Search
Search results
Darren (1599 KP) rated Dr. No (1962) in Movies
Nov 7, 2019
Characters – James Bond is on his first mission on the big screen, the resourceful British Spy that always seems to stay one step ahead of the enemies as he looks for answers to a colleague’s disappearance. We see how he is the womaniser we all know now and just how he can handle himself in a fight. Honey Ryder appears one hour into the film with one of the most iconic entrances in the franchise history, she assistance Bond on the mission with her knowledge of the island. Dr No is the mastermind behind the island plot, he keeps his plans secret and will get his men to eliminate any problems that come his way.
Performances – Sean Connery is great in his first outing as Bond, he uses the charm his character is famous for to make us want to come back for the next adventure. Ursula Andress is solid enough, she looks the part even if the character is mostly just made to be the damsel in distress. Joseph Wiseman does make for a good villain by the time we see him, he helps us reach the levels we know we can expect in the franchise.
Story – James Bond is one his first film mission, needing to show his skills to find a missing colleague against the first villain. This story is a simple one, it is designed to show us what James is capable off when it comes to save the world from a terrorist plot. This might not be the one everyone remembers because it does just introduce him without going too far with the difficulties of a mission that would need to be topped next time out. This is one that shows the style that he must work, the slow investigation before coming face to face with the villain.
Action/Adventure – The action gives us James the fight sequences needed to show how quickly he can get the job done when needed. The adventure takes our spy across the world to a tropical island, this time Jamaica to fight a villain.
Settings – The film is set in Jamaica, it gives us a tropical feeling from start to finish where we get to see the islands off the mainland as an early sign of where the bases for the masterminds will be.
Scene of the Movie – Base battle.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – We don’t meet the Bond girl till an hour into the film.
Final Thoughts –This is a great start to the Bond franchise, we get to learn Bond’s skills face a villain that has enough menace to be a threat and keep us ready for more.
Overall: Great start to the franchise.
Performances – Sean Connery is great in his first outing as Bond, he uses the charm his character is famous for to make us want to come back for the next adventure. Ursula Andress is solid enough, she looks the part even if the character is mostly just made to be the damsel in distress. Joseph Wiseman does make for a good villain by the time we see him, he helps us reach the levels we know we can expect in the franchise.
Story – James Bond is one his first film mission, needing to show his skills to find a missing colleague against the first villain. This story is a simple one, it is designed to show us what James is capable off when it comes to save the world from a terrorist plot. This might not be the one everyone remembers because it does just introduce him without going too far with the difficulties of a mission that would need to be topped next time out. This is one that shows the style that he must work, the slow investigation before coming face to face with the villain.
Action/Adventure – The action gives us James the fight sequences needed to show how quickly he can get the job done when needed. The adventure takes our spy across the world to a tropical island, this time Jamaica to fight a villain.
Settings – The film is set in Jamaica, it gives us a tropical feeling from start to finish where we get to see the islands off the mainland as an early sign of where the bases for the masterminds will be.
Scene of the Movie – Base battle.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – We don’t meet the Bond girl till an hour into the film.
Final Thoughts –This is a great start to the Bond franchise, we get to learn Bond’s skills face a villain that has enough menace to be a threat and keep us ready for more.
Overall: Great start to the franchise.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Shaun of the Dead (2004) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
With the recent influx of the walking dead at your local multiplex, it would be easy to dismiss the British film “Shaun of the Dead” as just another cheap zombie film. While few will mistake “Shaun” as a landmark in cinematic history, but despite its flaws, there are a few funny moments on the film.
The film attempts to mix horror and comedy and largely but works best if viewed as a comedic satire of the genre. Shaun, (Simon Pegg), (who also helped write the film), is a working class stiff who toils away his time in an London district selling electronics by day and squiring the love of his life Liz (Kate Ashfield), to the local pub much to her dismay as the monotony of the situation and Shaun’s obscene slacker friend Ed (Nick Frost), have worn on her last nerve.
Despite getting an ultimatum from Liz to take her to someplace other than the pub, Shaun becomes distracted and fails to secure a table elsewhere, causing Liz to storm out and send Shaun into a spiral as he begins to question his place in life and suspect that there is much more that he should be doing.
As if this was not enough of a burden for Shaun to endure, the local population seems to be acting oddly as reports of mayhem and carnage are starting to arise and the streets start to fill with Zombies. At first Shaun and Ed are oblivious to the changes around them as they continue their daily routines without noticing the blood stains, bodies and walking dead in the neighborhood, that is until one decided to attack.
Shaun and Ed soon get a nasty dose of reality and Shaun eventually decides that he must get his mother and Liz to safety, so armed with his Cricket bat, he takes on the grisly horde of undead against overwhelming odds.
While the film does have some good comedic moments, it drags horribly for the last 20 minutes as only a funny but albeit brief segment involving a zombie attack to a Queen classic is the only respite in the monotone that the film crawls to. The biggest problem is that the film seems to run out of material about 40 minutes in and the makers of the film try to stretch the film using standards from past zombie films. We have the desperate stand in a surrounded building, the improvised weapons, the infighting between survivors, and the classic bearing of the soul when it seems darkest.
I do admire the creative element that the creators of the film came up with especially with the obvious budget restrictions they were under. That being said, the film is not worthy of the praise that is being heaped upon it. Yes, it shows promise for the cast, and yes it is a nice twist on the tired zombie genre, but any momentum that was gained in the early portion of the film is quickly destroyed by the sputtering plot that crawls its way to the finish with a ho-hum climax that will disappoint any in the audience who still care.
The film attempts to mix horror and comedy and largely but works best if viewed as a comedic satire of the genre. Shaun, (Simon Pegg), (who also helped write the film), is a working class stiff who toils away his time in an London district selling electronics by day and squiring the love of his life Liz (Kate Ashfield), to the local pub much to her dismay as the monotony of the situation and Shaun’s obscene slacker friend Ed (Nick Frost), have worn on her last nerve.
Despite getting an ultimatum from Liz to take her to someplace other than the pub, Shaun becomes distracted and fails to secure a table elsewhere, causing Liz to storm out and send Shaun into a spiral as he begins to question his place in life and suspect that there is much more that he should be doing.
As if this was not enough of a burden for Shaun to endure, the local population seems to be acting oddly as reports of mayhem and carnage are starting to arise and the streets start to fill with Zombies. At first Shaun and Ed are oblivious to the changes around them as they continue their daily routines without noticing the blood stains, bodies and walking dead in the neighborhood, that is until one decided to attack.
Shaun and Ed soon get a nasty dose of reality and Shaun eventually decides that he must get his mother and Liz to safety, so armed with his Cricket bat, he takes on the grisly horde of undead against overwhelming odds.
While the film does have some good comedic moments, it drags horribly for the last 20 minutes as only a funny but albeit brief segment involving a zombie attack to a Queen classic is the only respite in the monotone that the film crawls to. The biggest problem is that the film seems to run out of material about 40 minutes in and the makers of the film try to stretch the film using standards from past zombie films. We have the desperate stand in a surrounded building, the improvised weapons, the infighting between survivors, and the classic bearing of the soul when it seems darkest.
I do admire the creative element that the creators of the film came up with especially with the obvious budget restrictions they were under. That being said, the film is not worthy of the praise that is being heaped upon it. Yes, it shows promise for the cast, and yes it is a nice twist on the tired zombie genre, but any momentum that was gained in the early portion of the film is quickly destroyed by the sputtering plot that crawls its way to the finish with a ho-hum climax that will disappoint any in the audience who still care.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Legend (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Have you heard of Legend? Not the movie from the mid-eighties, but the story of Ronnie and Reggie Kray (Tom Hardy, playing both brothers). Don’t know who they are, that’s okay, neither did I. But if you are across the pond and are reading this, you probably do. They Kray brothers are twins, and perhaps the most notorious gangsters in London history. Think John Dillinger, or Al Capone, of the UK.
Legend is a story of Reggie and Ronnie Kray’s rise to power as the top gangsters of the East End of London, and beyond. However, it is told from the point of view of Reggie’s wife, Francis Kray (Emily Browning). Though, the movie starts with her meeting Reggie for the first time, and it is really a love story of how she fell in love with a gangster that would not change his ways. There is nothing solely remarkable about the plot of the movie, but it is definitely captivating. I went into the film not knowing much about the Krays, but glad that I didn’t as it might have marred my experience.
Hardy, however, is remarkable in his portrayal of the Kray brothers. Each brother having his own distinctive personality, and even distinctive looks despite being identical twin brothers. Ronnie, as Francis describes him, is a one man mob trying to take control of London. The only catch is that he is paranoid schizophrenic and has trouble in social situations. This leads to a high distrust of people, and some intriguing scenes during the course of the film, especially interacting with Francis and his brother. Reggie is the intelligent, methodical brother who has bigger goals and aspirations than his brother, but his loyalty to his family holds him back. He has a deep loyalty, and even in the height of conflict would not take his anger, or disappointment, out on Ronnie. This did not sit well with Francis, who desperately wanted Reggie to go straight, but still agreed to marry him, even against the wishes of her mother.
There is no rise without a fall, but I won’t give too much insight into that as it will help the movie win you over if you know less. But Hardy and Browning were backed by a wonderful supporting cast including the likes of David Thewlis, Christopher Eccleston, Taron Egerton, and Chazz Palminteri. Hardy himself brought some levity to the more serious scenes, though there were times where I was taken out of the movie as Ronnie Kray had a slight tendency to sound like Bane, Hardy’s previous role in the Dark Knight franchise.
If you enjoy British films such as Rock’n’Rolla, Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, or Trainspotting, you will definitely enjoy Legend. In fact, Legend is the first movie rated 18+ in the UK to break the box office record set by Trainspotting in 1996. That says a lot about the movie. Will I add it to my collection upon home release? The jury is still out on that, but it definitely was a great film and worth seeing.
Legend is a story of Reggie and Ronnie Kray’s rise to power as the top gangsters of the East End of London, and beyond. However, it is told from the point of view of Reggie’s wife, Francis Kray (Emily Browning). Though, the movie starts with her meeting Reggie for the first time, and it is really a love story of how she fell in love with a gangster that would not change his ways. There is nothing solely remarkable about the plot of the movie, but it is definitely captivating. I went into the film not knowing much about the Krays, but glad that I didn’t as it might have marred my experience.
Hardy, however, is remarkable in his portrayal of the Kray brothers. Each brother having his own distinctive personality, and even distinctive looks despite being identical twin brothers. Ronnie, as Francis describes him, is a one man mob trying to take control of London. The only catch is that he is paranoid schizophrenic and has trouble in social situations. This leads to a high distrust of people, and some intriguing scenes during the course of the film, especially interacting with Francis and his brother. Reggie is the intelligent, methodical brother who has bigger goals and aspirations than his brother, but his loyalty to his family holds him back. He has a deep loyalty, and even in the height of conflict would not take his anger, or disappointment, out on Ronnie. This did not sit well with Francis, who desperately wanted Reggie to go straight, but still agreed to marry him, even against the wishes of her mother.
There is no rise without a fall, but I won’t give too much insight into that as it will help the movie win you over if you know less. But Hardy and Browning were backed by a wonderful supporting cast including the likes of David Thewlis, Christopher Eccleston, Taron Egerton, and Chazz Palminteri. Hardy himself brought some levity to the more serious scenes, though there were times where I was taken out of the movie as Ronnie Kray had a slight tendency to sound like Bane, Hardy’s previous role in the Dark Knight franchise.
If you enjoy British films such as Rock’n’Rolla, Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, or Trainspotting, you will definitely enjoy Legend. In fact, Legend is the first movie rated 18+ in the UK to break the box office record set by Trainspotting in 1996. That says a lot about the movie. Will I add it to my collection upon home release? The jury is still out on that, but it definitely was a great film and worth seeing.
156Reviews (7 KP) rated True History of the Kelly Gang (2019) in Movies
May 1, 2020
One of the main things that divides opinion on Ned Kelly is was he on the side of good or bad? Some see him as a kind of freedom fighter, standing up to the British, who at the time that looked to suppress and demean the Australian people. Some see him as a criminal, who murdered innocent people for reasons known only to him. Both of these opinions may be true, neither of them might be, but it's one hell of a gamble to base a film on someone that divides opinion that much.
It's a gamble that doesn't pay off, the team behind the film try to sell it as a punk-esque, spit in the face of authority tale of a guy standing up against the establishment. The soundtrack is on-point, but that's about it. George Mackay (as Ned Kelly) does his best to sell it, but the film-makers never truly drive home the idea that this was a man of the people, someone speaking up for the downtrodden, instead Ned spends most of the films run-time with his family in their home, seemingly away from civilisation entirely, taking away from the Robin Hood-like mythology of the man. Without any other characters, Robin Hood is just a man who steals from people. A story about a thief, who becomes a murderer, who becomes a gang leader who incites others to kill, doesn't exactly evoke much sympathy, especially as these are based on real life events. Even if the film denies this by stating “Nothing you are about to see is true” at the start, despite “True History” being in the title of the film.
Some of the cast do their best to with what they are given, but some fall short, and some are just wilfully underused, Thomasin McKenzie, who has been great in recent films such as JoJo Rabbit and Leave No Trace is barely given anything to do other than play “The Woman” despite many important events revolving around her, opposite to this is Charlie Hunnam, who is given ample things to do, but seems to still be playing the same character from his recent The Gentleman performance. George Mackay is a force to be reckoned with, but its a performance that would be better placed in a sex pistols biopic than in 1800's Australia. The shining performance in this is Nicolas Hoult, shaking off his nice guy image to play the corrupt Constable Fitzpatrick, who seems to delight in the power he has and when events stop going Fitzpatrick's way, Hoult commits to playing a man on the edge of completely losing control with surprising conviction and menace, his interrogation scenes being and uncomfortable highlight in an otherwise unconvincing film.
With no mention of the two years Kelly spent on the run, being hidden from the police by a network of sympathisers, and by showing his plight as a very personal experience instead of showing it as an example of the culture at the time, the film misses an opportunity to make a legend of the man, and instead falls short of greatness.
It's a gamble that doesn't pay off, the team behind the film try to sell it as a punk-esque, spit in the face of authority tale of a guy standing up against the establishment. The soundtrack is on-point, but that's about it. George Mackay (as Ned Kelly) does his best to sell it, but the film-makers never truly drive home the idea that this was a man of the people, someone speaking up for the downtrodden, instead Ned spends most of the films run-time with his family in their home, seemingly away from civilisation entirely, taking away from the Robin Hood-like mythology of the man. Without any other characters, Robin Hood is just a man who steals from people. A story about a thief, who becomes a murderer, who becomes a gang leader who incites others to kill, doesn't exactly evoke much sympathy, especially as these are based on real life events. Even if the film denies this by stating “Nothing you are about to see is true” at the start, despite “True History” being in the title of the film.
Some of the cast do their best to with what they are given, but some fall short, and some are just wilfully underused, Thomasin McKenzie, who has been great in recent films such as JoJo Rabbit and Leave No Trace is barely given anything to do other than play “The Woman” despite many important events revolving around her, opposite to this is Charlie Hunnam, who is given ample things to do, but seems to still be playing the same character from his recent The Gentleman performance. George Mackay is a force to be reckoned with, but its a performance that would be better placed in a sex pistols biopic than in 1800's Australia. The shining performance in this is Nicolas Hoult, shaking off his nice guy image to play the corrupt Constable Fitzpatrick, who seems to delight in the power he has and when events stop going Fitzpatrick's way, Hoult commits to playing a man on the edge of completely losing control with surprising conviction and menace, his interrogation scenes being and uncomfortable highlight in an otherwise unconvincing film.
With no mention of the two years Kelly spent on the run, being hidden from the police by a network of sympathisers, and by showing his plight as a very personal experience instead of showing it as an example of the culture at the time, the film misses an opportunity to make a legend of the man, and instead falls short of greatness.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Dunkirk (2017) in Movies
Jul 26, 2017
Breathtaking and Intense
It's 1940 and the Nazis are overpowering the British army, forcing them to retreat to Dunkirk in an effort to return home to England. The English channel is all that stands in the way of the 400,000 soldiers that are stranded on the beach. The story begins with Tommy (Fionn Whitehead), making his way through the town as propaganda is being dropped from the sky, informing them that the enemy are closing in. After a brief dash to avoid the bullets that begin raining down on him and some fellow soldiers, he barely manages to make it to the beach where the immense desperation of the situation becomes apparent. Thousands of men lined up, waiting for something to free them while bodies wash up on the beach. The cinematic scale is, as you'd expect from Christopher Nolan, impressive. And it doesn't let up from then on.
We follow three different stories, covering land, sea and air and spanning differing time-frames. Intersecting and even overtaking each other at crucial moments, which sounds confusing but actually works very well. After being introduced to the perspective on land, which then continues to play out over a week, we're introduced to Mr Dawson (Mark Rylance) as he prepares to set off from England by yacht along with his son and another local boy, loaded with lifejackets and keen to do their bit to help bring our boys home. This storyline is set to play out over the period of one day. Finally, we're introduced to RAF pilot Farrier (Tom Hardy), whose story will play out over an hour. He's up in the sky, over the channel. As we alternate between each story, momentum is never lost and the tension continues to grow as time, and available options, begin to dwindle. On land, bombs, bullets and torpedoes repeatedly prevent a successful escape, sinking boats and ships. Up in the air, a damaged fuel gauge means that Farrier has to constantly guesstimate how much fuel and time he's got left before dropping out of the sky, while single-handedly taking out enemy planes in the process. Down on the water, Dawson and his small crew have their own drama after rescuing a stranded soldier (Cillian Murphy). Clearly a broken man who takes a turn for the worse upon realising that they're not headed for home and are in fact on their way back to the hell that he's just left behind.
Despite featuring a number of famous faces, probably the most surprising cast member of all is Harry Styles. Every time he features in a scene, and he does feature quite a bit, it kind of threw me off balance and I was just expecting him to cock the whole thing up. Luckily he doesn't. This is a truly breathtaking movie, with no over the top CGI or gore and with everyone at the top of their game. Perfectly ramped up tension, accompanied by an intense musical score from the fantastic Hans Zimmer. The dogfights, featuring real spitfires filmed over the English Channel, are also incredible with the roar of their engines and bullets flying. The movie does an amazing job of fully immersing you in this pivotal moment of history. It's truly edge of seat stuff throughout. Incredible.
We follow three different stories, covering land, sea and air and spanning differing time-frames. Intersecting and even overtaking each other at crucial moments, which sounds confusing but actually works very well. After being introduced to the perspective on land, which then continues to play out over a week, we're introduced to Mr Dawson (Mark Rylance) as he prepares to set off from England by yacht along with his son and another local boy, loaded with lifejackets and keen to do their bit to help bring our boys home. This storyline is set to play out over the period of one day. Finally, we're introduced to RAF pilot Farrier (Tom Hardy), whose story will play out over an hour. He's up in the sky, over the channel. As we alternate between each story, momentum is never lost and the tension continues to grow as time, and available options, begin to dwindle. On land, bombs, bullets and torpedoes repeatedly prevent a successful escape, sinking boats and ships. Up in the air, a damaged fuel gauge means that Farrier has to constantly guesstimate how much fuel and time he's got left before dropping out of the sky, while single-handedly taking out enemy planes in the process. Down on the water, Dawson and his small crew have their own drama after rescuing a stranded soldier (Cillian Murphy). Clearly a broken man who takes a turn for the worse upon realising that they're not headed for home and are in fact on their way back to the hell that he's just left behind.
Despite featuring a number of famous faces, probably the most surprising cast member of all is Harry Styles. Every time he features in a scene, and he does feature quite a bit, it kind of threw me off balance and I was just expecting him to cock the whole thing up. Luckily he doesn't. This is a truly breathtaking movie, with no over the top CGI or gore and with everyone at the top of their game. Perfectly ramped up tension, accompanied by an intense musical score from the fantastic Hans Zimmer. The dogfights, featuring real spitfires filmed over the English Channel, are also incredible with the roar of their engines and bullets flying. The movie does an amazing job of fully immersing you in this pivotal moment of history. It's truly edge of seat stuff throughout. Incredible.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated The Last Dance in TV
Aug 6, 2020 (Updated Aug 6, 2020)
Some people’s worst nightmare isn’t just being forced to watch sport, but being forced to listen to commentary or analysis on sport. My passion for a competitive event, and appreciation for an acheivement at the highest level in any sport, is still there, but is a little cooler than it was when I was a younger man with the energy to get carried away, whooping and cheering on an underdog or applauding the very best in a discipline.
Basketball for me has never really been a thing. To be honest, I barely understand the rules beyond the basics. It just wasn’t something that was on British TV that often as I grew up, the Olympics being an exception. The skill level (and height above Sea level) needed to be good enough for NBA glory does not escape me though, and neither has the exceptional career of Michael Jordon, who is a clear contender for greatest sportsman of all time, in any sport.
What I do enjoy though is the drama of over-coming hurdles and records against all the odds. The underdog story really appeals to me, as does the story of an older athlete doing it one last time, when no one thinks it’s possible. The Last Dance is exactly that. But not told by actors in a Hollywood way, like the wonderfully under-rated Miracle starring Kurt Russell. This is a documentary, in ten parts, with the real guys, and some of the most comprehensive archive material you’d ever want!
In theory, the tale is about the whole team, and their final fling at winning a title before knowing the aging gang would be disbanded, with the key figures forced into retirement. But, it is about Jordan, of course it is. And as a document of a rise to fame, and how the man responded to that fame and increased pressure, it is simply the best sports documentary yet to be made.
Told in parallel timelines of the final year juxtaposed with the backstory of the previous 20 years, it shows in exquisite detail how a franchise was built, maintained and taken to the heights of being the greatest ever to play the game. There are tantrums, fall outs, walk outs, no shows, injuries, and some mind-bending successes riding on single moments of genius.
The main voices of Jordan himself, as he sits in retirement with a cigar and a single malt, Scottie Pippin, and bad boy Dennis Rodman, are in parts fascinating, eloquent and revealing. Even after many years have passed, the emotion of big moments and issues is still fresh. We see the joy, the pride and the exhilaration, but also the regret, the grudges and the pain. It shows every angle of what being an athlete at the very top means, and exposes what kind of mentality you have to have to be that person. To be a champion.
As with me, it really helps with the cliffhanger drama of it if you don’t remember, or never knew at all, the result of that “last dance” season in ’98. It also helps if watching sport raises the pulse, but I wouldn’t say it is essential, as it all plays like an ten part series full of drama, betrayals and gasp out loud moments. Ten hour long episodes is a lot. But this incredible production never out stays its welcome. Some acheivement, and testament to what a charismatic figure Jordan was and is on the context of sport history.
Of course, not every hero is a hero every minute of his life. And that is my final reason to recommend it. See for yourself what kind of personality virtual gods like these invent for themselves. Utterly compelling TV.
Basketball for me has never really been a thing. To be honest, I barely understand the rules beyond the basics. It just wasn’t something that was on British TV that often as I grew up, the Olympics being an exception. The skill level (and height above Sea level) needed to be good enough for NBA glory does not escape me though, and neither has the exceptional career of Michael Jordon, who is a clear contender for greatest sportsman of all time, in any sport.
What I do enjoy though is the drama of over-coming hurdles and records against all the odds. The underdog story really appeals to me, as does the story of an older athlete doing it one last time, when no one thinks it’s possible. The Last Dance is exactly that. But not told by actors in a Hollywood way, like the wonderfully under-rated Miracle starring Kurt Russell. This is a documentary, in ten parts, with the real guys, and some of the most comprehensive archive material you’d ever want!
In theory, the tale is about the whole team, and their final fling at winning a title before knowing the aging gang would be disbanded, with the key figures forced into retirement. But, it is about Jordan, of course it is. And as a document of a rise to fame, and how the man responded to that fame and increased pressure, it is simply the best sports documentary yet to be made.
Told in parallel timelines of the final year juxtaposed with the backstory of the previous 20 years, it shows in exquisite detail how a franchise was built, maintained and taken to the heights of being the greatest ever to play the game. There are tantrums, fall outs, walk outs, no shows, injuries, and some mind-bending successes riding on single moments of genius.
The main voices of Jordan himself, as he sits in retirement with a cigar and a single malt, Scottie Pippin, and bad boy Dennis Rodman, are in parts fascinating, eloquent and revealing. Even after many years have passed, the emotion of big moments and issues is still fresh. We see the joy, the pride and the exhilaration, but also the regret, the grudges and the pain. It shows every angle of what being an athlete at the very top means, and exposes what kind of mentality you have to have to be that person. To be a champion.
As with me, it really helps with the cliffhanger drama of it if you don’t remember, or never knew at all, the result of that “last dance” season in ’98. It also helps if watching sport raises the pulse, but I wouldn’t say it is essential, as it all plays like an ten part series full of drama, betrayals and gasp out loud moments. Ten hour long episodes is a lot. But this incredible production never out stays its welcome. Some acheivement, and testament to what a charismatic figure Jordan was and is on the context of sport history.
Of course, not every hero is a hero every minute of his life. And that is my final reason to recommend it. See for yourself what kind of personality virtual gods like these invent for themselves. Utterly compelling TV.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Saint Maud (2020) in Movies
Oct 6, 2020
Morfydd Clark - astonishingly good as Maud (1 more)
Expert pacing from debut director Rose Glass
"My Little Saviour": Astonishing Saint Maud delivers psycho-religious chills
Saint Maud is the debut feature from writer/director Rose Glass, and it packs a punch. The film was first seen at last year's London Film Festival, but was due for broader nationwide release soon. What a crushing disappointment it must be for Ms Glass that so few people will likely get to see it in the current climate... at least, not for a while. Since it is an effective little chiller.
Maud (Morfydd Clark) is a palliative nurse looking after ex-choreographer Amanda (Jennifer Ehle). Maud is extremely religious and feels God move in her... regularly. Acting on His guidance, Maud sets out to save the soul of her ailing bohemian charge. But is Amanda beyond reach, and how will the zealot-like Maud react to that rejection?
Morfydd Clark appears so young in this film that you would think this was her debut film. But she's actually 30 years old and has quite an impressive filmography already. Although this is her movie-lead debut, she's had a substantial part alongside Kate Beckinsale in the excellent "Love and Friendship" and smaller parts in "Crawl", "The Personal History of David Copperfield" and the fun "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies". She's likely to get more worldwide exposure soon as a young Galadriel in Amazon's new version of "Lord of the Rings".
As Maud she is simply superb - expressing such a range of joy, hurt and despair that you must think a BAFTA Rising Star nomination should be on the cards.
Clark is ably supported in the leading role by the splendid Jennifer Ehle, still so memorable to me as Elizabeth Bennett from the BBC's "Pride and Prejudice".
Scarborough is also a star of "Saint Maud". The Yorkshire seaside town is another star of the movie. Clearly filmed before lockdown, the rainy and windswept resort looks bleak and unwelcoming. And that's before Covid! Many of those struggling bars and amusement centres, as in other resorts all around the UK, are now on their last legs.
Adam Janota Bzowski supplies the impressively claustrophobic music, which deserves recognition. A scene with Maud, flicking a lighter rhythmically in time with the sonorous beat, is a masterpiece in musical choreography and editing (by Mark Towns).
At the heart of this horror-thriller is whether, following a Dawkins-style argument, fervent religious followers are less insightfully correct and more mentally unstable and misguided. When is the voice of God just the voice in your head? And how would you tell the difference anyway? Piecing together the plot and motivations of Maud was intellectually challenging and rewarding.
I always get a little tense and nervous when I see the word "horror" on a movie bill. I am NOT a great horror fan! But for me, as a 'horror movie', "Saint Maud" is of the 'horror-lite' variety. Highly watchable, it builds more in the way of creeping dread than cheap shocks. There were only a couple of jump-scares (but for me, the one in the finale was a doozy!).
A BBC interview with Rose Glass I just saw says she relates Maud's relationship with God as like many people's relationship with social media. Always looking for support, guidance and affirmation. Interesting.
This is also an obviously female-led picture. All the men are complete tools. no, really, literally they are. It makes me feel ashamed to be among their number.
Overall, "Saint Maud" is a minor classic. I didn't go in with great expectations of this one, but I was pleasantly surprised. As a small British movie, it packs a punch significantly above its weight. When I came out I was at about a 7* rating. But this is one that really stayed with me, and I've subconsciously thought about little else all day. So for that reason I am going to escalate my rating to something more appropriate.
You might struggle now to see it on the big screen, but if you can do so, it comes with a recommendation from me. I think this one could REALLY be a "Marmite film".... so if you see it, let me know what you thought with a comment on One Mann's Movies here https://rb.gy/9k93ck . (Thanks).
Maud (Morfydd Clark) is a palliative nurse looking after ex-choreographer Amanda (Jennifer Ehle). Maud is extremely religious and feels God move in her... regularly. Acting on His guidance, Maud sets out to save the soul of her ailing bohemian charge. But is Amanda beyond reach, and how will the zealot-like Maud react to that rejection?
Morfydd Clark appears so young in this film that you would think this was her debut film. But she's actually 30 years old and has quite an impressive filmography already. Although this is her movie-lead debut, she's had a substantial part alongside Kate Beckinsale in the excellent "Love and Friendship" and smaller parts in "Crawl", "The Personal History of David Copperfield" and the fun "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies". She's likely to get more worldwide exposure soon as a young Galadriel in Amazon's new version of "Lord of the Rings".
As Maud she is simply superb - expressing such a range of joy, hurt and despair that you must think a BAFTA Rising Star nomination should be on the cards.
Clark is ably supported in the leading role by the splendid Jennifer Ehle, still so memorable to me as Elizabeth Bennett from the BBC's "Pride and Prejudice".
Scarborough is also a star of "Saint Maud". The Yorkshire seaside town is another star of the movie. Clearly filmed before lockdown, the rainy and windswept resort looks bleak and unwelcoming. And that's before Covid! Many of those struggling bars and amusement centres, as in other resorts all around the UK, are now on their last legs.
Adam Janota Bzowski supplies the impressively claustrophobic music, which deserves recognition. A scene with Maud, flicking a lighter rhythmically in time with the sonorous beat, is a masterpiece in musical choreography and editing (by Mark Towns).
At the heart of this horror-thriller is whether, following a Dawkins-style argument, fervent religious followers are less insightfully correct and more mentally unstable and misguided. When is the voice of God just the voice in your head? And how would you tell the difference anyway? Piecing together the plot and motivations of Maud was intellectually challenging and rewarding.
I always get a little tense and nervous when I see the word "horror" on a movie bill. I am NOT a great horror fan! But for me, as a 'horror movie', "Saint Maud" is of the 'horror-lite' variety. Highly watchable, it builds more in the way of creeping dread than cheap shocks. There were only a couple of jump-scares (but for me, the one in the finale was a doozy!).
A BBC interview with Rose Glass I just saw says she relates Maud's relationship with God as like many people's relationship with social media. Always looking for support, guidance and affirmation. Interesting.
This is also an obviously female-led picture. All the men are complete tools. no, really, literally they are. It makes me feel ashamed to be among their number.
Overall, "Saint Maud" is a minor classic. I didn't go in with great expectations of this one, but I was pleasantly surprised. As a small British movie, it packs a punch significantly above its weight. When I came out I was at about a 7* rating. But this is one that really stayed with me, and I've subconsciously thought about little else all day. So for that reason I am going to escalate my rating to something more appropriate.
You might struggle now to see it on the big screen, but if you can do so, it comes with a recommendation from me. I think this one could REALLY be a "Marmite film".... so if you see it, let me know what you thought with a comment on One Mann's Movies here https://rb.gy/9k93ck . (Thanks).
Eilidh G Clark (177 KP) rated The Panopticon in Books
May 13, 2017
This is my all time favouurite book.
Jenny Fagan stated in an interview in 2013 that prior to writing the novel The Panopticon (2012) she had one question, ‘is it possible to achieve autonomy?’ Fagan explores this question throughout her novel with the character of Anais Hendrix. I would also suggest that the author is metaphorically exploring whether Scotland can achieve autonomy as an independent nation. Autonomy, in relation to the individual, is self-governance- or being able to decide for oneself
At the beginning of the novel, the fifteen-year old Anais is governed by the state. In contemporary British society, a child under the age of sixteen, regardless of her social situation is, by law, governed by an adult/s. Anais has lived her life in the care system with the exception of a short period in which she lived with an adopted mother. It is for this reason that she is able to see society from outside of the family unit. By creating the motherless child, Fagan presents Anais as the ‘other’ from both a societal perspective- ‘communities dinnae like no-ones,’ and from the viewpoint of the protagonist, ‘What they really want is me dead,’ (TP, p.23). Without a family, and through a lack of legitimate information regarding her birth mother, Anais believes that she was created in a lab:
I’M AN experiment. I always have been, It’s a given, a liberty, a fact. They watch me. Not just in school or social-work reviews, courts or police cells – they watch everywhere. […] They’re there when I stare too long or too clearly, without flinching. […] They watch me, I know it, and I can’t find anywhere any more – where they can’t see, (TP, Prologue).
Note that in the above quotation, the protagonist describes her assumed identity as a ‘liberty’. Liberty, in this case, means freedom from the oppressive nature of the family. Although Anais desires the nurturing aspect of the family, ‘I just want my mum,’ (Tp, p.269), her lack of family exposes her to the nature of contemporary society as a constant monitoring of civilians. In the above quotation, the repetition of ‘they’ suggests that she feels outside of the norm. The most important aspect of the above quote however, is that it is told from the protagonist’s thoughts. While Fagan gives Anais a certain amount of autonomy through both the first-person narrator, and the vernacular, the reliability of the narrator is increased by presenting the characters inner thoughts. While this limited autonomy is important, full autonomy is restricted by age. Bever suggests that ‘the capacity for individuals to become autonomous seems radically dependent on the contingent historical circumstances and societies into which they are born. Anais’ awareness of herself as the ‘other’ allows her an insight into the oppressive role of society, which is normally hindered in childhood due to the role of the family and it’s teaching of norms and values.
The sense of otherness can also be looked at in regard to Scotland and its role within the UK. The UK is a family of four countries under one state. Regardless of Scotland’s devolution, it has still to comply with a large amount of UK policies. Scotland has different values and goals to that of the UK making it ‘other’. With a different cultural identity to its neighbours, many Scottish citizens are seeking independence to protect its dwindling identity, whilst for others, independence is political.
Anais’ awareness of social control causes her a feeling of shrinking. This, according to her social workers is an identity problem:
Fifty odd moves, three different names, born in a nuthouse to a nobody that was never seen again. Identity problem? I dinnae have an identity problem – I dinnae have an identity, (TP, p.99).
Anais’ reaction in the above statement describes her lack of knowledge of her ancestry. I would argue that her identity is forced upon her from the fifty-one times that she has moved home, the care system, the solitary time in which she was adopted, the relationships she has had - both female and male, her friends but more importantly, from the unreliable account of her birth from the monk in the metal institution. The lack of family does not alter the fact that she is alive, and that all the fragments of her past make up an identity. For Anais, ‘Families are overrated […] ‘I umnay fooled. Not by families,’(TP, p.63-64). Like Anais, Scotland’s identity is ambiguous. Independence will allow Scotland political autonomy, however, within a global economy, Scotland still has limited autonomy. As culturally ‘other’ however, Scotland has already achieved autonomy with or without a state through its language, its people and its traditions.
Fagan demonstrates the difficulty of total autonomy though Anais and the birthday game, a game in which she creates her own identity. When she turns sixteen years of age, Anais is free from societal care and flees from her imprisonment, ‘I am Frances Jones from Paris. I am not a face on a missing-person poster, I am not a number or a statistic in a file. I have no-one watching me, […] I−begin today,’ (TP, p.323-324). ‘I’ suggests singularity and is still opposite to ‘them’ or ‘we’. Autonomy is therefore, ambiguous; Anais is still living within the same system under a false identity, she is therefore, segregated from everyone that she knows. Moreover, by changing Anais’ name to a name that ‘means freedom.’ (TP, p.323), Fagan is pointing out the difference between freedom and autonomy. Freedom is an emotive word, and there are two concepts of freedom – freedom from, which in Anais’ situation means freedom from the system of observation. Freedom to, however, is more problematic as Anais can never be free from the neoliberal system of rules and law – as Scotland would see in the case of independence. I would therefore conclude that Anais/Scotland has always has limited autonomy through cultural identity and history. I believe autonomy can only reside within the system through cultural and individual imagination and not out with it.
What does this mean for Scotland? If Scotland is part of the global community, can it become an autonomous nation? Is there a solution or should Anais/Scotland accept that cultural autonomy is imagined or self-contained. Can a collective identity and imagination change the political system? Finally, can culture survive without independence?
Bibliography
Crupp, Tyler, ‘Autonomy and Contemporary Political Theory’, in Encyclopaedia of Political Theory, ed. Mark Bevor (London: Sage Publications, 2010)
Fagan, Jenni, The Panopticon (London: Windmill Books, 2013), p.6.
Windmill Books. (2013). Granta Best Young British Novelist Jenni Fagan, . accessed 22 November 2015. Published on Apr 16, 2013
At the beginning of the novel, the fifteen-year old Anais is governed by the state. In contemporary British society, a child under the age of sixteen, regardless of her social situation is, by law, governed by an adult/s. Anais has lived her life in the care system with the exception of a short period in which she lived with an adopted mother. It is for this reason that she is able to see society from outside of the family unit. By creating the motherless child, Fagan presents Anais as the ‘other’ from both a societal perspective- ‘communities dinnae like no-ones,’ and from the viewpoint of the protagonist, ‘What they really want is me dead,’ (TP, p.23). Without a family, and through a lack of legitimate information regarding her birth mother, Anais believes that she was created in a lab:
I’M AN experiment. I always have been, It’s a given, a liberty, a fact. They watch me. Not just in school or social-work reviews, courts or police cells – they watch everywhere. […] They’re there when I stare too long or too clearly, without flinching. […] They watch me, I know it, and I can’t find anywhere any more – where they can’t see, (TP, Prologue).
Note that in the above quotation, the protagonist describes her assumed identity as a ‘liberty’. Liberty, in this case, means freedom from the oppressive nature of the family. Although Anais desires the nurturing aspect of the family, ‘I just want my mum,’ (Tp, p.269), her lack of family exposes her to the nature of contemporary society as a constant monitoring of civilians. In the above quotation, the repetition of ‘they’ suggests that she feels outside of the norm. The most important aspect of the above quote however, is that it is told from the protagonist’s thoughts. While Fagan gives Anais a certain amount of autonomy through both the first-person narrator, and the vernacular, the reliability of the narrator is increased by presenting the characters inner thoughts. While this limited autonomy is important, full autonomy is restricted by age. Bever suggests that ‘the capacity for individuals to become autonomous seems radically dependent on the contingent historical circumstances and societies into which they are born. Anais’ awareness of herself as the ‘other’ allows her an insight into the oppressive role of society, which is normally hindered in childhood due to the role of the family and it’s teaching of norms and values.
The sense of otherness can also be looked at in regard to Scotland and its role within the UK. The UK is a family of four countries under one state. Regardless of Scotland’s devolution, it has still to comply with a large amount of UK policies. Scotland has different values and goals to that of the UK making it ‘other’. With a different cultural identity to its neighbours, many Scottish citizens are seeking independence to protect its dwindling identity, whilst for others, independence is political.
Anais’ awareness of social control causes her a feeling of shrinking. This, according to her social workers is an identity problem:
Fifty odd moves, three different names, born in a nuthouse to a nobody that was never seen again. Identity problem? I dinnae have an identity problem – I dinnae have an identity, (TP, p.99).
Anais’ reaction in the above statement describes her lack of knowledge of her ancestry. I would argue that her identity is forced upon her from the fifty-one times that she has moved home, the care system, the solitary time in which she was adopted, the relationships she has had - both female and male, her friends but more importantly, from the unreliable account of her birth from the monk in the metal institution. The lack of family does not alter the fact that she is alive, and that all the fragments of her past make up an identity. For Anais, ‘Families are overrated […] ‘I umnay fooled. Not by families,’(TP, p.63-64). Like Anais, Scotland’s identity is ambiguous. Independence will allow Scotland political autonomy, however, within a global economy, Scotland still has limited autonomy. As culturally ‘other’ however, Scotland has already achieved autonomy with or without a state through its language, its people and its traditions.
Fagan demonstrates the difficulty of total autonomy though Anais and the birthday game, a game in which she creates her own identity. When she turns sixteen years of age, Anais is free from societal care and flees from her imprisonment, ‘I am Frances Jones from Paris. I am not a face on a missing-person poster, I am not a number or a statistic in a file. I have no-one watching me, […] I−begin today,’ (TP, p.323-324). ‘I’ suggests singularity and is still opposite to ‘them’ or ‘we’. Autonomy is therefore, ambiguous; Anais is still living within the same system under a false identity, she is therefore, segregated from everyone that she knows. Moreover, by changing Anais’ name to a name that ‘means freedom.’ (TP, p.323), Fagan is pointing out the difference between freedom and autonomy. Freedom is an emotive word, and there are two concepts of freedom – freedom from, which in Anais’ situation means freedom from the system of observation. Freedom to, however, is more problematic as Anais can never be free from the neoliberal system of rules and law – as Scotland would see in the case of independence. I would therefore conclude that Anais/Scotland has always has limited autonomy through cultural identity and history. I believe autonomy can only reside within the system through cultural and individual imagination and not out with it.
What does this mean for Scotland? If Scotland is part of the global community, can it become an autonomous nation? Is there a solution or should Anais/Scotland accept that cultural autonomy is imagined or self-contained. Can a collective identity and imagination change the political system? Finally, can culture survive without independence?
Bibliography
Crupp, Tyler, ‘Autonomy and Contemporary Political Theory’, in Encyclopaedia of Political Theory, ed. Mark Bevor (London: Sage Publications, 2010)
Fagan, Jenni, The Panopticon (London: Windmill Books, 2013), p.6.
Windmill Books. (2013). Granta Best Young British Novelist Jenni Fagan, . accessed 22 November 2015. Published on Apr 16, 2013
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated the Xbox One version of Maid of Sker in Video Games
Nov 7, 2020
Hold Your Breath
Maid of Sker- is a excellent first person horror game.
The game takes place in 1898 in the Sker Hotel, located on an imaginary island called Sker Island, where the protagonist, Thomas Evans, is invited by his lover, Elisabeth Williams, to uncover the mysteries of the hotel after she notices her family's strange behavior. While exploring the hotel, Thomas learns the place is controlled by cult followers called "The Quiet Ones". The history of Elisabeth's family is revealed when Thomas finds notes and gramophone records scattered around the hotel.
The story is inspired by multiple Welsh and British folklore tales, specifically the idea of the hotel is influenced by the Sker House, a real life historic place situated just outside the town of Porthcawl, near Bridgend, Wales, which is made famous by the three-volume novel written by R. D. Blackmore, The Maid of Sker. The game has drawn influences from this novel as well as the folklore story under the same name (called Y Ferch o’r Sger in Welsh). The game has been compared to Outlast, The Evil Within 2, Silent Hill, and its saving system was also compared to those of Resident Evil, with the typewriter switched to a gramophone in the saving rooms.
In the original folk story, Elisabeth Willaims, a woman of the higher class, falls in love with Thomas Evans, a poor harpist. Elisabeth's father, Isaac, disapproves of the relationship, and, in one of the variations of the tale, her father locks her in a room to prevent her from running away until she starves; other variations include Elisabeth dying from a broken heart or being forced to marry a richer man who she does not love until she passes away from illness. According to the tale, her ghost, alongside the ghost of a sailor, haunt the Sker House.
The game is using the first-person perspective and features blind enemies that can find the player by noise, they are introduced as "The Quiet Ones." As Thomas cannot fight back (except for when a temporary weapon is introduced mid-game), the player is forced to be stealthy when exploring the hotel grounds, or making sounds to distract The Quiet Ones so Thomas passes them safely. The only way to search through the hotel grounds successfully is by avoiding The Quiet Ones by not making noise and holding your breath when a Quiet One is close or not bumping into objects. If the player holds their breath for too long, Thomas gasps for air which alerts the enemies. In certain environments, such as when the protagonist is in a dusty location or close to a fireplace, he coughs, and the player has to stop him by holding his breath as this alerts The Quiet Ones.
It consists of a device which sends shock waves and temporarily damages the hearing of The Silent Ones, stunning them for a short duration; this allows the player to run away from the location. While the player gets this weapon, ammunition is scarce and the player has to use it carefully.
The game features a manual save style and there is no autosave. To save the game, the player has to find "safe rooms", the rooms have green-tainted patterned doors, and inside the rooms are gramophones which the player has to play to save the game. Before the game saves, the gramophones play records of Elisabeth and her experiences with her family which adds to the background of the story. After the records end or when the player stops them manually, the game starts saving. If the player dies or restores a save, they lose all the progress made after the last save, additionally, enemies always change routes and cannot always be found lurking in the same places. This saving system is compared to the one which appeared in the Resident Evil games.
While the game is praised for its great sound design, Thomas never speaks in the game. Aside from grunting noises, he is completely mute throughout the game and his lines are displayed as text instead; however, this is not the case for Elisabeth and she has her voice actor. This has received some negative feedback alongside the sensitivity of the movement on consoles. The game has been compared to Outlast when it comes to the gameplay style, and The Evil Within 2 and Silent Hill when it comes to the game's atmosphere.
I love the concept, the atomsphere, the horror, the strategy, it does remind of "The Evil Within", "Resident Evil", "Silent Hill" and "Outlast". All excellent horror games and same with this one.
The game takes place in 1898 in the Sker Hotel, located on an imaginary island called Sker Island, where the protagonist, Thomas Evans, is invited by his lover, Elisabeth Williams, to uncover the mysteries of the hotel after she notices her family's strange behavior. While exploring the hotel, Thomas learns the place is controlled by cult followers called "The Quiet Ones". The history of Elisabeth's family is revealed when Thomas finds notes and gramophone records scattered around the hotel.
The story is inspired by multiple Welsh and British folklore tales, specifically the idea of the hotel is influenced by the Sker House, a real life historic place situated just outside the town of Porthcawl, near Bridgend, Wales, which is made famous by the three-volume novel written by R. D. Blackmore, The Maid of Sker. The game has drawn influences from this novel as well as the folklore story under the same name (called Y Ferch o’r Sger in Welsh). The game has been compared to Outlast, The Evil Within 2, Silent Hill, and its saving system was also compared to those of Resident Evil, with the typewriter switched to a gramophone in the saving rooms.
In the original folk story, Elisabeth Willaims, a woman of the higher class, falls in love with Thomas Evans, a poor harpist. Elisabeth's father, Isaac, disapproves of the relationship, and, in one of the variations of the tale, her father locks her in a room to prevent her from running away until she starves; other variations include Elisabeth dying from a broken heart or being forced to marry a richer man who she does not love until she passes away from illness. According to the tale, her ghost, alongside the ghost of a sailor, haunt the Sker House.
The game is using the first-person perspective and features blind enemies that can find the player by noise, they are introduced as "The Quiet Ones." As Thomas cannot fight back (except for when a temporary weapon is introduced mid-game), the player is forced to be stealthy when exploring the hotel grounds, or making sounds to distract The Quiet Ones so Thomas passes them safely. The only way to search through the hotel grounds successfully is by avoiding The Quiet Ones by not making noise and holding your breath when a Quiet One is close or not bumping into objects. If the player holds their breath for too long, Thomas gasps for air which alerts the enemies. In certain environments, such as when the protagonist is in a dusty location or close to a fireplace, he coughs, and the player has to stop him by holding his breath as this alerts The Quiet Ones.
It consists of a device which sends shock waves and temporarily damages the hearing of The Silent Ones, stunning them for a short duration; this allows the player to run away from the location. While the player gets this weapon, ammunition is scarce and the player has to use it carefully.
The game features a manual save style and there is no autosave. To save the game, the player has to find "safe rooms", the rooms have green-tainted patterned doors, and inside the rooms are gramophones which the player has to play to save the game. Before the game saves, the gramophones play records of Elisabeth and her experiences with her family which adds to the background of the story. After the records end or when the player stops them manually, the game starts saving. If the player dies or restores a save, they lose all the progress made after the last save, additionally, enemies always change routes and cannot always be found lurking in the same places. This saving system is compared to the one which appeared in the Resident Evil games.
While the game is praised for its great sound design, Thomas never speaks in the game. Aside from grunting noises, he is completely mute throughout the game and his lines are displayed as text instead; however, this is not the case for Elisabeth and she has her voice actor. This has received some negative feedback alongside the sensitivity of the movement on consoles. The game has been compared to Outlast when it comes to the gameplay style, and The Evil Within 2 and Silent Hill when it comes to the game's atmosphere.
I love the concept, the atomsphere, the horror, the strategy, it does remind of "The Evil Within", "Resident Evil", "Silent Hill" and "Outlast". All excellent horror games and same with this one.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Good popcorn nonsense.
“Remember who we are. The Shaw family. We never, never, never give up.”
(That title is especially for my friends the Shaw family!).
Well, the patchy British summer’s just about up, and autumn’s chilly fingers are touching up the UK. And yet I still hadn’t seen the summer hit “Hobbs and Shaw”! Until last night.
It’s utter nonsense of course, like most of the “Fast and Furious” films, but I have to admit it’s done with some tongue in cheek style.
The plot
A vicious cyber-soldier, Brixton (Idris Elba) tries to steal a deadly virus but is thwarted by brave MI6 agent Hattie (Vanessa Kirby). To help recover the virus, Deckard Shaw (Jason Statham) is recruited in London by CIA agent Loeb (Rob Delaney, the “non-super” hero Peter in “Deadpool 2“). In an interesting piece of related casting, the Eteon Director (Champ Nightengale – LoL, a cameo for someone far more famous) recruits Luke Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) in LA as a part of the team.
Both agents know they are heading for trouble… but do they really appreciate how much the pair hate each other’s guts?
The trail leads from London to the Ukraine to (a very picturesque) Samoa in a race against time to both defeat the undefeatable Brixton and save Hattie: now a ticking time bomb of global destruction. And Hattie has relations!
Absurd stunts.
As a “Fast and Furious” film there are of course some truly absurd car stunts involved and – unlike the Mission Impossible films – you are never quite sure what is “real” and what is CGI generated. Which is a shame.
For me, the gold standard for chases remains Tom Cruise‘s chase through Paris in “Mission Impossible: Fallout“. Here, the car chase through London – whilst impressive – never quite reaches the seat clenching tension of MI6.
And a final stunt with a helicopter is – I’m sorry – just plain ridiculous. If a chopper can partially lift 5 x load then why can’t it completely lift 1 x load. Give me a break!
To round things off, there is one of the most unbelievable “100% survival of a car crashing off a cliff” scenes in movie history!
Acting
The acting is largely from the Arnie Swartzenegger school, with Johnson and Statham giving it the old shtick. Dwayne Johnson may be one of Hollywood’s most bankable stars (the boy has done REAL good for himself), but he can’t do serious acting. His “pathos” scenes with his daughter (a vibrant Eliana Sua) are excruciating.
Dropping in as class acts are Helen Mirren as the elder Shaw and the excellent Vanessa Kirby as Hattie. Kirby gets a lot more to get her teeth into than in the last Mission Impossible movie, and is really very good. Mirren is rather too posh to be the incarcerated East End con, but is a fun turn nevertheless.
Also excellent, as always, is Eddie Marsan as the key scientist. Marsan really turns in a splendid performance in every film he’s in. He’s top of “Division 2” in my books. Never the star, but always starring.
Mexican actress Eiza González (from “Baby Driver“) also crops up as an unfeasibly good-looking Russian femme fatale.
“I hate you”. “No, I hate you”. Blah, blah, blah.
Writers Chris Morgan and Drew Pearce do a good job at keeping the script light and fluffy. The animosity between Hobbs and Shaw is played to 110%, and for me the interplay frankly became a bit tiresome. But it’s a fun-enough film to entertain, although it’s bladder-testing running time of 2 hours 17 minutes is at least 30 minutes too long. There is a natural Ukraine-based finale, but it’s not taken, and the film goes on… and on… and on…. and on. Enough already.
I’ve said many times before that comedies shouldn’t last more than 90 minutes, and although an “action film” this is fundamentally a comedy and the rule should apply. It would have been a much better film if it was compacted.
Sexism diverted.
I did criticize “Fast and Furious 8” for scenes that brazenly objectified women. And there was a moment – just one, fortunately – with a gyrating bikini-clad beauty – where I thought “uh, oh” – this franchise has not moved with the times.
But actually, this was the only scene where I thought that. Cinema has moved along massively in the last two years, driven by the “Times Up” movement. Here the women are all given pretty leading “kick-ass” roles, and they generally show the muscle-bound morons up, often saving their arses.
Final Thoughts.
It’s summer popcorn nonsense, but its well done popcorn nonsense. Probably not a film high on my list of films I want to see again, but as an entertainment vehicle it was not too shabby.
(That title is especially for my friends the Shaw family!).
Well, the patchy British summer’s just about up, and autumn’s chilly fingers are touching up the UK. And yet I still hadn’t seen the summer hit “Hobbs and Shaw”! Until last night.
It’s utter nonsense of course, like most of the “Fast and Furious” films, but I have to admit it’s done with some tongue in cheek style.
The plot
A vicious cyber-soldier, Brixton (Idris Elba) tries to steal a deadly virus but is thwarted by brave MI6 agent Hattie (Vanessa Kirby). To help recover the virus, Deckard Shaw (Jason Statham) is recruited in London by CIA agent Loeb (Rob Delaney, the “non-super” hero Peter in “Deadpool 2“). In an interesting piece of related casting, the Eteon Director (Champ Nightengale – LoL, a cameo for someone far more famous) recruits Luke Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) in LA as a part of the team.
Both agents know they are heading for trouble… but do they really appreciate how much the pair hate each other’s guts?
The trail leads from London to the Ukraine to (a very picturesque) Samoa in a race against time to both defeat the undefeatable Brixton and save Hattie: now a ticking time bomb of global destruction. And Hattie has relations!
Absurd stunts.
As a “Fast and Furious” film there are of course some truly absurd car stunts involved and – unlike the Mission Impossible films – you are never quite sure what is “real” and what is CGI generated. Which is a shame.
For me, the gold standard for chases remains Tom Cruise‘s chase through Paris in “Mission Impossible: Fallout“. Here, the car chase through London – whilst impressive – never quite reaches the seat clenching tension of MI6.
And a final stunt with a helicopter is – I’m sorry – just plain ridiculous. If a chopper can partially lift 5 x load then why can’t it completely lift 1 x load. Give me a break!
To round things off, there is one of the most unbelievable “100% survival of a car crashing off a cliff” scenes in movie history!
Acting
The acting is largely from the Arnie Swartzenegger school, with Johnson and Statham giving it the old shtick. Dwayne Johnson may be one of Hollywood’s most bankable stars (the boy has done REAL good for himself), but he can’t do serious acting. His “pathos” scenes with his daughter (a vibrant Eliana Sua) are excruciating.
Dropping in as class acts are Helen Mirren as the elder Shaw and the excellent Vanessa Kirby as Hattie. Kirby gets a lot more to get her teeth into than in the last Mission Impossible movie, and is really very good. Mirren is rather too posh to be the incarcerated East End con, but is a fun turn nevertheless.
Also excellent, as always, is Eddie Marsan as the key scientist. Marsan really turns in a splendid performance in every film he’s in. He’s top of “Division 2” in my books. Never the star, but always starring.
Mexican actress Eiza González (from “Baby Driver“) also crops up as an unfeasibly good-looking Russian femme fatale.
“I hate you”. “No, I hate you”. Blah, blah, blah.
Writers Chris Morgan and Drew Pearce do a good job at keeping the script light and fluffy. The animosity between Hobbs and Shaw is played to 110%, and for me the interplay frankly became a bit tiresome. But it’s a fun-enough film to entertain, although it’s bladder-testing running time of 2 hours 17 minutes is at least 30 minutes too long. There is a natural Ukraine-based finale, but it’s not taken, and the film goes on… and on… and on…. and on. Enough already.
I’ve said many times before that comedies shouldn’t last more than 90 minutes, and although an “action film” this is fundamentally a comedy and the rule should apply. It would have been a much better film if it was compacted.
Sexism diverted.
I did criticize “Fast and Furious 8” for scenes that brazenly objectified women. And there was a moment – just one, fortunately – with a gyrating bikini-clad beauty – where I thought “uh, oh” – this franchise has not moved with the times.
But actually, this was the only scene where I thought that. Cinema has moved along massively in the last two years, driven by the “Times Up” movement. Here the women are all given pretty leading “kick-ass” roles, and they generally show the muscle-bound morons up, often saving their arses.
Final Thoughts.
It’s summer popcorn nonsense, but its well done popcorn nonsense. Probably not a film high on my list of films I want to see again, but as an entertainment vehicle it was not too shabby.