Search
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Girl With All the Gifts (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
An Adam’s Apple for Teacher.
I remember once having a ridiculous drunken dispute at a works Christmas party many year’s ago that went along the lines of “if you had the chance to save the world, but had to kill your child to do it, what would you do”. There’s a variant of this conundrum at the heart of this brilliant new film from Colm McCarthy, best know for his TV work on shows like “Peaky Blinders”, “Sherlock” and “Dr Who”.
As most people already realise, this is a ‘Zombie film’ (cue, a number of other single blokes in the cinema) and illustrates the dangers of not treating that Athlete’s Foot as soon as it appears! I would normally provide a quick synopsis here, but I really think this is a case in point where it is best to go into the film as blind as possible to the story and let it envelop you. (This includes not watching the whole trailer if possible.) To merely set the scene, we open with a morning school ritual like none you’ve seen before: children strapped to wheelchairs by heavily armed military in their cells; wheeled to an underground classroom; then made to sit in serried rows being taught by their teacher Helen Justineau (a deliciously un-made-up and natural Gemma Arterton). What IS going on? Who ARE these children? WHY are the soldiers so scared and dismissive of them?
The ever-great Paddy Considine (“Pride”) plays army Sergeant Parks (who also has a bit of a crush on Helen) and Glenn Close plays Dr Caroline Caldwell, who is studying the children in more ways than one.
This trio of stars, supported notably later in the film by Fisayo Akinade as the trooper Kieran, turn in what is a superb ensemble performance. As for Glenn Close, I have never quite been able to shake her awful “silk blouse” performance in “Air Force One” from my mind, but here she is quite memerising in the role of the Doctor on a mission: I would suggest a career best. Her final scene reflects such a complex range of emotions, and is brilliantly executed. And Gemma Arterton pulls out all the emotional stops in what is also one of the performances of the year.
But good as these performances are, they would be nothing without the central performance of young Sennia Nanua as the titular “Girl”. I have made the point before that there should be an Oscar category for “Young Actors” rather than pitch them into the adult categories like Quvenzhane Wallis and Anna Paquin were (successfully). Here in her debut feature performance Sennia is just mesmerising and (provided this film gets the recognition it justly deserves) she should be a shoe-in for the BAFTA Rising Star award next year, if not an Actress nomination. A young lady most definitely to watch.
Also assuming a starring role is Chilean-born composer Cristobal Tapia de Veer’s astonishingly effective music which drives up the tension superbly. This is his feature film debut and another name to watch.
The screenplay by Mike Carey from his original novel is beautifully crafted, with some great one liners dropped in to ease the tension a notch. And the story adds a level of emotional depth and angst that surpasses other films of this genre, at least as far back as the “28 Days” films.
Astonishingly, the film was made on a budget of 4 (FOUR!) Million Pounds, giving it a BvS quotient of 2.1%!! Every penny of that budget is up on the screen, and whilst you might like to pick at a few of the matte paintings and effects, it is a remarkably achievement in special effects (Nick Rideout is the SF supervisor) and production value.
So, its great! Go see it… but with a few caveats: it is a zombie film, and it ranks about an 8.9 on the splattometer scale, which might not be to some tastes; definitely don’t go to see it if you are pregnant (though I am constantly reminded how I took my heavily pregnant wife in 1985 to see “A really great film called ‘Alien'”); and you might want to avoid it if you are a great cat or dog lover, or indeed a pigeon-fancier. Other than that, get yourself down to a multiplex and see this great British film: surely a classic to be recognised for years to come.
As most people already realise, this is a ‘Zombie film’ (cue, a number of other single blokes in the cinema) and illustrates the dangers of not treating that Athlete’s Foot as soon as it appears! I would normally provide a quick synopsis here, but I really think this is a case in point where it is best to go into the film as blind as possible to the story and let it envelop you. (This includes not watching the whole trailer if possible.) To merely set the scene, we open with a morning school ritual like none you’ve seen before: children strapped to wheelchairs by heavily armed military in their cells; wheeled to an underground classroom; then made to sit in serried rows being taught by their teacher Helen Justineau (a deliciously un-made-up and natural Gemma Arterton). What IS going on? Who ARE these children? WHY are the soldiers so scared and dismissive of them?
The ever-great Paddy Considine (“Pride”) plays army Sergeant Parks (who also has a bit of a crush on Helen) and Glenn Close plays Dr Caroline Caldwell, who is studying the children in more ways than one.
This trio of stars, supported notably later in the film by Fisayo Akinade as the trooper Kieran, turn in what is a superb ensemble performance. As for Glenn Close, I have never quite been able to shake her awful “silk blouse” performance in “Air Force One” from my mind, but here she is quite memerising in the role of the Doctor on a mission: I would suggest a career best. Her final scene reflects such a complex range of emotions, and is brilliantly executed. And Gemma Arterton pulls out all the emotional stops in what is also one of the performances of the year.
But good as these performances are, they would be nothing without the central performance of young Sennia Nanua as the titular “Girl”. I have made the point before that there should be an Oscar category for “Young Actors” rather than pitch them into the adult categories like Quvenzhane Wallis and Anna Paquin were (successfully). Here in her debut feature performance Sennia is just mesmerising and (provided this film gets the recognition it justly deserves) she should be a shoe-in for the BAFTA Rising Star award next year, if not an Actress nomination. A young lady most definitely to watch.
Also assuming a starring role is Chilean-born composer Cristobal Tapia de Veer’s astonishingly effective music which drives up the tension superbly. This is his feature film debut and another name to watch.
The screenplay by Mike Carey from his original novel is beautifully crafted, with some great one liners dropped in to ease the tension a notch. And the story adds a level of emotional depth and angst that surpasses other films of this genre, at least as far back as the “28 Days” films.
Astonishingly, the film was made on a budget of 4 (FOUR!) Million Pounds, giving it a BvS quotient of 2.1%!! Every penny of that budget is up on the screen, and whilst you might like to pick at a few of the matte paintings and effects, it is a remarkably achievement in special effects (Nick Rideout is the SF supervisor) and production value.
So, its great! Go see it… but with a few caveats: it is a zombie film, and it ranks about an 8.9 on the splattometer scale, which might not be to some tastes; definitely don’t go to see it if you are pregnant (though I am constantly reminded how I took my heavily pregnant wife in 1985 to see “A really great film called ‘Alien'”); and you might want to avoid it if you are a great cat or dog lover, or indeed a pigeon-fancier. Other than that, get yourself down to a multiplex and see this great British film: surely a classic to be recognised for years to come.
JT (287 KP) rated The Gentlemen (2020) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
Guy Richie back to doing what he does best (1 more)
Excellent cast
Twists, turns and carnage
Since Snatch Guy Richie hasn’t covered himself in glory with some of his recent films. The likes of Swept Away, Revolver and King Arthur: Legend of the Sword did little to enhance his street cred.
While Sherlock Holmes and The Man From U.N.C.L.E were certainly enjoyable romps they didn’t have the cutting edge to what Richie does best, the gangster flick. Thankfully The Gentlemen provides everything you could want from that genre and Richie is back on familiar ground.
Mickey Pearson (Matthew McConaughey) is looking to retire from his current criminal life and plans to sell off his highly profitable marijuana empire in London. However, when rival gangs get wind of his plans there is blackmail, bribery and double-crossing aplenty.
One of the stars of the film is Hugh Grant, who for once is not playing a bumbling English gentry. Instead, he plays a slimy cockney called Fletcher with inside knowledge of what Mickey’s plans are and attempts to use them for his own financial gain.
Grant adds a subtle level of humour to the proceedings and spends most of the time in dialogue with Ray (Charlie Hunnam) Mickey’s right-hand man, who actually delivers a half-decent performance.
The Gentlemen has Richie’s aggressive dialogue which is bathed in neat action set pieces. It’s foul-mouthed and the characters all have their own unique and very distinct personalities. From Colin Farrell’s Coach to Henry Golding’s psychotic Dry Eye they can stand happily alongside some of the greats from Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch.
The film has a cool swagger about it where everything clicks nicely. There are a few twists and turns along the way which is expected from the British director and it is filled with his trademarks that hit the right notes at the right time. For me, this is by far and away his best film for quite some time.
While Sherlock Holmes and The Man From U.N.C.L.E were certainly enjoyable romps they didn’t have the cutting edge to what Richie does best, the gangster flick. Thankfully The Gentlemen provides everything you could want from that genre and Richie is back on familiar ground.
Mickey Pearson (Matthew McConaughey) is looking to retire from his current criminal life and plans to sell off his highly profitable marijuana empire in London. However, when rival gangs get wind of his plans there is blackmail, bribery and double-crossing aplenty.
One of the stars of the film is Hugh Grant, who for once is not playing a bumbling English gentry. Instead, he plays a slimy cockney called Fletcher with inside knowledge of what Mickey’s plans are and attempts to use them for his own financial gain.
Grant adds a subtle level of humour to the proceedings and spends most of the time in dialogue with Ray (Charlie Hunnam) Mickey’s right-hand man, who actually delivers a half-decent performance.
The Gentlemen has Richie’s aggressive dialogue which is bathed in neat action set pieces. It’s foul-mouthed and the characters all have their own unique and very distinct personalities. From Colin Farrell’s Coach to Henry Golding’s psychotic Dry Eye they can stand happily alongside some of the greats from Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch.
The film has a cool swagger about it where everything clicks nicely. There are a few twists and turns along the way which is expected from the British director and it is filled with his trademarks that hit the right notes at the right time. For me, this is by far and away his best film for quite some time.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated V for Vendetta (2005) in Movies
Mar 7, 2019
Missed the point... Ponderously
Contains spoilers, click to show
"BOLLOCKS!" This is the standard British insult which is banded about by the stereotypical characters as perceived by our American cousins. Or is this a succinct review of the film? Alan Moore, more famously known for Watchmen, was the original author of the graphic novel of the same name, which was published between 1982 and '85 and then later reprinted in full by DC comics, had his name removed during production. The Brothers Wachowski, of The Matrix fame, a seminal film, penned the adaptation and did so without truly understanding the source.
We ended up with a dull, overly bombastic and ponderous take on a much more subversive novel, with stereotypical fascist villains, shown to have taken power by releasing a virus upon the country's population, rather than the comic's thesis on the apathetic voters, legitimately electing them.
This is Hollywood does Britain, and as usual, they got it wrong. This is a sci-fi fantasy, where the hero/terrorist dons a Guy Fawkes mask and romantically spreads revolution across the country. But Hugo Weaving's ranting, good though he always is, is just boring and overblown. He is a Nutter and not in the good sense. I don't understand what gives him the right to blow up Parliament for us? I think that he's the other side of the same coin; a dictator in his own right. Is this the point? Maybe, but that point is lost when the film is trying to walk the fine line between epic political film-making with an edge, and a major comic book adaptation by the creators of the revolutionary Matrix. Though, the ill-conceived sequels should have served as a warning to us all as to what to expect from this project.
When I first watched this, I thought it was okay, but on repeat viewings it just continues to fall further and further down in my estimation. Boring, contrived, and misconceived. The Brothers Grimm Wachowski need to rethink their strategy and their role in the business and they are in no way, shape or form serious filmmakers. They have a fantastic and they did have a revolutionary view of cinematography, but as for being deep and meaningful writers... more ponderous and self absorbed than anything else.
We ended up with a dull, overly bombastic and ponderous take on a much more subversive novel, with stereotypical fascist villains, shown to have taken power by releasing a virus upon the country's population, rather than the comic's thesis on the apathetic voters, legitimately electing them.
This is Hollywood does Britain, and as usual, they got it wrong. This is a sci-fi fantasy, where the hero/terrorist dons a Guy Fawkes mask and romantically spreads revolution across the country. But Hugo Weaving's ranting, good though he always is, is just boring and overblown. He is a Nutter and not in the good sense. I don't understand what gives him the right to blow up Parliament for us? I think that he's the other side of the same coin; a dictator in his own right. Is this the point? Maybe, but that point is lost when the film is trying to walk the fine line between epic political film-making with an edge, and a major comic book adaptation by the creators of the revolutionary Matrix. Though, the ill-conceived sequels should have served as a warning to us all as to what to expect from this project.
When I first watched this, I thought it was okay, but on repeat viewings it just continues to fall further and further down in my estimation. Boring, contrived, and misconceived. The Brothers Grimm Wachowski need to rethink their strategy and their role in the business and they are in no way, shape or form serious filmmakers. They have a fantastic and they did have a revolutionary view of cinematography, but as for being deep and meaningful writers... more ponderous and self absorbed than anything else.
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) rated Assassin's Creed (2016) in Movies
May 4, 2017
Action sequences (4 more)
Cast
Practical and CGI effects
Plot
Highest free fall performed by a stuntman in almost 35 years.
Apple of Eden (1 more)
Not as much Past sequences as I'd like
Nothing is True...
Okay, so I have been a huge fan of the Assassin's Creed franchise since the beginning and have enjoyed, at least to some extent for certain ones, all of the games that have been released thus far. I was so excited for this movie once I heard it was being made and spent the years waiting, worrying. Videogame Movies have had nothing but a bad rep throughout the many years and this was one I was hoping did not fail, or at least not be a failure for me.
To give an example of what I mean, the Prince of Persia film was one I actually really enjoyed but to the world it was a flop and people despise it and dread to talk about it. Yes it's not as great as it could have been but neverless I enjoy what they tried to do with it. This film is both similar and yet different for me, because I didn't enjoy what they tried to do, I enjoyed what they did.
Though many will disagree with me I would like to at least get my view of the film across so that other might understand how someone can enjoy the film. So here it goes;
First of all Michael Fassbender is brilliant as both Callum Lynch and Aguilar de Nerha. As Callum he brilliantly portrays the anger, confusion, intrigue and then of course the characters progression into his focus and his determination to fully understand what it means to be an Assassin, not just in the past but in the present. As Aguilar we watch as Fassbender portrays to us his ancestral character as a much more skilled individual. Someone you can tell has been through years of intense training, has been taught to focus his mind on the task at hand and to understand that nothing is more important than his mission. Even if that means that people, no matter how close they are to him, must not be mourned in death until the mission is complete.
Other cast members such as Jeremy Irons and Marion Cotillard, are brilliant in their roles as their characters each have their own goals, and both require Callum Lynch, so their interactions together are shown in very different ways, although both are sincere.
The action in this movie is brilliant and is almost very reminiscent of the games themselves (the later games in the series at least, since the combat becomes more evolved and fluent compared to the first game/s). The actions of the Assassins such as the air assassination, the free running, the leap of faith and others, are exactly what I wanted to see in this film. The best part about them is that they are practical effects. The cast are actually free running, they are actually fighting, and doing somersaults (with the help of stunt doubles of course) and my favourite, the leap of faith is actually performed using a crane and a crash mat, by British gymnast and free runner Damien Walters. He free falls from the crane lift at 125 feet in the air, and in 3 seconds, he lands on the crash mat. This is actually the highest free fall performed by a stuntman in almost 35 years.
The connections to the games are beautifully blended into this new and refreshing plot that we haven't seen before. Everything from the different Assassin Insignias, to the leap of faith, the weapons, Abstergo Industries, and of course the Piece of Eden, is everything the fans wanted and possibly more. They even included a version of the Bleeding Effect that we haven't seen the likes of before, which I adored.
Probably my only issue with this film is the Apple of Eden, simply because, unlike the game, it doesn't do anything, except glow. The look of it is beautiful, just like all the other props and clothing in this film. However, when the orb is activated, there's simply some lights thrust out of it but it doesn't do anything besides show some pretty lights. In the game it can control minds, even break them and kill, or make someone run away in fear. Besides that, I have no real important issues with the film. The plot is, to me at least, brilliant and whilst there are some minor nit picks here and there, I love this film enough to not let them bother me. I saw this film twice in the cinema and would have gone a third time if I had the chance. Sadly I was too busy.
If you're a fan of the game franchise I highly recommend you give this film a chance. If you don't like it, like most people, then that's fair enough, but as I say about most films such as this, and comic book movies, give them a chance...you never know, you just might like it.
To give an example of what I mean, the Prince of Persia film was one I actually really enjoyed but to the world it was a flop and people despise it and dread to talk about it. Yes it's not as great as it could have been but neverless I enjoy what they tried to do with it. This film is both similar and yet different for me, because I didn't enjoy what they tried to do, I enjoyed what they did.
Though many will disagree with me I would like to at least get my view of the film across so that other might understand how someone can enjoy the film. So here it goes;
First of all Michael Fassbender is brilliant as both Callum Lynch and Aguilar de Nerha. As Callum he brilliantly portrays the anger, confusion, intrigue and then of course the characters progression into his focus and his determination to fully understand what it means to be an Assassin, not just in the past but in the present. As Aguilar we watch as Fassbender portrays to us his ancestral character as a much more skilled individual. Someone you can tell has been through years of intense training, has been taught to focus his mind on the task at hand and to understand that nothing is more important than his mission. Even if that means that people, no matter how close they are to him, must not be mourned in death until the mission is complete.
Other cast members such as Jeremy Irons and Marion Cotillard, are brilliant in their roles as their characters each have their own goals, and both require Callum Lynch, so their interactions together are shown in very different ways, although both are sincere.
The action in this movie is brilliant and is almost very reminiscent of the games themselves (the later games in the series at least, since the combat becomes more evolved and fluent compared to the first game/s). The actions of the Assassins such as the air assassination, the free running, the leap of faith and others, are exactly what I wanted to see in this film. The best part about them is that they are practical effects. The cast are actually free running, they are actually fighting, and doing somersaults (with the help of stunt doubles of course) and my favourite, the leap of faith is actually performed using a crane and a crash mat, by British gymnast and free runner Damien Walters. He free falls from the crane lift at 125 feet in the air, and in 3 seconds, he lands on the crash mat. This is actually the highest free fall performed by a stuntman in almost 35 years.
The connections to the games are beautifully blended into this new and refreshing plot that we haven't seen before. Everything from the different Assassin Insignias, to the leap of faith, the weapons, Abstergo Industries, and of course the Piece of Eden, is everything the fans wanted and possibly more. They even included a version of the Bleeding Effect that we haven't seen the likes of before, which I adored.
Probably my only issue with this film is the Apple of Eden, simply because, unlike the game, it doesn't do anything, except glow. The look of it is beautiful, just like all the other props and clothing in this film. However, when the orb is activated, there's simply some lights thrust out of it but it doesn't do anything besides show some pretty lights. In the game it can control minds, even break them and kill, or make someone run away in fear. Besides that, I have no real important issues with the film. The plot is, to me at least, brilliant and whilst there are some minor nit picks here and there, I love this film enough to not let them bother me. I saw this film twice in the cinema and would have gone a third time if I had the chance. Sadly I was too busy.
If you're a fan of the game franchise I highly recommend you give this film a chance. If you don't like it, like most people, then that's fair enough, but as I say about most films such as this, and comic book movies, give them a chance...you never know, you just might like it.
Dining with the Famous and Infamous
Book
Dining with the Famous and Infamous is an entertaining journey into the gastronomic peccadilloes of...
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Rare Exports: A Christmas Tale (2010) in Movies
Dec 18, 2020
Rare Exports is a proper gem of an alternative Christmas film.
It revolves around a British company drilling into the mountain Korvatunturi in Lapland, hoping to find a legendary gravesite. A local child Pietari spies on proceedings, and is convinced that this company have found the grave of the original Santa Claus, not the jolly red and white icon that everyone is familiar with, but the proper monstrous version spoken about in fairtytales in Piertari's books. This being a child centric horror, of course no one believes him, until all the other children in the village start to go missing, and shit starts going sideways.
Rare Exports strengths lies in its strong cast. Greta performances from Onni Tommila and Jorma Tommila (father and son in both the film, and real life, just for that extra layer of believability!) The pair, alongside the supporting cast keep everything pretty grounded, despite the absurdity going on around them.
The film's dialogue is largely in Finnish, and this coupled with it's sparse and snowy setting, lend the narrative a truly otherworldly but authentic feeling.
It's also effectively creepy, especially the skinny old man "Santa" that the group capture and cage up. The need to figure out what is really going on never lets up either, even as the plot flies towards it's increasingly WTF climax (there's a silly amount of dong by the way, just FYI).
Rare Exports is certainly worth a watch. It's delightfully barmy, and is a great tonic if you become weary of "traditional" Christmas movies. 🎅
It revolves around a British company drilling into the mountain Korvatunturi in Lapland, hoping to find a legendary gravesite. A local child Pietari spies on proceedings, and is convinced that this company have found the grave of the original Santa Claus, not the jolly red and white icon that everyone is familiar with, but the proper monstrous version spoken about in fairtytales in Piertari's books. This being a child centric horror, of course no one believes him, until all the other children in the village start to go missing, and shit starts going sideways.
Rare Exports strengths lies in its strong cast. Greta performances from Onni Tommila and Jorma Tommila (father and son in both the film, and real life, just for that extra layer of believability!) The pair, alongside the supporting cast keep everything pretty grounded, despite the absurdity going on around them.
The film's dialogue is largely in Finnish, and this coupled with it's sparse and snowy setting, lend the narrative a truly otherworldly but authentic feeling.
It's also effectively creepy, especially the skinny old man "Santa" that the group capture and cage up. The need to figure out what is really going on never lets up either, even as the plot flies towards it's increasingly WTF climax (there's a silly amount of dong by the way, just FYI).
Rare Exports is certainly worth a watch. It's delightfully barmy, and is a great tonic if you become weary of "traditional" Christmas movies. 🎅
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Huntsman: Winter's War (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Hemsworth and Chastain Disappoint
Snow White & the Huntsman was a film that garnered much more attention than it deserved, purely because of the goings on behind the scenes between Twilight starlet, Kristen Stewart and director Rupert Sanders. The film itself was a hollow take on the classic fairy-tale that lacked the magic and sparkle of Disney’s wonderful animation.
It’s fair to say then that it never really deserved any kind of follow up, despite a charismatic performance from the wonderful Charlize Theron. Nevertheless, Universal Studios approved another film soon after its release. But is The Huntsman: Winter’s War better than what came before it?
Taking place before and directly alongside the events of its predecessor, Winter’s War follows Emily Blunt’s Ice Queen, Freya, as she struggles to come to terms with the death of her baby. She becomes so consumed by rage and guilt that she banishes herself to an ice castle, much like Elsa from Frozen, training an army of kidnapped children to pass her time.
Chris Hemsworth and Jessica Chastain star as two of these warriors, taken from their families at a young age and taught how to fight and how to block out any feelings of love – as per the Queen’s orders. Naturally, this becomes increasingly difficult and provides the film with its romantic subplot.
Unfortunately, the usually excellent Hemsworth and former Oscar-winner Chastain have next-to-no chemistry and their truly dreadful Celtic accents stop the film dead in its tracks. It’s a shame that Winter’s War relies so heavily on these two when Emily Blunt and a sorely underused Charlize Theron are much, much better.
So much better in fact that the screen comes alive whenever they are on screen, whether that is together or flying solo. Blunt suffers slightly due to the nature of her role, after all, she is known to be a bubbly and happy-go-lucky person, but her Ice Queen is mesmerising and heart-breaking to watch nonetheless.
Theron steals the show yet again, despite her lack of screen time and as she did in its predecessor, lifts Winter’s War well above its average plot and dialogue. Elsewhere, British favourite Sheridan Smith is a pleasant comedic break as a foul-mouthed dwarf.
The cinematography is on the whole very good, with pleasant landscapes, reminiscent of Harry Potter dotted alongside CGI castles, polar bears and goblins. The use of practical effects by first-time director Cedric Nicolas-Troyan is also a pleasure to see in this day and age.
Alas, the plot and dialogue of Winter’s War leaves much to be desired and the lack of screen time for Blunt and Theron hampers what could have been an interesting and unique backstory for this particular duo of films.
Overall, The Huntsman: Winter’s War is an average film hampered further by its two leading stars. Fortunately, the inclusion of Blunt and Theron manages to lift it slightly above the standard of its predecessor, but not by enough for it to warrant another follow up. However, the signposts throughout the 115 minute running time confess a sequel is more than likely.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/04/07/hemsworth-and-chastain-disappoint-the-huntsman-review/
It’s fair to say then that it never really deserved any kind of follow up, despite a charismatic performance from the wonderful Charlize Theron. Nevertheless, Universal Studios approved another film soon after its release. But is The Huntsman: Winter’s War better than what came before it?
Taking place before and directly alongside the events of its predecessor, Winter’s War follows Emily Blunt’s Ice Queen, Freya, as she struggles to come to terms with the death of her baby. She becomes so consumed by rage and guilt that she banishes herself to an ice castle, much like Elsa from Frozen, training an army of kidnapped children to pass her time.
Chris Hemsworth and Jessica Chastain star as two of these warriors, taken from their families at a young age and taught how to fight and how to block out any feelings of love – as per the Queen’s orders. Naturally, this becomes increasingly difficult and provides the film with its romantic subplot.
Unfortunately, the usually excellent Hemsworth and former Oscar-winner Chastain have next-to-no chemistry and their truly dreadful Celtic accents stop the film dead in its tracks. It’s a shame that Winter’s War relies so heavily on these two when Emily Blunt and a sorely underused Charlize Theron are much, much better.
So much better in fact that the screen comes alive whenever they are on screen, whether that is together or flying solo. Blunt suffers slightly due to the nature of her role, after all, she is known to be a bubbly and happy-go-lucky person, but her Ice Queen is mesmerising and heart-breaking to watch nonetheless.
Theron steals the show yet again, despite her lack of screen time and as she did in its predecessor, lifts Winter’s War well above its average plot and dialogue. Elsewhere, British favourite Sheridan Smith is a pleasant comedic break as a foul-mouthed dwarf.
The cinematography is on the whole very good, with pleasant landscapes, reminiscent of Harry Potter dotted alongside CGI castles, polar bears and goblins. The use of practical effects by first-time director Cedric Nicolas-Troyan is also a pleasure to see in this day and age.
Alas, the plot and dialogue of Winter’s War leaves much to be desired and the lack of screen time for Blunt and Theron hampers what could have been an interesting and unique backstory for this particular duo of films.
Overall, The Huntsman: Winter’s War is an average film hampered further by its two leading stars. Fortunately, the inclusion of Blunt and Theron manages to lift it slightly above the standard of its predecessor, but not by enough for it to warrant another follow up. However, the signposts throughout the 115 minute running time confess a sequel is more than likely.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/04/07/hemsworth-and-chastain-disappoint-the-huntsman-review/
EM
Eye Marty: The Newly Discovered Autobiography of a Comic Genius
Book
Completed before he died, thirty years ago, this is the newly discovered autobiography of one of the...
Lost Souls of Horror and the Gothic: Fifty-Four Neglected Authors, Actors, Artists and Others
Elizabeth McCarthy and Bernice M. Murphy
Book
Horror and Gothic in all of their various forms have penetrated the cultural mainstream in a manner...
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Mary Poppins Returns (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Disney knocks it out of the park
It was 1964 when the world was introduced to a practically-perfect British nanny in Walt Disney’s Mary Poppins. Back then, Julie Andrews starred as the eponymous character alongside Dick van Dyke and David Tomlinson. It was an instant hit and became one of Disney’s most-loved feature films.
That is, by everyone apart from the author of Mary Poppins, PL Travers. So incensed by what she felt was Disney’s misunderstanding of her source material, she banned all future work with the studio.
So, 54 years later and with Travers’ estate finally agreeing to a sequel (I wonder how much Disney executives had to pay for that), we get a sequel that no-one was really asking for. Mary Poppins Returns brings the titular character back into the hearts of newcomers and fans alike, but is the film as practically-perfect in every way like its lead? Or is it a bit of a dud?
Now an adult with three children, bank teller Michael Banks (Ben Whishaw) learns that his house will be repossessed in five days unless he can pay back a loan. His only hope is to find a missing certificate that shows proof of valuable shares that his father left him years earlier. Just as all seems lost, Michael and his sister Jane (Emily Mortimer) receive the surprise of a lifetime when Mary Poppins (Emily Blunt), the beloved nanny from their childhood, arrives to save the day and take the Banks family on a magical, fun-filled adventure.
Emily Blunt as Mary Poppins? You’re right to be sceptical. After all, how can an American actress bring to life a character so quintessentially British? Remarkably, she does it, with a cracking British accent to match. Blunt is, as she is in all her films, picture-perfect and oozing charisma. In fact, the entire cast is fabulous with the likes of Colin Firth and Meryl Streep joining the party as a sneaky bank manager and Mary Poppins’ cousin respectively. We’ve also got Julie Walters popping up every now and then as Ellen the housekeeper.
The new Banks children are absolutely wonderful. Pixie Davies, Nathanael Saleh and Joel Dawson show a range of emotions that would make seasoned actors blush, but here they thrive and look like they were having a blast. And that’s a trait clearly shared by the entire cast. Lin-Manuel Miranda’s plucky lamp-lighter, Jack, is obviously having the time of his life and this makes the whimsical nature of Mary Poppins Returns even more apparent.
In its hey-day, Mary Poppins was a technical revolution. Mixing live-action with colourful animation made the screen burst alive with imagination. Of course, special effects have moved on in the 50+ years that Mary has been away from our screens, but you’ll be pleased to know that each sequence feels just as magical.
From under the sea adventures to topsy-turvy houses, the ‘action’ scenes are beautifully filmed by director Rob Marshall. One scene in particular, involving hundreds of lamp-lighters is absolutely astounding and exquisitely choreographed.
The finale is typical sickly-sweet Disney, but in a movie populated by cartoon penguins, Irish dogs and the meaning of childhood, why shouldn’t it be?
The setting of Depression-era London lives and breathes before your very eyes. The CGI and practical effects used to create the capital in 1935 is astonishing, and testament to the teams behind the film. That £130million budget was clearly very well spent.
Then there are the songs. We all know the masterpieces from the original, but will there be any here that children will still be singing along to when they grow older? That’s debatable, but there are three or four that have the potential to be future classics. Look out for Trip the Light Fantastic, which makes up part of the film’s best scenes.
The finale is typical sickly-sweet Disney, but in a movie populated by cartoon penguins, Irish dogs and the meaning of childhood, why shouldn’t it be? The world is filled with such atrocities, it’s nice to sit back, relax with the family and enjoy a film that allows you to escape into your own imagination.
Any downsides? Well, while the pacing is nearly spot on, there’s no denying that Mary Poppins Returns is a long film by family film standards. At 130 minutes, it feels like this sequel is perhaps more for fans of the original than the children that the older film was clearly made for.
But these are small gripes in a sequel that pleasantly surprises on each and every turn. While lacking in the typical Disney poignancy, the film’s message is read loud and clear. There’s no doubt that Mary Poppins Returns is yet another hit for the studio and you’re sure to leave the cinema with a huge smile on your face. Mary is back and she means business.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/12/23/mary-poppins-returns-review-disney-knocks-it-out-of-the-park/
That is, by everyone apart from the author of Mary Poppins, PL Travers. So incensed by what she felt was Disney’s misunderstanding of her source material, she banned all future work with the studio.
So, 54 years later and with Travers’ estate finally agreeing to a sequel (I wonder how much Disney executives had to pay for that), we get a sequel that no-one was really asking for. Mary Poppins Returns brings the titular character back into the hearts of newcomers and fans alike, but is the film as practically-perfect in every way like its lead? Or is it a bit of a dud?
Now an adult with three children, bank teller Michael Banks (Ben Whishaw) learns that his house will be repossessed in five days unless he can pay back a loan. His only hope is to find a missing certificate that shows proof of valuable shares that his father left him years earlier. Just as all seems lost, Michael and his sister Jane (Emily Mortimer) receive the surprise of a lifetime when Mary Poppins (Emily Blunt), the beloved nanny from their childhood, arrives to save the day and take the Banks family on a magical, fun-filled adventure.
Emily Blunt as Mary Poppins? You’re right to be sceptical. After all, how can an American actress bring to life a character so quintessentially British? Remarkably, she does it, with a cracking British accent to match. Blunt is, as she is in all her films, picture-perfect and oozing charisma. In fact, the entire cast is fabulous with the likes of Colin Firth and Meryl Streep joining the party as a sneaky bank manager and Mary Poppins’ cousin respectively. We’ve also got Julie Walters popping up every now and then as Ellen the housekeeper.
The new Banks children are absolutely wonderful. Pixie Davies, Nathanael Saleh and Joel Dawson show a range of emotions that would make seasoned actors blush, but here they thrive and look like they were having a blast. And that’s a trait clearly shared by the entire cast. Lin-Manuel Miranda’s plucky lamp-lighter, Jack, is obviously having the time of his life and this makes the whimsical nature of Mary Poppins Returns even more apparent.
In its hey-day, Mary Poppins was a technical revolution. Mixing live-action with colourful animation made the screen burst alive with imagination. Of course, special effects have moved on in the 50+ years that Mary has been away from our screens, but you’ll be pleased to know that each sequence feels just as magical.
From under the sea adventures to topsy-turvy houses, the ‘action’ scenes are beautifully filmed by director Rob Marshall. One scene in particular, involving hundreds of lamp-lighters is absolutely astounding and exquisitely choreographed.
The finale is typical sickly-sweet Disney, but in a movie populated by cartoon penguins, Irish dogs and the meaning of childhood, why shouldn’t it be?
The setting of Depression-era London lives and breathes before your very eyes. The CGI and practical effects used to create the capital in 1935 is astonishing, and testament to the teams behind the film. That £130million budget was clearly very well spent.
Then there are the songs. We all know the masterpieces from the original, but will there be any here that children will still be singing along to when they grow older? That’s debatable, but there are three or four that have the potential to be future classics. Look out for Trip the Light Fantastic, which makes up part of the film’s best scenes.
The finale is typical sickly-sweet Disney, but in a movie populated by cartoon penguins, Irish dogs and the meaning of childhood, why shouldn’t it be? The world is filled with such atrocities, it’s nice to sit back, relax with the family and enjoy a film that allows you to escape into your own imagination.
Any downsides? Well, while the pacing is nearly spot on, there’s no denying that Mary Poppins Returns is a long film by family film standards. At 130 minutes, it feels like this sequel is perhaps more for fans of the original than the children that the older film was clearly made for.
But these are small gripes in a sequel that pleasantly surprises on each and every turn. While lacking in the typical Disney poignancy, the film’s message is read loud and clear. There’s no doubt that Mary Poppins Returns is yet another hit for the studio and you’re sure to leave the cinema with a huge smile on your face. Mary is back and she means business.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/12/23/mary-poppins-returns-review-disney-knocks-it-out-of-the-park/