Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Split (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“We are what we believe we are”.
M. Night Shyamalan fizzed into movie consciousness in 1999 with “The Sixth Sense” which – having rewatched it again recently – still has the power to unnerve and impress even after knowing the famous ‘twist’. Since that film and his next, “Unbreakable” in 2000, Shyamalan has ‘done a bit of an Orson Welles’ by never really living up to that early promise. Here with “Split” he returns to better form with a psychological thriller that is heavy on the psycho.
James McAvoy plays Kevin… and Dennis, and Patricia, and Hedwig, and Barry, and Orwell, and Jade, and… if the running time permitted… another 17 characters. But this is no “Kind Hearts and Coronets”: McAvoy plays all these varied personalities in the same body. For Kevin suffers from Multiple Personality Disorder, a rare condition where his different schisms not only affect his speech and attitude but also his whole physique. One personality for example is diabetic and needs insulin: all his others are fine.
Under the care of MPD specialist Dr Karen Fletcher (Betty Buckley, “Carrie”), Kevin seems to be making good progress. But all is not as it seems. Dennis, one of the more evil of Kevin’s personalities, has kidnapped three teens – Claire (Haley Lu Richardson), Marcia (Jessica Sula) and Casey (Anya Taylor-Joy) – and is holding them captive in his home.
It’s all going so well. Kevin (James McAvoy) getting much needed treatment from Dr Fletcher (Betty Buckley).
While Claire and Marcia are good friends, Casey is the wild-card in the pack: a moody and aloof teen that doesn’t fit in with the crowd. We see the abduction unfold largely through her intelligent and analytical eyes, with her experiences causing flashbacks to hunting trips in the woods as a five-year-old child with her father and uncle.
This is McAvoy’s film, with his different personalities being very well observed and the scenes where he switches from one to the other being particularly impressive as piece of acting. Of the youngsters, Anya Taylor-Joy is the most impressive, with the denouement of her particular sub-plot being my favourite part of the film.
Shyamalan, who also wrote the script, is treading a well worn cinematic path here (since often the MPD element is the surprise twist, to list any films here inevitably risks major spoilers – – but there is a decent list here). But this is a film that seems to have generated a lot of interest, particularly with a younger audience (I have seldom been quizzed more with the “Ooh, have you seen this yet” question). As a result this may be a modest sleeper hit.
Girl pray or Girl prey? Casey deep in the psycho’s lair.
Where I think the movie missteps is in its casting of the three cute and scantily dressed teens as the abductees. From the plot of the film that emerges this appears to be unnecessary and exploitative, especially since they are made to progressively dis-robe as the film progresses. The film would actually have been made more interesting if a family unit, or at least a mixed variety of individuals, had been taken.
Marcia (Jessica Sula) doesn’t necessarily appreciate the floral gift.
Unfortunately Shyamalan also over-gilds the lily for the finale by going from medical improbability into outright science fiction: and dilutes what was up to that point a stylish thriller. As a result it’s a decent popcorn film, and worth seeing for McAvoy’s clever performance, but its not going to go down in my book as a classic.
Watch out by the way for a nice final cameo scene: a clever reference to past glories.
James McAvoy plays Kevin… and Dennis, and Patricia, and Hedwig, and Barry, and Orwell, and Jade, and… if the running time permitted… another 17 characters. But this is no “Kind Hearts and Coronets”: McAvoy plays all these varied personalities in the same body. For Kevin suffers from Multiple Personality Disorder, a rare condition where his different schisms not only affect his speech and attitude but also his whole physique. One personality for example is diabetic and needs insulin: all his others are fine.
Under the care of MPD specialist Dr Karen Fletcher (Betty Buckley, “Carrie”), Kevin seems to be making good progress. But all is not as it seems. Dennis, one of the more evil of Kevin’s personalities, has kidnapped three teens – Claire (Haley Lu Richardson), Marcia (Jessica Sula) and Casey (Anya Taylor-Joy) – and is holding them captive in his home.
It’s all going so well. Kevin (James McAvoy) getting much needed treatment from Dr Fletcher (Betty Buckley).
While Claire and Marcia are good friends, Casey is the wild-card in the pack: a moody and aloof teen that doesn’t fit in with the crowd. We see the abduction unfold largely through her intelligent and analytical eyes, with her experiences causing flashbacks to hunting trips in the woods as a five-year-old child with her father and uncle.
This is McAvoy’s film, with his different personalities being very well observed and the scenes where he switches from one to the other being particularly impressive as piece of acting. Of the youngsters, Anya Taylor-Joy is the most impressive, with the denouement of her particular sub-plot being my favourite part of the film.
Shyamalan, who also wrote the script, is treading a well worn cinematic path here (since often the MPD element is the surprise twist, to list any films here inevitably risks major spoilers – – but there is a decent list here). But this is a film that seems to have generated a lot of interest, particularly with a younger audience (I have seldom been quizzed more with the “Ooh, have you seen this yet” question). As a result this may be a modest sleeper hit.
Girl pray or Girl prey? Casey deep in the psycho’s lair.
Where I think the movie missteps is in its casting of the three cute and scantily dressed teens as the abductees. From the plot of the film that emerges this appears to be unnecessary and exploitative, especially since they are made to progressively dis-robe as the film progresses. The film would actually have been made more interesting if a family unit, or at least a mixed variety of individuals, had been taken.
Marcia (Jessica Sula) doesn’t necessarily appreciate the floral gift.
Unfortunately Shyamalan also over-gilds the lily for the finale by going from medical improbability into outright science fiction: and dilutes what was up to that point a stylish thriller. As a result it’s a decent popcorn film, and worth seeing for McAvoy’s clever performance, but its not going to go down in my book as a classic.
Watch out by the way for a nice final cameo scene: a clever reference to past glories.
James P. Sumner (65 KP) created a post
Aug 22, 2019
Darren (1599 KP) rated Patient Seven (2016) in Movies
Oct 24, 2019
Characters – Dr Daniel Marcus is the man trying to learn about six disturbed patients at a mental hospital, each story needs to be broken down in a different way, he is doing research for his book, but leaving us wondering what his motives are is the biggest mystery in this film. we do meet the different patients which all have different stories and we follow the events of their stories each different from the rest. We do meet the doctors, but as the film is an anthology we just don’t get enough time to look into their characters.
Performances – Michael Ironside is the star of this film with his calming presence while interviewing the patients that can turn on them in a heartbeat. We have a couple of known names in the supporting cast with Alfie Allen in the second story being the highlight of the rest of the performances, while no one is bad in their roles here, they just don’t get the time they deserve.
Story – The story here is told like an interview process to give us seven short horror stories, the fact each one goes in a different direction helps the audience find one they can enjoy even if the previous one isn’t for them. Vampires, ghost, spirits, serial killers and zombies are the main topics each one feels short enough to be entertaining, even if one did make me want to see a feature film about that character. For a horror anthology this does check the boxes well and is one that can be enjoyed.
Horror – The horror in the story comes from the different stories, while we don’t always get the best build up to the horror moments, we do follow the horror guidelines well.
Settings – Each story does take us to a new setting which helps make the film feel fresh, though I don’t quiet understand how the crimes from England, New Zealand and Iceland ended up in an American mental home.
Special Effects – The effects in the film across the different stories are great and make you feel like you are part of them.
Scene of the Movie – The second story.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Some of the stories are slightly too short though.
Final Thoughts – This is a good horror anthology even if the ending feel slightly flat, we get plenty going on and can enjoy the different ideals of horror.
Overall: Horror anthology does correctly.
Performances – Michael Ironside is the star of this film with his calming presence while interviewing the patients that can turn on them in a heartbeat. We have a couple of known names in the supporting cast with Alfie Allen in the second story being the highlight of the rest of the performances, while no one is bad in their roles here, they just don’t get the time they deserve.
Story – The story here is told like an interview process to give us seven short horror stories, the fact each one goes in a different direction helps the audience find one they can enjoy even if the previous one isn’t for them. Vampires, ghost, spirits, serial killers and zombies are the main topics each one feels short enough to be entertaining, even if one did make me want to see a feature film about that character. For a horror anthology this does check the boxes well and is one that can be enjoyed.
Horror – The horror in the story comes from the different stories, while we don’t always get the best build up to the horror moments, we do follow the horror guidelines well.
Settings – Each story does take us to a new setting which helps make the film feel fresh, though I don’t quiet understand how the crimes from England, New Zealand and Iceland ended up in an American mental home.
Special Effects – The effects in the film across the different stories are great and make you feel like you are part of them.
Scene of the Movie – The second story.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Some of the stories are slightly too short though.
Final Thoughts – This is a good horror anthology even if the ending feel slightly flat, we get plenty going on and can enjoy the different ideals of horror.
Overall: Horror anthology does correctly.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Klaus (2019) in Movies
Jul 28, 2020 (Updated Dec 24, 2020)
Visually Interesting - with strong voice performances
We have seen the Origin story of Santa Claus many times and in many ways over the years, so it was with some trepidation that the BankoMarquis ventured forth to check out the Netflix original film KLAUS which covers some very similar territory.
And I need not worry, for KLAUS is a visually interesting film with some very good voice performances that elevates a (relatively) by-the-book story into quite a delightful film experience.
Directed and Written by Sergio Pablos - a veteran animator with credits like Disney’s Tarzan, Despicable Me, Rio and Smallfoot - KLAUS tells the tale of…Jesper, a mailman who is also a privileged youth who’s lackluster ways runs him afoul of his father and he is banished to a remote, Northern country where her runs afoul of…KLAUS.
And…you can probably figure out where the story goes from there, but it is not the story - or the destination - that matters, it is the journey. And…what a wonderful journey it is.
Let’s start with the best part - this film is GORGEOUS to look at. Pablos uses hand drawn animation with lighting techniques taken from digital animation and the result is crisp, clean and stunning to look at. I will watch this film again, just to look at the visuals.
As for the voice casting - it is stellar - with one, small quibble. The great J.K. Simmon is…well…GREAT as Klaus. His deep baritone voice is perfect for the enigmatic hermit that is hiding secrets - and a heart of gold. Rashida Jones, Will Sasso, Norm MacDonald and the always brilliant Joan Cusack add their tremendous voices to the proceedings very well. My only quibble is with the work of Jason Schwartzman as Jesper, the character we follow throughout the film. I found his voice and character grating at times (I know this is on purpose, so Schwartzman did a good job in his work) but, I would have liked to have Pablos “tone down” the lead character just a bit.
But that is a “quibble” in a very entertaining movie that is a wonderful family film that can be enjoyed on different levels - and for different reasons - by children and adults alike.
Letter Grade: A-
8 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And I need not worry, for KLAUS is a visually interesting film with some very good voice performances that elevates a (relatively) by-the-book story into quite a delightful film experience.
Directed and Written by Sergio Pablos - a veteran animator with credits like Disney’s Tarzan, Despicable Me, Rio and Smallfoot - KLAUS tells the tale of…Jesper, a mailman who is also a privileged youth who’s lackluster ways runs him afoul of his father and he is banished to a remote, Northern country where her runs afoul of…KLAUS.
And…you can probably figure out where the story goes from there, but it is not the story - or the destination - that matters, it is the journey. And…what a wonderful journey it is.
Let’s start with the best part - this film is GORGEOUS to look at. Pablos uses hand drawn animation with lighting techniques taken from digital animation and the result is crisp, clean and stunning to look at. I will watch this film again, just to look at the visuals.
As for the voice casting - it is stellar - with one, small quibble. The great J.K. Simmon is…well…GREAT as Klaus. His deep baritone voice is perfect for the enigmatic hermit that is hiding secrets - and a heart of gold. Rashida Jones, Will Sasso, Norm MacDonald and the always brilliant Joan Cusack add their tremendous voices to the proceedings very well. My only quibble is with the work of Jason Schwartzman as Jesper, the character we follow throughout the film. I found his voice and character grating at times (I know this is on purpose, so Schwartzman did a good job in his work) but, I would have liked to have Pablos “tone down” the lead character just a bit.
But that is a “quibble” in a very entertaining movie that is a wonderful family film that can be enjoyed on different levels - and for different reasons - by children and adults alike.
Letter Grade: A-
8 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated La La Land (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“It’s very nostalgic – will people like it?”
A little film. Not sure whether you might have heard of it yet? Damien Chazelle has followed up his astonishingly proficient “Whiplash” – my top film of 2015 – with a sure-fire theatre-filler in “La La Land”. The old-fashioned musical extravaganza is back, and back with style!
“La La Land” tells the bittersweet love story of Sebastian (Ryan Gosling) and Mia (Emma Stone) who first meet in an LA traffic jam but then get thrown together by chance (LA is such a small place after all!). Over the course of the next four seasons romance blossoms. Mia is a struggling actress bouncing from audition to audition in a hopeless attempt to break through in LA’s tough movie business. She makes ends meet as a Barista on the Warner Brother’s lot. Meanwhile Sebastian is on a mission of his own: a talented musician, he is trying to restore jazz to the main stage (something the film’s soundtrack will undoubtedly help do!) by opening his own classic jazz bar. As both strive for success on their own terms can love survive to deliver us the classic ‘Hollywood ending’?
The film is technically astonishing, with clever continuous shots of the “Birdman” variety and masterly cinematography (by Linus Sandgren of “Joy” and “American Hustle”). The lighting team in particular is superb: a case in point is Mia’s ‘in-Seine’ (sic) song, with breathtaking fades of the background to darkness, a camera whizz-around the actress for effect and then a brilliant fade back to reality. Loved it. Overall, there are enough similar moments in the film to make cinema-lovers like me gasp with delight.
There’s a curious timelessness about the piece which is surely deliberate. While there are obvious and non-apologetic throwbacks to the classic musicals of the 50’s like “West Side Story” and “Singin’ in the Rain” and references to both “Casablanca” and “Rebel without a Cause”, there is also a 60’s vibe to the ‘girls getting ready’ sequence; an 80’s A-ha cover thrown in at a pool party; and a Californian Prius obsession that is surely more ‘noughties’ than current. Most curiously, while everyone has smartphones noone seems to text anyone to announce changes to plans: the film is almost distancing itself from much of modern life.
In the acting stakes Emma Stone again shines like a beacon. She is just magnetic on the screen: the biggest plot hole in the film (tiny spoiler) is why on earth she wasn’t given the part for her first audition! I was disappointed she didn’t win the Best Supporting Actress Oscar for “Birdman” in the “87th Awards” (she lost out to Patricia Arquette for “Boyhood”): but she just keeps getting better and Better and BETTER.
Ryan Gosling’s confident and cocky turn also radiates charisma: in particular, it is astonishing that Gosling could play “only a few chords” on the piano before training for the film. A confidence boost for struggling piano learners everywhere.
It is actually difficult to imagine two better actors for the roles. (Emma Watson allegedly turned it down for “Beauty and the Beast”: something she might be kicking herself for!) Are they both the best singers and dancers when compared to Gene Kelly, Fred Astaire, Debbie Reynolds (R.I.P.) or Cyd Charisse? No, undoubtedly not, but they have an undeniable charm all of their own. (Perhaps we will see the ilk of the great hoofers and crooners rise again with a resurgence in the classic musical. Can Hollywood take a hint?)
The big question: now that both Stone and Gosling have won Golden Globes for acting in the “Comedy or Musical” category, can they convert that to Oscar glory where there is a single category in play? I’d like to think so.
It’s also great to see proper movie-making taking place in the Hollywood studios again: during my recent visits to LA there seemed to be little other than TV work going on in the main studio complexes there (although its worth pointing out that for this film not all of the filming was actually done on the Warner Brothers lot). (As an aside, the Warner Brothers tour – which you need to book well in advance – is a GREAT day out for movie lovers, with a Sunday visit giving you the best access to live sets. #insideknowledgetrivia: that small grassy triangle with the gravestones on it is where they filmed many of the “Friends” outdoor scenes such as the baseball match!).
Musicals are clearly measured by the quality of the music, and Justin Hurwitz (“Whiplash”) has produced a gem with – notwithstanding the jazz numbers and a catchy little pop number from John Legend – merely a handful of simple but unforgettable melodies that recur in different variations throughout the film. The soundtrack is already in my Amazon library and uplifting my mood on what is a damp and dreary Monday here in the UK.
Damien Chazelle has delivered a triumph in both direction and original script. There is really very little I can fault the film on. In what was the somewhat patchy Coen brothers offering from last year – “Hail Caesar” – there was a standout moment of a throwback song and dance number with Channing Tatum that I raved about (you can catch it here). If I was being picky, then this tantalising snippet would be a better representation of the style and vim of the original genre – – with the exception of the opening number, few of the song and dance numbers in “La La Land” quite get to that “Broadway Melody” level of scale and energy. This, together with a few concerns about the pacing in some places, led me to rate this as a 4.5 on first viewing.
However on now seeing it twice within 36 hours, it’s got me well and truly under its spell! I normally emotionally resist films that arrive with excessive hype… but, in this case… I give in.
“La La Land” tells the bittersweet love story of Sebastian (Ryan Gosling) and Mia (Emma Stone) who first meet in an LA traffic jam but then get thrown together by chance (LA is such a small place after all!). Over the course of the next four seasons romance blossoms. Mia is a struggling actress bouncing from audition to audition in a hopeless attempt to break through in LA’s tough movie business. She makes ends meet as a Barista on the Warner Brother’s lot. Meanwhile Sebastian is on a mission of his own: a talented musician, he is trying to restore jazz to the main stage (something the film’s soundtrack will undoubtedly help do!) by opening his own classic jazz bar. As both strive for success on their own terms can love survive to deliver us the classic ‘Hollywood ending’?
The film is technically astonishing, with clever continuous shots of the “Birdman” variety and masterly cinematography (by Linus Sandgren of “Joy” and “American Hustle”). The lighting team in particular is superb: a case in point is Mia’s ‘in-Seine’ (sic) song, with breathtaking fades of the background to darkness, a camera whizz-around the actress for effect and then a brilliant fade back to reality. Loved it. Overall, there are enough similar moments in the film to make cinema-lovers like me gasp with delight.
There’s a curious timelessness about the piece which is surely deliberate. While there are obvious and non-apologetic throwbacks to the classic musicals of the 50’s like “West Side Story” and “Singin’ in the Rain” and references to both “Casablanca” and “Rebel without a Cause”, there is also a 60’s vibe to the ‘girls getting ready’ sequence; an 80’s A-ha cover thrown in at a pool party; and a Californian Prius obsession that is surely more ‘noughties’ than current. Most curiously, while everyone has smartphones noone seems to text anyone to announce changes to plans: the film is almost distancing itself from much of modern life.
In the acting stakes Emma Stone again shines like a beacon. She is just magnetic on the screen: the biggest plot hole in the film (tiny spoiler) is why on earth she wasn’t given the part for her first audition! I was disappointed she didn’t win the Best Supporting Actress Oscar for “Birdman” in the “87th Awards” (she lost out to Patricia Arquette for “Boyhood”): but she just keeps getting better and Better and BETTER.
Ryan Gosling’s confident and cocky turn also radiates charisma: in particular, it is astonishing that Gosling could play “only a few chords” on the piano before training for the film. A confidence boost for struggling piano learners everywhere.
It is actually difficult to imagine two better actors for the roles. (Emma Watson allegedly turned it down for “Beauty and the Beast”: something she might be kicking herself for!) Are they both the best singers and dancers when compared to Gene Kelly, Fred Astaire, Debbie Reynolds (R.I.P.) or Cyd Charisse? No, undoubtedly not, but they have an undeniable charm all of their own. (Perhaps we will see the ilk of the great hoofers and crooners rise again with a resurgence in the classic musical. Can Hollywood take a hint?)
The big question: now that both Stone and Gosling have won Golden Globes for acting in the “Comedy or Musical” category, can they convert that to Oscar glory where there is a single category in play? I’d like to think so.
It’s also great to see proper movie-making taking place in the Hollywood studios again: during my recent visits to LA there seemed to be little other than TV work going on in the main studio complexes there (although its worth pointing out that for this film not all of the filming was actually done on the Warner Brothers lot). (As an aside, the Warner Brothers tour – which you need to book well in advance – is a GREAT day out for movie lovers, with a Sunday visit giving you the best access to live sets. #insideknowledgetrivia: that small grassy triangle with the gravestones on it is where they filmed many of the “Friends” outdoor scenes such as the baseball match!).
Musicals are clearly measured by the quality of the music, and Justin Hurwitz (“Whiplash”) has produced a gem with – notwithstanding the jazz numbers and a catchy little pop number from John Legend – merely a handful of simple but unforgettable melodies that recur in different variations throughout the film. The soundtrack is already in my Amazon library and uplifting my mood on what is a damp and dreary Monday here in the UK.
Damien Chazelle has delivered a triumph in both direction and original script. There is really very little I can fault the film on. In what was the somewhat patchy Coen brothers offering from last year – “Hail Caesar” – there was a standout moment of a throwback song and dance number with Channing Tatum that I raved about (you can catch it here). If I was being picky, then this tantalising snippet would be a better representation of the style and vim of the original genre – – with the exception of the opening number, few of the song and dance numbers in “La La Land” quite get to that “Broadway Melody” level of scale and energy. This, together with a few concerns about the pacing in some places, led me to rate this as a 4.5 on first viewing.
However on now seeing it twice within 36 hours, it’s got me well and truly under its spell! I normally emotionally resist films that arrive with excessive hype… but, in this case… I give in.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Pride and Prejudice and Zombies (2016) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
A film for all those women who dream of chivalry, but want to kick some ass.
Contains spoilers, click to show
"It is a truth universally acknowledged that a zombie in possession of brains must be in want of more brains."
A mysterious plague has fallen across England. The countryside is a relative haven, where the city has become a playground for unmentionables. The oriental arts have become the fashion and a desirable young lady no longer needs to be the prim and proper wife, unless your name is Mr Collins.
The Bennet's lovely daughters, beautiful and strong of body and mind are accustomed to a regimented life of training, until the handsome stranger Mr Bingley comes to the country. A whirlwind of romance and the undead lead them into a battle for family and love.
Heaving bosoms, country estates. Brain eating corpses and assorted weaponry. Everything you'd expect when the undead meets Jane Austen. As if on cue my playlist has shuffled to Zombie by The Cranberries. I can't deny enjoying this film, I should point out that I was always going to enjoy it, be it Oscar or Razzie worthy. It definitely had the potential to be an epic re-watchable classic or the B-movie winner that shone from the book.
When it was first published I picked it up almost instantly and soon found Quirk Books and other crossover books developing a little shrine-like area. [Now given pride of place in my nerd room.] Having a dislike of classics embedded in me from school and enjoying the general kick-assery of action films, it was a great crossover to bring those classics back into my life.
Admission time, while I've read the book I can't actually remember when, it was dozens of books ago. I loved it but not everyone did. I'm going to make a big sweeping statement. [Sorry, not sorry] It's not a Jane Austen book people, get over it. "He's ruined Elizabeth Bennet!" No he's taken a strong minded female character and put her in a new fantasy setting. I'm sure there would have been less objections if all the names were different (and the title too) and it was just described as "loosely based on Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice". But swings and roundabouts, because it probably wouldn't have been as popular if it wasn't called Pride and Prejudice and Zombies.
Sam Riley's Mr Darcy was no Colin Firth, but it was still very good. It did kind of seem like they threw him in a lake because they felt they should pay homage to Firth's dunking.
Note to those who see the film, Liz Bennet's heaving bosom is seen on a regular basis and is entirely distracting. I'm not sure there's a plot line linked to them, they're just always there, they probably should have got their own credit for the part.
I think my favourite scene was where Darcy came to Elizabeth to proclaim his love... and then they proceed to beat each other with sticks, books, basically whatever is to hand. Heated and packed with sexual tension it made for entertaining viewing. It also reminded me of the scene in Buffy where the slayer and Spike fight in an abandoned building, and the amount of sexual tension between the pair results in breaking the building, amongst other things... but those other things probably wouldn't work so well in Austen's time.
Even with all the bits that brought a smile to my face and made for enjoyable watching, there were some things I couldn't help but be annoyed with.
Firstly, Matt Smith, my dear number 11... [insert long silence here] I know Mr Collins is there for the annoying comic relief and awkwardness but oh my god. It was too much and I was overcome with annoyance. The cast is made up of relatively unknown people, with the exceptions of Charles Dance, Sally Phillips and Matt Smith. I can't help but wonder if Mr Collins would have been easier to deal with if he was an unknown actor.
The camera work had its own peculiarities. Some shots were taken from the zombies point of view. They were blurred and frustrating to watch, I can't really tell what it added. I'm sure it would have added a bit more drama if you'd seen the potential victim being run at. Again, I'm not an expert in showbiz filming but I'm fairly certain that making your audience want to throw up is not the idea. Right near the end there is a shot that perfectly portrays the devastation of the situation...
"How should we get across the devastation of the city and cut out to the next scene?"
"Spin the camera round until people want to vomit?"
"GENIUS!"
I sat there feeling a bit woozy, trying to avoid looking at the screen for the whole thing. I'm not sure either of the fancy styles really improved anything.
My only other wonder about the film is whether it should have gone all out spoof. This was a sensible spoof [relatively speaking], in that it wasn't made specifically for laughs. It did have some, but there were also some moments of emotion too. Should they have played the film out for more comedy? Who knows, but I feel the scene where Darcy and Elizabeth are stabbing a field to kill zombies that are buried underneath was completely wasted in a sensible spoof!
All in all I did enjoy it, but for those of you looking to see it at the cinema I'm not sure it's worth a £10 ticket. Well worth it if you have an offer of some description though. Just remember going in to it that it isn't Jane Austen, it's just your run of the mill zombie period drama... wow, never thought I'd say that sentence.
A mysterious plague has fallen across England. The countryside is a relative haven, where the city has become a playground for unmentionables. The oriental arts have become the fashion and a desirable young lady no longer needs to be the prim and proper wife, unless your name is Mr Collins.
The Bennet's lovely daughters, beautiful and strong of body and mind are accustomed to a regimented life of training, until the handsome stranger Mr Bingley comes to the country. A whirlwind of romance and the undead lead them into a battle for family and love.
Heaving bosoms, country estates. Brain eating corpses and assorted weaponry. Everything you'd expect when the undead meets Jane Austen. As if on cue my playlist has shuffled to Zombie by The Cranberries. I can't deny enjoying this film, I should point out that I was always going to enjoy it, be it Oscar or Razzie worthy. It definitely had the potential to be an epic re-watchable classic or the B-movie winner that shone from the book.
When it was first published I picked it up almost instantly and soon found Quirk Books and other crossover books developing a little shrine-like area. [Now given pride of place in my nerd room.] Having a dislike of classics embedded in me from school and enjoying the general kick-assery of action films, it was a great crossover to bring those classics back into my life.
Admission time, while I've read the book I can't actually remember when, it was dozens of books ago. I loved it but not everyone did. I'm going to make a big sweeping statement. [Sorry, not sorry] It's not a Jane Austen book people, get over it. "He's ruined Elizabeth Bennet!" No he's taken a strong minded female character and put her in a new fantasy setting. I'm sure there would have been less objections if all the names were different (and the title too) and it was just described as "loosely based on Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice". But swings and roundabouts, because it probably wouldn't have been as popular if it wasn't called Pride and Prejudice and Zombies.
Sam Riley's Mr Darcy was no Colin Firth, but it was still very good. It did kind of seem like they threw him in a lake because they felt they should pay homage to Firth's dunking.
Note to those who see the film, Liz Bennet's heaving bosom is seen on a regular basis and is entirely distracting. I'm not sure there's a plot line linked to them, they're just always there, they probably should have got their own credit for the part.
I think my favourite scene was where Darcy came to Elizabeth to proclaim his love... and then they proceed to beat each other with sticks, books, basically whatever is to hand. Heated and packed with sexual tension it made for entertaining viewing. It also reminded me of the scene in Buffy where the slayer and Spike fight in an abandoned building, and the amount of sexual tension between the pair results in breaking the building, amongst other things... but those other things probably wouldn't work so well in Austen's time.
Even with all the bits that brought a smile to my face and made for enjoyable watching, there were some things I couldn't help but be annoyed with.
Firstly, Matt Smith, my dear number 11... [insert long silence here] I know Mr Collins is there for the annoying comic relief and awkwardness but oh my god. It was too much and I was overcome with annoyance. The cast is made up of relatively unknown people, with the exceptions of Charles Dance, Sally Phillips and Matt Smith. I can't help but wonder if Mr Collins would have been easier to deal with if he was an unknown actor.
The camera work had its own peculiarities. Some shots were taken from the zombies point of view. They were blurred and frustrating to watch, I can't really tell what it added. I'm sure it would have added a bit more drama if you'd seen the potential victim being run at. Again, I'm not an expert in showbiz filming but I'm fairly certain that making your audience want to throw up is not the idea. Right near the end there is a shot that perfectly portrays the devastation of the situation...
"How should we get across the devastation of the city and cut out to the next scene?"
"Spin the camera round until people want to vomit?"
"GENIUS!"
I sat there feeling a bit woozy, trying to avoid looking at the screen for the whole thing. I'm not sure either of the fancy styles really improved anything.
My only other wonder about the film is whether it should have gone all out spoof. This was a sensible spoof [relatively speaking], in that it wasn't made specifically for laughs. It did have some, but there were also some moments of emotion too. Should they have played the film out for more comedy? Who knows, but I feel the scene where Darcy and Elizabeth are stabbing a field to kill zombies that are buried underneath was completely wasted in a sensible spoof!
All in all I did enjoy it, but for those of you looking to see it at the cinema I'm not sure it's worth a £10 ticket. Well worth it if you have an offer of some description though. Just remember going in to it that it isn't Jane Austen, it's just your run of the mill zombie period drama... wow, never thought I'd say that sentence.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Inherent Vice (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
“Inherent Vice” Follows Doc (Joaquin Phoenix), a private investigator, as he falls down a dark rabbit hole into a world of crime and systemic corruption.
Phoenix is a transformative actor, delving deep into his role. We’ve seen him do it before in movies like “Walk the Line.” He becomes his character to the point that it is conceivable this just might be the real him.
It is set in bohemian 1970s California. Everything from the way the camera captures the scene, to the outfits that adorn the characters, exudes a hippy-grunge vibe.
The film encompasses multiple genres including crime, comedy, and drama.
Similar to movies like “The Big Lebowski,” it is filled with humorous moments as Doc, a well-meaning and laid back stoner, is constantly found in the middle of the proverbial shit.
When his ex-girlfriend Shasta Fay (Katherine Waterston) reappears one random day, telling him of a plot to kidnap her billionaire boyfriend and then disappears shortly after, Doc becomes consumed by his investigation into her whereabouts. He is led into a conspiracy-like web of drugs, crime, and corruption.
It is not a typical movie with a coherent storyline, rather it is an experience of what Doc goes through as a mind bending mystery unfolds before him.
Strange, subtle details leave a trail of breadcrumbs for the audience to follow along with Doc, as he tries to make some sense out of the connections he stumbles across.
The plot transpires in a blur, floating into the perceptions of the audience like the winding smoke of an opium den. With a few dull moments, it drags on at times, much like the reality of human experience tends to do.
The musical selection only adds to the film’s tantalizing stylistic ambiance – at times it’s a dull and prolonged high, other times it’s a seedy bluesy underground, or absolute instrumental lunacy. Interestingly, much of the music was composed by Radiohead lead guitarist Jonny Greenwood.
Adding to the intricacy and authenticity of the film, is a brief cameo by what is perhaps the most psychedelic band of our time, The Growlers. This moment will only be recognized by fans who are paying close attention, but is an absolutely fitting detail.
Director Paul Thomas Anderson adapted the film from the original novel written by Thomas Pynchon. Like reading a novel, the film is consuming. But because it goes by much quicker than reading a book, it may need to be watched several times for the viewer to grasp exactly what happened.
Audiences will leave theaters with a resonating feeling of pure delirium from the cerebral experience that is “Inherent Vice.”
A surreal masterpiece, I give “Inherent Vice” 5 out of 5 stars.
Phoenix is a transformative actor, delving deep into his role. We’ve seen him do it before in movies like “Walk the Line.” He becomes his character to the point that it is conceivable this just might be the real him.
It is set in bohemian 1970s California. Everything from the way the camera captures the scene, to the outfits that adorn the characters, exudes a hippy-grunge vibe.
The film encompasses multiple genres including crime, comedy, and drama.
Similar to movies like “The Big Lebowski,” it is filled with humorous moments as Doc, a well-meaning and laid back stoner, is constantly found in the middle of the proverbial shit.
When his ex-girlfriend Shasta Fay (Katherine Waterston) reappears one random day, telling him of a plot to kidnap her billionaire boyfriend and then disappears shortly after, Doc becomes consumed by his investigation into her whereabouts. He is led into a conspiracy-like web of drugs, crime, and corruption.
It is not a typical movie with a coherent storyline, rather it is an experience of what Doc goes through as a mind bending mystery unfolds before him.
Strange, subtle details leave a trail of breadcrumbs for the audience to follow along with Doc, as he tries to make some sense out of the connections he stumbles across.
The plot transpires in a blur, floating into the perceptions of the audience like the winding smoke of an opium den. With a few dull moments, it drags on at times, much like the reality of human experience tends to do.
The musical selection only adds to the film’s tantalizing stylistic ambiance – at times it’s a dull and prolonged high, other times it’s a seedy bluesy underground, or absolute instrumental lunacy. Interestingly, much of the music was composed by Radiohead lead guitarist Jonny Greenwood.
Adding to the intricacy and authenticity of the film, is a brief cameo by what is perhaps the most psychedelic band of our time, The Growlers. This moment will only be recognized by fans who are paying close attention, but is an absolutely fitting detail.
Director Paul Thomas Anderson adapted the film from the original novel written by Thomas Pynchon. Like reading a novel, the film is consuming. But because it goes by much quicker than reading a book, it may need to be watched several times for the viewer to grasp exactly what happened.
Audiences will leave theaters with a resonating feeling of pure delirium from the cerebral experience that is “Inherent Vice.”
A surreal masterpiece, I give “Inherent Vice” 5 out of 5 stars.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Hillbilly Elegy (2020) in Movies
Apr 14, 2021
Decent - with 3 strong female performances
Glenn Close is one of the most lauded Actresses of our time and her current streak of 7 Academy Award nominations without a win is a record. It would be ironic, indeed, if she would win her first Oscar with this, her 8th Oscar nomination, this time as Best Supporting Actress in HILLBILLY ELEGY.
Written by Vanessa Taylor and based on the book (and true story) by J.D. Vance, HILLBILLY ELEGY tells the tale of J.D. (naturally enough), who overcomes his impoverished roots and dysfunctional family background to become a star Law Student at Yale.
Gabriel Basso plays J.D. as the Law Student and he is just not charismatic enough to shine in this role especially as he goes up against 3 talented actresses that have PLENTY to sink their considerable acting chops into.
Close plays “Mamaw”, the grandmother of the clan. She is a no-nonsense, pragmatic matriarch that lives and breathes (through cigarette clogged lungs) “Family First”. It’s an interesting and strong performance by Close, but she does teeter into “Granny Clampett” territory at times for me. It’s a good performance…but the one that will finally get Close her Oscar? I don’t think so.
Amy Adams steals the movie as J.D.’s mother (and Mamaw’s daughter), Bev. She is (as we say in these parts) “a whole thing”. Her Bev is self-centered, clawing, desperate and constantly wondering why the world doesn’t give her the things that she is deserved. Nothing is EVER her fault and if you don’t believe me, just ask her. Adams’ performance is the strongest in this film and she never crosses the line into caricature.
One last moment of credit needs to be given to Haley Bennett as J.D.’s sister Lindsay, who is often the one stuck taking care of their Mother. When I first saw Bennett a few years back in 2016 in back to back strong performances in THE GIRL ON THE TRAIN and THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN, I thought we were watching the emergence of a star. It’s good to see her on the screen again.
Credit for these performances must go the unlikely person helming this film, good ol’, reliable Ron Howard who’s workmanlike Directorial instincts and style lends itself very well to this, often told, type of story. It’s nothing flashy, but gets the job done.
And that pretty much sums up my feelings towards this film “nothing flashy, but gets the job done”, not the greatest film to come out in 2020 - but it is layered with 3 strong female performances by Adams, Bennett and Close so that makes this film one good enough to check out.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Written by Vanessa Taylor and based on the book (and true story) by J.D. Vance, HILLBILLY ELEGY tells the tale of J.D. (naturally enough), who overcomes his impoverished roots and dysfunctional family background to become a star Law Student at Yale.
Gabriel Basso plays J.D. as the Law Student and he is just not charismatic enough to shine in this role especially as he goes up against 3 talented actresses that have PLENTY to sink their considerable acting chops into.
Close plays “Mamaw”, the grandmother of the clan. She is a no-nonsense, pragmatic matriarch that lives and breathes (through cigarette clogged lungs) “Family First”. It’s an interesting and strong performance by Close, but she does teeter into “Granny Clampett” territory at times for me. It’s a good performance…but the one that will finally get Close her Oscar? I don’t think so.
Amy Adams steals the movie as J.D.’s mother (and Mamaw’s daughter), Bev. She is (as we say in these parts) “a whole thing”. Her Bev is self-centered, clawing, desperate and constantly wondering why the world doesn’t give her the things that she is deserved. Nothing is EVER her fault and if you don’t believe me, just ask her. Adams’ performance is the strongest in this film and she never crosses the line into caricature.
One last moment of credit needs to be given to Haley Bennett as J.D.’s sister Lindsay, who is often the one stuck taking care of their Mother. When I first saw Bennett a few years back in 2016 in back to back strong performances in THE GIRL ON THE TRAIN and THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN, I thought we were watching the emergence of a star. It’s good to see her on the screen again.
Credit for these performances must go the unlikely person helming this film, good ol’, reliable Ron Howard who’s workmanlike Directorial instincts and style lends itself very well to this, often told, type of story. It’s nothing flashy, but gets the job done.
And that pretty much sums up my feelings towards this film “nothing flashy, but gets the job done”, not the greatest film to come out in 2020 - but it is layered with 3 strong female performances by Adams, Bennett and Close so that makes this film one good enough to check out.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated The Dark Knight (2008) in Movies
Feb 19, 2019
Batman Begins‘ ending was a brilliant nod towards the things that were to come, as Gary Oldman’s, newly promoted Lieutenant Jim Gordon flashes The Joker’s calling card, Batman’s revival had now well and truly begun. A film with lesser known villains was about to retread more familiar ground with the introduction of The Joker and Harvey Dent/Two Face.
But this was Christopher Nolan’s more grounded take on the superhero, and his villains needed to be much more than the hammy caricatures that we’d seen before. The late Heath Ledger made the role of The Joker his own in ways that no-one could have imagined. This was a dark, evil and terrifying take on the character with an evil sense if humour but he is in keeping with the villain that we know so well.
The origins of the Dark Knight were covered expertly in the first film, and now it is time to take that story one step further, so consequently this is now more about crime in Gotham City. The criminal underworld is now in turmoil as Batman, Gordon and the new District Attorney, Harvey Dent are leaning on them, but when things turn ugly, they turn ugly!
The beauty of this film is that it takes off pretty much from where the first left off, but the tone has changed a bit. This owes a lot to Michael Mann’s, Heat, and focuses much more on Wayne/Batman’s attempts to rid the city of crime, whilst his opposite and nemesis, The Joker, is proving himself to be nothing less than a pure anarchist, unreasonable and nonnegotiable.
Is this better than Batman Begins? Yes, but only fractionally. It’s slightly tighter and more complex, with every set piece seamlessly moving on to the next complex sequence, where the grand plan is rarely what it appears to be. The film’s narrative is deceptive, playing with its characters and the audience alike. This is film-making at it’s very best. The perfect blend of grand direction, passionate character development and performance and writing, with a narrative and structure designed to engage and enthrall the viewer without patronising or insulting their intelligence.
I believe that this film is a masterpiece and genuinely the best movie of this genre ever made. There are so many examples of how to do a comic adaptation and many great examples to boot, but I feel that this blends them all so well. It’s a franchise film without falling into the trap of being part of franchise. Each film is a real film its own right, with a plot, arch and tone.
The narrative continues, but the feel evolves to suit the film, and though Begins and Knight seamlessly work together, either could also be taken as a film by themselves, each with the integrity to hold their own. But as a franchise movie, it is still littered with nods to the future, or in some cases, more subtle entries into the lore.
Take Mr. Reese for example. This was a name used by The Riddler and many suspected at the time that it was linked to the third film, but so far, there’s no talk of The Riddler’s involvement, in fact there has been an outright denial. But I believe that in effect, he has already appeared, though in a much muted manner. Mr. Coleman Reese, or Mister-REES (mysteries anyone?), threatens to out Wayne as Batman but is stopped by The Joker, but maybe the fact that he worked for a consultancy employed by Wayne Enterprises and threatened Wayne with blackmail etc… was a mild acknowledgment of The Riddler’s character.
This is what we’re talking about when we look at Nolan’s work. He spares nothing, but delivers the film in ways that doesn’t always conform to your expectations. And don’t forget th line about the Cats line either…
Overall, The Dark Knight is the epitome of the reboot genre, taking so much from the original source without copying, but bringing a genuinely deep, thoughtful and emotional take on a comic book character who dresses like a bat and solves crime… May the genius of Christopher Nolan and his team carry on for years to come, but I do fear that he’s heading for a fall, purely on the basis that no-one can produce films of this outstanding quality for ever… can they?
But this was Christopher Nolan’s more grounded take on the superhero, and his villains needed to be much more than the hammy caricatures that we’d seen before. The late Heath Ledger made the role of The Joker his own in ways that no-one could have imagined. This was a dark, evil and terrifying take on the character with an evil sense if humour but he is in keeping with the villain that we know so well.
The origins of the Dark Knight were covered expertly in the first film, and now it is time to take that story one step further, so consequently this is now more about crime in Gotham City. The criminal underworld is now in turmoil as Batman, Gordon and the new District Attorney, Harvey Dent are leaning on them, but when things turn ugly, they turn ugly!
The beauty of this film is that it takes off pretty much from where the first left off, but the tone has changed a bit. This owes a lot to Michael Mann’s, Heat, and focuses much more on Wayne/Batman’s attempts to rid the city of crime, whilst his opposite and nemesis, The Joker, is proving himself to be nothing less than a pure anarchist, unreasonable and nonnegotiable.
Is this better than Batman Begins? Yes, but only fractionally. It’s slightly tighter and more complex, with every set piece seamlessly moving on to the next complex sequence, where the grand plan is rarely what it appears to be. The film’s narrative is deceptive, playing with its characters and the audience alike. This is film-making at it’s very best. The perfect blend of grand direction, passionate character development and performance and writing, with a narrative and structure designed to engage and enthrall the viewer without patronising or insulting their intelligence.
I believe that this film is a masterpiece and genuinely the best movie of this genre ever made. There are so many examples of how to do a comic adaptation and many great examples to boot, but I feel that this blends them all so well. It’s a franchise film without falling into the trap of being part of franchise. Each film is a real film its own right, with a plot, arch and tone.
The narrative continues, but the feel evolves to suit the film, and though Begins and Knight seamlessly work together, either could also be taken as a film by themselves, each with the integrity to hold their own. But as a franchise movie, it is still littered with nods to the future, or in some cases, more subtle entries into the lore.
Take Mr. Reese for example. This was a name used by The Riddler and many suspected at the time that it was linked to the third film, but so far, there’s no talk of The Riddler’s involvement, in fact there has been an outright denial. But I believe that in effect, he has already appeared, though in a much muted manner. Mr. Coleman Reese, or Mister-REES (mysteries anyone?), threatens to out Wayne as Batman but is stopped by The Joker, but maybe the fact that he worked for a consultancy employed by Wayne Enterprises and threatened Wayne with blackmail etc… was a mild acknowledgment of The Riddler’s character.
This is what we’re talking about when we look at Nolan’s work. He spares nothing, but delivers the film in ways that doesn’t always conform to your expectations. And don’t forget th line about the Cats line either…
Overall, The Dark Knight is the epitome of the reboot genre, taking so much from the original source without copying, but bringing a genuinely deep, thoughtful and emotional take on a comic book character who dresses like a bat and solves crime… May the genius of Christopher Nolan and his team carry on for years to come, but I do fear that he’s heading for a fall, purely on the basis that no-one can produce films of this outstanding quality for ever… can they?
Eleanor Luhar (47 KP) rated Billy and Me in Books
Jun 24, 2019
This is a very, very different genre than I usually read. It was romantic and contemporary and kind of cliche and gross. But I will admit that it was written well.
Despite the gooey topics, this book was easy to sit and read through. The writing was good, though some of the speech didn't feel particularly authentic. My main problem was how cliche this was. A young woman who loves classic literature andworks in a tea shop meets a movie star without realising who he is and falls in love... Yeah, it's kind of a stereotypical romance. I hate this sort of thing. It's tacky and just ugh. But there was more to it than just the romance, which was very good. Sophie had her own issues to deal with, stemming from childhood grief and caring for her mother. It even had a really tragic moment toward the end, that didn't involve the actor - Billy - much at all.
As I mentioned above, the language wasn't always particularly fluid. It sometimes felt like Fletcher was trying too hard to make it more romantic and emotional. Billy was pretty much 'perfect' and extremely romantic, probably extremely unrealistically so. He was likeable, still, just not very realistic.
Sophie herself was a bit... not annoying, but she's not my favourite protagonist ever. She was trying too hard to be unique and strong and independent and it just irritated me. I get what Fletcher was going for (I think) but I just didn't love Sophie that much at all.
Like most other contemporary novels (not that I've actually read many of them), Sophie's life comes together perfectly at the end. Well, not quite perfectly, but the ending was sickly sweet. But I'm a bit of a cynic. You might like this more than me.
Despite the genre and gross cutesy lovey stuff, I think this deserves 3.5 stars. The writing was good and I did actually enjoy reading it.
Despite the gooey topics, this book was easy to sit and read through. The writing was good, though some of the speech didn't feel particularly authentic. My main problem was how cliche this was. A young woman who loves classic literature andworks in a tea shop meets a movie star without realising who he is and falls in love... Yeah, it's kind of a stereotypical romance. I hate this sort of thing. It's tacky and just ugh. But there was more to it than just the romance, which was very good. Sophie had her own issues to deal with, stemming from childhood grief and caring for her mother. It even had a really tragic moment toward the end, that didn't involve the actor - Billy - much at all.
As I mentioned above, the language wasn't always particularly fluid. It sometimes felt like Fletcher was trying too hard to make it more romantic and emotional. Billy was pretty much 'perfect' and extremely romantic, probably extremely unrealistically so. He was likeable, still, just not very realistic.
Sophie herself was a bit... not annoying, but she's not my favourite protagonist ever. She was trying too hard to be unique and strong and independent and it just irritated me. I get what Fletcher was going for (I think) but I just didn't love Sophie that much at all.
Like most other contemporary novels (not that I've actually read many of them), Sophie's life comes together perfectly at the end. Well, not quite perfectly, but the ending was sickly sweet. But I'm a bit of a cynic. You might like this more than me.
Despite the genre and gross cutesy lovey stuff, I think this deserves 3.5 stars. The writing was good and I did actually enjoy reading it.