Search
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.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Bad Boys II (2003) in Movies
Feb 25, 2019
What ya gonna do
this time?
Contains spoilers, click to show
Whilst the first outing of the Bad Boys shocked me by how good it actually was, this one left me a little disappointed. I was hardly expecting an Oscar winning deal here, as this was always going to be a Michael Bay adrenalin rush, but for a film with a two and a half hour running time, the adrenalin came in too short a bursts.
Bad Boys was Bay's first film and was but a taster of his over the top film making, which first arrives in The Rock a year afterwards, but this made eight years later was obviously going to take this to the next level, if not several levels further than that. But to me, it didn't. Granted, the action was thrilling, outrageous and very enjoyable, but the character development was barely visible. They bicker, Lawrence moaned a lot and Smith was cool and likable but there was just a shell of what there should have been. The entire story, including what's left of their character dynamics are only present to set up the next great action sequence.
Then, the was the taste issue. The crux of the plot as it developed was that the drug dealing villains where using corpses to smuggle drugs, and this was used to "Comic Effect" in two major set-pieces. Though in the first, a car chase, it was black comedy as bodies came thick and fast from the back of a van to be run over by the pursuing cars, the second was pushing the boundaries in a to a more disturbing area.
A criticism levied at Michael Bay by British critic Mark Kermode has been that he is a filmmaker with "pornographic sensibilities". Not just in the literal sense, but in the way that he views everything from cars, women and explosions for example. But this was no more clearly re- enforced than in a scene about 90 minutes in, when our two 'bad boys' are searching a morgue and after pulling back the sheets on fat white guys, they reveal a large breasted young woman, who is refer to as "The Bimbo" if my memory serves. It's worrying because I don't know whether this was being played for laughs or was supposed to be a titillating shot of a well endowed woman? Is it right to show a dead woman, who looks to have been strangled to death and referred to a bimbo in a mainstream 15 certificated movie?
I don't want to sound like a prude but the tone of this and pretty much every scene with the bodies being used, seemed to be in plain Bad, BAD taste and though this humour can play well in the right genre of movie, this just simply wasn't the film to do it in, in my opinion. But, that criticism aside, my main issues are the pacing. It was just too hollow to sustain its running time and my mind was beginning to wander from time to time between the spectacular action and the few moments of decent comedy.
It just didn't have the magic of the 90′s actioner, a genre which had faded considerably by the early 2000′s, and without offering anything new besides improved action, which was worth the ticket or DVD price in its own right, or even retaining the original character of the original, this was a sequel failed to hold its own.
Bad Boys was Bay's first film and was but a taster of his over the top film making, which first arrives in The Rock a year afterwards, but this made eight years later was obviously going to take this to the next level, if not several levels further than that. But to me, it didn't. Granted, the action was thrilling, outrageous and very enjoyable, but the character development was barely visible. They bicker, Lawrence moaned a lot and Smith was cool and likable but there was just a shell of what there should have been. The entire story, including what's left of their character dynamics are only present to set up the next great action sequence.
Then, the was the taste issue. The crux of the plot as it developed was that the drug dealing villains where using corpses to smuggle drugs, and this was used to "Comic Effect" in two major set-pieces. Though in the first, a car chase, it was black comedy as bodies came thick and fast from the back of a van to be run over by the pursuing cars, the second was pushing the boundaries in a to a more disturbing area.
A criticism levied at Michael Bay by British critic Mark Kermode has been that he is a filmmaker with "pornographic sensibilities". Not just in the literal sense, but in the way that he views everything from cars, women and explosions for example. But this was no more clearly re- enforced than in a scene about 90 minutes in, when our two 'bad boys' are searching a morgue and after pulling back the sheets on fat white guys, they reveal a large breasted young woman, who is refer to as "The Bimbo" if my memory serves. It's worrying because I don't know whether this was being played for laughs or was supposed to be a titillating shot of a well endowed woman? Is it right to show a dead woman, who looks to have been strangled to death and referred to a bimbo in a mainstream 15 certificated movie?
I don't want to sound like a prude but the tone of this and pretty much every scene with the bodies being used, seemed to be in plain Bad, BAD taste and though this humour can play well in the right genre of movie, this just simply wasn't the film to do it in, in my opinion. But, that criticism aside, my main issues are the pacing. It was just too hollow to sustain its running time and my mind was beginning to wander from time to time between the spectacular action and the few moments of decent comedy.
It just didn't have the magic of the 90′s actioner, a genre which had faded considerably by the early 2000′s, and without offering anything new besides improved action, which was worth the ticket or DVD price in its own right, or even retaining the original character of the original, this was a sequel failed to hold its own.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Monty Python's Life of Brian (1979) in Movies
Mar 15, 2021
A classic
Film #16 on the 100 Movies Bucket List: Monty Python’s Life of Brian
Life of Brian (1979] is an old school comedy classic, and alongside Python’s take on the Holy Grail, were fairly revered comedies when I was growing up and I doubt there’s many people over a certain age that haven’t seen these films. Films like this are my favourite type of comedy, and I just wish they still made films similar today.
Life of Brian follows Brian (Graham Chapman), who was born on the same night one stable down from Jesus, yet has lived an entirely different life. Fed up of the Romans, Brian joins the People’s Front of Judea led by Reggie (John a Cleese), whose aim is to get the Romans out of Judea. After being caught infiltrating the palace and put in front of Pontius Pilate (Michael Palin), Brian escapes capture and in his bid to hide from the Romans, winds up relaying some of the teachings he learnt from Jesus. This spurs a crowd into thinking he is the next Messiah, leaving Brian to try and evade his followers as well as the Romans, with rather dire consequences.
This is the Pythons second proper feature film, following on from the hugely successful Holy Grail and their tv series, Flying Circus. Directed by Terry Jones, the purpose of Life of Brian was to lampoon and satirise the New Testament, and more specifically, to make fun of followers of mistaken religious figures. To be quite honest, I don’t think they could make comedy films like this anymore. This lampoon, satire style was fairly rife even up until the 90s (with the likes of Hot Shots and The Naked Gun sequels), but I think they’d struggle to make anything like this nowadays which is a great shame. The humour in this isn’t offensive at all, it’s intelligent and adult and whipsmart and wonderfully done. Admittedly there are a few scenes that may cause some offence purely because it was made when times were different over 40 years ago, but there’s also a lot in here that is surprisingly relevant even in today’s society – one scene where the People’s Front of Judea discuss women’s rights and a request from Stan to be known as Loretta is unexpectedly well done and respectful, albeit with a Python comedy edge. There are some genius works of comedy in this film too that have become cult favourites, from Palin’s depiction of Pontius Pilate with a speech impediment (“Stwike him centuwion, vewy wuffly!”) to Terry Jones’ mother crying out to Brian’s followers that “he’s not the Messiah, he’s a very naughty boy!”. Personally, Palin’s take on Pilate and all of his scenes are my favourite of the entire film.
This isn’t to say that Life of Brian is perfect. There are some scenes and acting that are maybe a little too pantomime-esque (even for a parody) and there are some jokes and scenes that don’t quite land - the alien scene (yes I did say “alien”) is one that jumps to mind. Because of this some scenes can seem rather drawn out if you don’t get the gag. Humour like this isn’t for everyone, although for me it’s my favourite kind. This is British comedy at its best and a shining example that humour doesn’t be crude to be funny. I mean who else other than the Monty Python troupe could pull off crucified men singing “Always Look on the Bright Side of Life”?
Life of Brian (1979] is an old school comedy classic, and alongside Python’s take on the Holy Grail, were fairly revered comedies when I was growing up and I doubt there’s many people over a certain age that haven’t seen these films. Films like this are my favourite type of comedy, and I just wish they still made films similar today.
Life of Brian follows Brian (Graham Chapman), who was born on the same night one stable down from Jesus, yet has lived an entirely different life. Fed up of the Romans, Brian joins the People’s Front of Judea led by Reggie (John a Cleese), whose aim is to get the Romans out of Judea. After being caught infiltrating the palace and put in front of Pontius Pilate (Michael Palin), Brian escapes capture and in his bid to hide from the Romans, winds up relaying some of the teachings he learnt from Jesus. This spurs a crowd into thinking he is the next Messiah, leaving Brian to try and evade his followers as well as the Romans, with rather dire consequences.
This is the Pythons second proper feature film, following on from the hugely successful Holy Grail and their tv series, Flying Circus. Directed by Terry Jones, the purpose of Life of Brian was to lampoon and satirise the New Testament, and more specifically, to make fun of followers of mistaken religious figures. To be quite honest, I don’t think they could make comedy films like this anymore. This lampoon, satire style was fairly rife even up until the 90s (with the likes of Hot Shots and The Naked Gun sequels), but I think they’d struggle to make anything like this nowadays which is a great shame. The humour in this isn’t offensive at all, it’s intelligent and adult and whipsmart and wonderfully done. Admittedly there are a few scenes that may cause some offence purely because it was made when times were different over 40 years ago, but there’s also a lot in here that is surprisingly relevant even in today’s society – one scene where the People’s Front of Judea discuss women’s rights and a request from Stan to be known as Loretta is unexpectedly well done and respectful, albeit with a Python comedy edge. There are some genius works of comedy in this film too that have become cult favourites, from Palin’s depiction of Pontius Pilate with a speech impediment (“Stwike him centuwion, vewy wuffly!”) to Terry Jones’ mother crying out to Brian’s followers that “he’s not the Messiah, he’s a very naughty boy!”. Personally, Palin’s take on Pilate and all of his scenes are my favourite of the entire film.
This isn’t to say that Life of Brian is perfect. There are some scenes and acting that are maybe a little too pantomime-esque (even for a parody) and there are some jokes and scenes that don’t quite land - the alien scene (yes I did say “alien”) is one that jumps to mind. Because of this some scenes can seem rather drawn out if you don’t get the gag. Humour like this isn’t for everyone, although for me it’s my favourite kind. This is British comedy at its best and a shining example that humour doesn’t be crude to be funny. I mean who else other than the Monty Python troupe could pull off crucified men singing “Always Look on the Bright Side of Life”?
Hazel (1853 KP) rated How Not to Fall in Love, Actually: A Laugh-Out-Loud Romantic Comedy in Books
Dec 7, 2018
<i>I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.</i>
“Life, as any chancer knows, is 10% planning, 10% design and 80% totally winging it …” and Catherine Bennetto’s debut novel <i>How Not to Fall in Love, Actually</i> provides a perfect example. The protagonist, Emma George, does not have the most stable of lives: a job she is not that great at, a disappointing boyfriend, and not much hope for the future. Clinging on to dreams of working in the film industry in New York, Emma plods on in her frustrating London job, however, things are due to get a lot worse.
A quick succession of events leaves Emma boyfriend-less, homeless, penniless, grandmother-less, and, to top it off, pregnant. Although letting off a woe-is-me aura, Emma does not realise how fortunate she is. A series of serendipitous incidents, a fashion-obsessed mother, and a sister on the other side of the world make Emma’s life more bearable. Moving into her late grandmother’s Wimbledon cottage and acquiring a handsome lodger, with a loving family just around the corner, Emma’s life has the potential to be happier than it has ever been before – if only she could see that.
<i>How Not to Fall in Love, Actually</i> (a title presumably inspired by the film Love Actually) is a typical British romantic comedy that provides light-hearted relief with its jovial narrative. Full of eccentric characters – a foul-mouthed four-year-old, a felony-obsessed octogenarian, and a harried mother of four – this novel is certain to entertain, although whether it deserves the “laugh-out-loud” status it promises is questionable (but then I am more of a laugh-inside type of reader).
One of the best things about this book – and many British chick-lit – is the authenticity of the characters and settings. Although a few of the scenarios may be toward the extreme end of the scale, none of the occurrences are too far-fetched, and all the characters are relatable in some way, despite their idiosyncrasies.
Personally, I tend to avoid chick-lit, finding them rather lowbrow and written for the sake of writing. Books that have love or sexual encounters as their key theme are not something I enjoy. Therefore, I was pleasantly surprised when <i>How Not to Fall in Love, Actually</i> exceeded these rather low expectations. Admittedly, there are one too many sexual references and far too much swearing, particularly from a four-year-old character – although that does add to the overall humour - but the general storyline was enjoyable. Despite the title hinting at a love-focused story, there were so many other elements to the plot, resulting in a much more interesting novel.
<i>How Not to Fall in Love, Actually</i> is obviously targeted at women, but can be enjoyed by adults of all ages. Those in their twenties and thirties may be able to relate to the struggles Emma is dealing with, whereas older generations may be able to reminisce about their past dilemmas. Whatever the reader’s situation, this book brings laughter, relaxation and the realisation that life is not so bad.
“Life, as any chancer knows, is 10% planning, 10% design and 80% totally winging it …” and Catherine Bennetto’s debut novel <i>How Not to Fall in Love, Actually</i> provides a perfect example. The protagonist, Emma George, does not have the most stable of lives: a job she is not that great at, a disappointing boyfriend, and not much hope for the future. Clinging on to dreams of working in the film industry in New York, Emma plods on in her frustrating London job, however, things are due to get a lot worse.
A quick succession of events leaves Emma boyfriend-less, homeless, penniless, grandmother-less, and, to top it off, pregnant. Although letting off a woe-is-me aura, Emma does not realise how fortunate she is. A series of serendipitous incidents, a fashion-obsessed mother, and a sister on the other side of the world make Emma’s life more bearable. Moving into her late grandmother’s Wimbledon cottage and acquiring a handsome lodger, with a loving family just around the corner, Emma’s life has the potential to be happier than it has ever been before – if only she could see that.
<i>How Not to Fall in Love, Actually</i> (a title presumably inspired by the film Love Actually) is a typical British romantic comedy that provides light-hearted relief with its jovial narrative. Full of eccentric characters – a foul-mouthed four-year-old, a felony-obsessed octogenarian, and a harried mother of four – this novel is certain to entertain, although whether it deserves the “laugh-out-loud” status it promises is questionable (but then I am more of a laugh-inside type of reader).
One of the best things about this book – and many British chick-lit – is the authenticity of the characters and settings. Although a few of the scenarios may be toward the extreme end of the scale, none of the occurrences are too far-fetched, and all the characters are relatable in some way, despite their idiosyncrasies.
Personally, I tend to avoid chick-lit, finding them rather lowbrow and written for the sake of writing. Books that have love or sexual encounters as their key theme are not something I enjoy. Therefore, I was pleasantly surprised when <i>How Not to Fall in Love, Actually</i> exceeded these rather low expectations. Admittedly, there are one too many sexual references and far too much swearing, particularly from a four-year-old character – although that does add to the overall humour - but the general storyline was enjoyable. Despite the title hinting at a love-focused story, there were so many other elements to the plot, resulting in a much more interesting novel.
<i>How Not to Fall in Love, Actually</i> is obviously targeted at women, but can be enjoyed by adults of all ages. Those in their twenties and thirties may be able to relate to the struggles Emma is dealing with, whereas older generations may be able to reminisce about their past dilemmas. Whatever the reader’s situation, this book brings laughter, relaxation and the realisation that life is not so bad.
Awix (3310 KP) rated Peterloo (2018) in Movies
Nov 9, 2018 (Updated Nov 9, 2018)
Inescapably worthy costume drama sheds some light on a half-forgotten landmark in British political history, but in the process kind of comes across as Barry Lyndon as written by Jeremy Corbyn. Decent, heroic, possibly slightly naive reformers campaign to reform society; greedy and self-serving politicians, magistrates and businessmen unite to stop them; in the end the troops are sent in.
Not quite as punishingly didactic as it sounds, but this may not have been intentional: what may also have been an accident is how close the film frequently comes to being actually quite funny. There are some spectacular wigs and hats, startling accents, and very broad performances from most of the cast - it almost feels like a parody of a bad costume drama in places. There's a scene where a family of semi-literate mill-workers pause to discuss the economic effects of the Corn Laws in some detail, mostly for the audience's benefit, while another scene arguably recycles a Monty Python gag. Casting someone from Blackadder as the Prince Regent was probably a misstep, too.
Still, it all reeks with conviction and moral outrage, and in the end the Peterloo massacre itself is staged quite well - though I still think it could have been handled slightly more cinematically. This is the movie equivalent of someone who hands out the Socialist Worker in the street: the intentions are so laudable that you kind of feel obliged to indulge the earnest lack of self-awareness. Looks quite good too.
Not quite as punishingly didactic as it sounds, but this may not have been intentional: what may also have been an accident is how close the film frequently comes to being actually quite funny. There are some spectacular wigs and hats, startling accents, and very broad performances from most of the cast - it almost feels like a parody of a bad costume drama in places. There's a scene where a family of semi-literate mill-workers pause to discuss the economic effects of the Corn Laws in some detail, mostly for the audience's benefit, while another scene arguably recycles a Monty Python gag. Casting someone from Blackadder as the Prince Regent was probably a misstep, too.
Still, it all reeks with conviction and moral outrage, and in the end the Peterloo massacre itself is staged quite well - though I still think it could have been handled slightly more cinematically. This is the movie equivalent of someone who hands out the Socialist Worker in the street: the intentions are so laudable that you kind of feel obliged to indulge the earnest lack of self-awareness. Looks quite good too.
The Secret Agent: Inside of the World of the Football Agent
Book
'I always knew I wanted to do something in football just like I always knew I wanted to be rich.' So...
Enchantment: The Life of Audrey Hepburn
Book
Born in Brussels in 1929, Audrey Hepburn was the daughter of a British father and a Dutch Baroness....
Long Weekend: Life in the English Country House Between the Wars
Book
"[A] fantastically readable and endlessly fascinating book...Delicious, occasionally fantastical,...
N. F. Simpson: Collected Plays: A Resounding Tinkle; The Hole; Gladly Otherwise; One Way Pendulum; The Cresta Run; Was He Anyone?; If So, Then Yes
6.0
Rate It
Book
"I'm terribly methodical and orderly, but I have a strange, underlying contempt for it ...what I try...
A Still Untitled, (Not Quite) Autobiography
Book
Actor Ron Moody has enthralled generations with his masterly performance as Fagin in both the stage...