriers was released a full month before Zombieland, but Paramount Vantage folded upon its initial release causing its wide release to be an extremely limited one at the last minute (I think it wound up playing at only two theaters in the country). Expectations rise unintentionally in situations such as this. "This is that horror film that was practically shelved earlier this year and is finally being released." The result is a horror film that is well worth watching, but may not be entirely what you're expecting.
Carriers is more about establishing an atmosphere than anything else. Everything is abandoned and rightfully so as most people were picked off handfuls at a time by this pandemic. The entire film is more like the first half hour of 28 Days Later where Jim wakes up in an abandoned hospital and realizes how empty the streets of London are. There aren't masses of the infected running around lusting for brains or wanting to tear humans apart in Carriers. The story follows these four friends as they journey across the country to this supposed sanctuary where they hope to tough it out until this disease runs its course. Carriers is more of a slow burn as things turn from bad to worse very slowly and snowball as the film goes on.
Chris Pine is really the drawing factor of the film. His role as Brian is kind of like a more intense version of his role as Kirk in Star Trek from earlier this year. Brian comes off as an inconsiderate prick the first half of the film and seems to only do things that benefit himself. The second half is where his character gets interesting though. The speech he gives Danny about their parents and telling Danny that he only told him what he wanted to hear is the turning point for Brian. Chris Pine shines as things begin to roll downhill for Brian as his emotions take center stage and his true demeanor is revealed.
Everything else in the film pretty much feels like routine manuevers when it comes to films revolving around viral outbreaks as some main characters contract the disease, they resort to drastic measures to survive, and begin to question their humanity along the way. The most disappointing part of the film is the ending as things just seem to kind of stop without much of a resolution. It seems like films like this either end this way or have a really depressing ending and that's its biggest flaw. Movie buffs who have seen films concerning pandemics already have a rough idea of how the film is going to end and it's about time to mix that up a bit. There's got to be a decent way to end the film that offers something a bit different that could wrap everything up until that point, but also leave enough room open for a sequel if need be.
Carriers may be a bit slow at first and doesn't really offer anything you probably haven't seen before in a film like this, but is still worth seeing for Chris Pine's performance. It's kind of a more serious take on Zombieland without actual zombies running or stumbling around with an atmosphere similar to the one established in Danny Boyle's 28 Days Later. If you're a fan of films involving a virus that has wiped out most of the human population, then this is still worth a watch.
Right off the bat, people are probably going to compare Carriers to Zombieland because of the rules. Carriers was released a full month before Zombieland, but Paramount Vantage folded upon its initial release causing its wide release to be an extremely limited one at the last minute (I think it wound up playing at only two theaters in the country). Expectations rise unintentionally in situations such as this. "This is that horror film that was practically shelved earlier this year and is finally being released." The result is a horror film that is well worth watching, but may not be entirely what you're expecting.
Carriers is more about establishing an atmosphere than anything else. Everything is abandoned and rightfully so as most people were picked off handfuls at a time by this pandemic. The entire film is more like the first half hour of 28 Days Later where Jim wakes up in an abandoned hospital and realizes how empty the streets of London are. There aren't masses of the infected running around lusting for brains or wanting to tear humans apart in Carriers. The story follows these four friends as they journey across the country to this supposed sanctuary where they hope to tough it out until this disease runs its course. Carriers is more of a slow burn as things turn from bad to worse very slowly and snowball as the film goes on.
Chris Pine is really the drawing factor of the film. His role as Brian is kind of like a more intense version of his role as Kirk in Star Trek from earlier this year. Brian comes off as an inconsiderate prick the first half of the film and seems to only do things that benefit himself. The second half is where his character gets interesting though. The speech he gives Danny about their parents and telling Danny that he only told him what he wanted to hear is the turning point for Brian. Chris Pine shines as things begin to roll downhill for Brian as his emotions take center stage and his true demeanor is revealed.
Everything else in the film pretty much feels like routine manuevers when it comes to films revolving around viral outbreaks as some main characters contract the disease, they resort to drastic measures to survive, and begin to question their humanity along the way. The most disappointing part of the film is the ending as things just seem to kind of stop without much of a resolution. It seems like films like this either end this way or have a really depressing ending and that's its biggest flaw. Movie buffs who have seen films concerning pandemics already have a rough idea of how the film is going to end and it's about time to mix that up a bit. There's got to be a decent way to end the film that offers something a bit different that could wrap everything up until that point, but also leave enough room open for a sequel if need be.
Carriers may be a bit slow at first and doesn't really offer anything you probably haven't seen before in a film like this, but is still worth seeing for Chris Pine's performance. It's kind of a more serious take on Zombieland without actual zombies running or stumbling around with an atmosphere similar to the one established in Danny Boyle's 28 Days Later. If you're a fan of films involving a virus that has wiped out most of the human population, then this is still worth a watch.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Enola Holmes (2020) in Movies
Oct 3, 2020
There were several things that didn't make me leap at this one, but I was excited to have a "new release" to watch so...
The Holmes family name is a recognisable one, Sherlock and Mycroft are taking London by storm... but did you know about their younger sister, Enola? Raised by her mother, an eccentric and strong woman with a very alternative view on education, Enola is a strong will young woman in her image. When her mother goes missing Enola sets off to find her against the wishes of her brothers, taking herself to London and crossing paths with friends and foes along the way.
When I was looking for something between Sherlock Holmes and Nancy Drew I was hoping they'd throw the stone a little further. In my notes I scribbled that there are plenty of books about teen detectives that would have adapted well... and then I discovered that this was a book, and a series no less. I understand that the association with Sherlock Holmes is a strong one to market, but I feel like we're a little Sherlocked out these days. I miss vaguely original content... sorry, that sounds bitchier than it was meant to be.
Millie Bobby Brown did a good job of bringing Enola to life, there's a strong precocious nature to the role and she adapted to every twist convincingly. At times I noticed the odd slip that felt a little pantomime-y but by the time I'd pursed my lips and frowned it had already passed.
The Holmes brothers, brought to us by Henry Cavill and Sam Claflin, where to start... Claflin as Mycroft did a pretty good job, possibly too good, every time he was on screen I wanted him to leave. However, am I the only one that thought that these actors should have been playing each other's roles? As much as I love Cavill, he is not Sherlock. Sherlock is not suave and naturally charming, and he's certainly not built like a Chippendale, well, maybe a bit of furniture. It felt like a very unnatural fit, but I could just about visualise it with the roles reversed.
Supporting actors were great, I particularly enjoyed Susan Wokoma's, Edith. But, I was pleasantly surprised to see Fiona Shaw pop up in what appeared to be a reprisal of her role from Three Men and a Little Lady, but I digress.
To a layman like myself the period setting looked amazing and I thought the costumes were excellent. In fact, everything about the film looked stunning, but here is where I part with compliments.
Enola Holmes clocks in at just over the 2 hour mark, 2 hours and 3 minutes if we're being precise. If you say "family film" I think 1 hour 30, 45 maybe, if you say "thriller" I think 2 hours+... I know there are no hard and fast rules about it, but here's the thing, there wasn't enough content to fill that time. Yes, they managed to fill the runtime, but so much of it was unnecessary. Her mother's storyline seemed entirely there to get her to London, which could easily have been done in several ways, there's one scene in particular that seemed to go nowhere. I hate to say it, but Fiona Shaw and her finishing school were completely surplus to requirements too, nothing happened there that was very relevant at all. Some of the additions to what is quite a simple story made it a little complicated, though complicated isn't quite the right word because everything was easy to grasp (when it was relevant), perhaps "fussy" would be a better choice.
When the film ended I knew we were being set up for round 2, though this one came with less of a sickening groan than Artemis Fowl's did. I don't know how the books run as a series so I'd be interested to see how they compare, but I'm not a fan of continued storyline and that will definitely be on the cards for a sequel.
While I'm fully aware I've just moaned about a lot of points, the film is definitely watchable, but for me it was too cluttered and drawn out to hold my attention. With some snipping here and there it could have been vastly improved.
(My god, I didn't even mention the 4th wall breaking or the very end... but I guess no one really wants a full essay on the subject.)
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/10/enola-holmes-movie-review.html
The Holmes family name is a recognisable one, Sherlock and Mycroft are taking London by storm... but did you know about their younger sister, Enola? Raised by her mother, an eccentric and strong woman with a very alternative view on education, Enola is a strong will young woman in her image. When her mother goes missing Enola sets off to find her against the wishes of her brothers, taking herself to London and crossing paths with friends and foes along the way.
When I was looking for something between Sherlock Holmes and Nancy Drew I was hoping they'd throw the stone a little further. In my notes I scribbled that there are plenty of books about teen detectives that would have adapted well... and then I discovered that this was a book, and a series no less. I understand that the association with Sherlock Holmes is a strong one to market, but I feel like we're a little Sherlocked out these days. I miss vaguely original content... sorry, that sounds bitchier than it was meant to be.
Millie Bobby Brown did a good job of bringing Enola to life, there's a strong precocious nature to the role and she adapted to every twist convincingly. At times I noticed the odd slip that felt a little pantomime-y but by the time I'd pursed my lips and frowned it had already passed.
The Holmes brothers, brought to us by Henry Cavill and Sam Claflin, where to start... Claflin as Mycroft did a pretty good job, possibly too good, every time he was on screen I wanted him to leave. However, am I the only one that thought that these actors should have been playing each other's roles? As much as I love Cavill, he is not Sherlock. Sherlock is not suave and naturally charming, and he's certainly not built like a Chippendale, well, maybe a bit of furniture. It felt like a very unnatural fit, but I could just about visualise it with the roles reversed.
Supporting actors were great, I particularly enjoyed Susan Wokoma's, Edith. But, I was pleasantly surprised to see Fiona Shaw pop up in what appeared to be a reprisal of her role from Three Men and a Little Lady, but I digress.
To a layman like myself the period setting looked amazing and I thought the costumes were excellent. In fact, everything about the film looked stunning, but here is where I part with compliments.
Enola Holmes clocks in at just over the 2 hour mark, 2 hours and 3 minutes if we're being precise. If you say "family film" I think 1 hour 30, 45 maybe, if you say "thriller" I think 2 hours+... I know there are no hard and fast rules about it, but here's the thing, there wasn't enough content to fill that time. Yes, they managed to fill the runtime, but so much of it was unnecessary. Her mother's storyline seemed entirely there to get her to London, which could easily have been done in several ways, there's one scene in particular that seemed to go nowhere. I hate to say it, but Fiona Shaw and her finishing school were completely surplus to requirements too, nothing happened there that was very relevant at all. Some of the additions to what is quite a simple story made it a little complicated, though complicated isn't quite the right word because everything was easy to grasp (when it was relevant), perhaps "fussy" would be a better choice.
When the film ended I knew we were being set up for round 2, though this one came with less of a sickening groan than Artemis Fowl's did. I don't know how the books run as a series so I'd be interested to see how they compare, but I'm not a fan of continued storyline and that will definitely be on the cards for a sequel.
While I'm fully aware I've just moaned about a lot of points, the film is definitely watchable, but for me it was too cluttered and drawn out to hold my attention. With some snipping here and there it could have been vastly improved.
(My god, I didn't even mention the 4th wall breaking or the very end... but I guess no one really wants a full essay on the subject.)
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/10/enola-holmes-movie-review.html
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Trust Me, I'm a Doctor in Tabletop Games
Oct 13, 2020
Did you know that in olden days doctors and traveling alchemist frauds would prescribe cocaine for various illnesses and maladies? It’s true. Also were you aware that fecal transfusions could cure a multitude of sicknesses? You know, taking feces from one person and injecting it into the intestines of another can cure LOTS of bad stuff. Like excessively odorous gas expelations. Well, that one may or may not be true, but if you think you can sell that cure to your friends, you are ready to play Trust Me, I’m a Doctor.
In Trust Me, I’m a Doctor (which I guess I will just call Trust Me from here on out) players will be taking the mantles of traveling salespeople hawking their wares or old timey doctors prescribing ridiculous cures for what ails their patients. Players will be using the tried and true model of Apples to Apples with a twist to throw out their cure to the patient and hope their solution earns the vote from the patient as the best of the lot. The player with the most earned Ailments cards at the end of the game will be the winning shyster or quack this side of the Mississippi!
To setup, each player will receive a hand of Cure cards. A first patient is decided, who will flip the top card of the Ailments deck. The game can now begin in earnest. Or Earnest, if that’s the persona the patient wishes to take.
On the Ailment card will be the particular malady and one or more icons pertaining to the cures that can be played upon it. The non-patients now must choose a Cure card containing a matching icon to the Ailment and begin preparing their pitch. Once all players have submitted their Cures face-down, each quack will then explain to the patient why they must choose their particular Cure by convincing them of its success rate and process. The patient then chooses the best Cure, and the winning player will collect the Ailment card as a VP. Once the game is over the player with the most VP Ailment cards is the winner!
Components. This game is a bunch of cards. That’s it. Even the rules are printed on the backs of two cards (so really it’s one card if the rules had been printed on front and back). The cards are good quality, and I appreciate the thematic art on each card. The one issue I have with the components is the choice of font for the title of each card. I get that the game is trying to convey that old timey feeling, but the font makes each card a little different and sometimes too scrunched up for my tastes. Other than that, I dig everything else. Oh, the inside of the box is even printed, much like the Tiny Epic games. Cool decision there.
So do I enjoy this one? You know, I do. I don’t have Snake Oil, but this is similar in that you’re trying to sell your opponents on choosing your card. So, if you’re a good salesperson then you will do super well here. Unfortunately for me my father-in-law is a retired car salesman so he mops the floor with us. But I mean, check out the example in the photo above. To cure Cannibalism an appropriately played card is POWERFUL LAXATIVES. Seriously? Poop out your desire to eat other people? I mean, if you have the sales skills to pull that one off, well I applaud you. Obviously the best answer goes something like this, “The power of prayer heals all. Even your taste for others.”
Now, I just gave you a pretty PG-rated response to something that could go VERY R-rated VERY quickly. Please note: this game is NSFW and I wouldn’t play it with anyone under 18 even though the box says 12+. There are some touchy cards in there that I wouldn’t want to upset little Bobby with at family game night. All in all this is a good little game to get the party started or to break in new gamers. The Apples to Apples mechanics work well and there is enough ridiculousness to make everyone laugh, or even chortle. So check this one out if you need a little card game that will get people in the mood to game, with hints of adult-ness and impossibility thrown in for good measure. And don’t forget to suggest leeches for your game-mates that don’t enjoy this. They suck the grumpiness right outta you.
In Trust Me, I’m a Doctor (which I guess I will just call Trust Me from here on out) players will be taking the mantles of traveling salespeople hawking their wares or old timey doctors prescribing ridiculous cures for what ails their patients. Players will be using the tried and true model of Apples to Apples with a twist to throw out their cure to the patient and hope their solution earns the vote from the patient as the best of the lot. The player with the most earned Ailments cards at the end of the game will be the winning shyster or quack this side of the Mississippi!
To setup, each player will receive a hand of Cure cards. A first patient is decided, who will flip the top card of the Ailments deck. The game can now begin in earnest. Or Earnest, if that’s the persona the patient wishes to take.
On the Ailment card will be the particular malady and one or more icons pertaining to the cures that can be played upon it. The non-patients now must choose a Cure card containing a matching icon to the Ailment and begin preparing their pitch. Once all players have submitted their Cures face-down, each quack will then explain to the patient why they must choose their particular Cure by convincing them of its success rate and process. The patient then chooses the best Cure, and the winning player will collect the Ailment card as a VP. Once the game is over the player with the most VP Ailment cards is the winner!
Components. This game is a bunch of cards. That’s it. Even the rules are printed on the backs of two cards (so really it’s one card if the rules had been printed on front and back). The cards are good quality, and I appreciate the thematic art on each card. The one issue I have with the components is the choice of font for the title of each card. I get that the game is trying to convey that old timey feeling, but the font makes each card a little different and sometimes too scrunched up for my tastes. Other than that, I dig everything else. Oh, the inside of the box is even printed, much like the Tiny Epic games. Cool decision there.
So do I enjoy this one? You know, I do. I don’t have Snake Oil, but this is similar in that you’re trying to sell your opponents on choosing your card. So, if you’re a good salesperson then you will do super well here. Unfortunately for me my father-in-law is a retired car salesman so he mops the floor with us. But I mean, check out the example in the photo above. To cure Cannibalism an appropriately played card is POWERFUL LAXATIVES. Seriously? Poop out your desire to eat other people? I mean, if you have the sales skills to pull that one off, well I applaud you. Obviously the best answer goes something like this, “The power of prayer heals all. Even your taste for others.”
Now, I just gave you a pretty PG-rated response to something that could go VERY R-rated VERY quickly. Please note: this game is NSFW and I wouldn’t play it with anyone under 18 even though the box says 12+. There are some touchy cards in there that I wouldn’t want to upset little Bobby with at family game night. All in all this is a good little game to get the party started or to break in new gamers. The Apples to Apples mechanics work well and there is enough ridiculousness to make everyone laugh, or even chortle. So check this one out if you need a little card game that will get people in the mood to game, with hints of adult-ness and impossibility thrown in for good measure. And don’t forget to suggest leeches for your game-mates that don’t enjoy this. They suck the grumpiness right outta you.
