Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Shallows (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
The Deathly Shallows, part 1
Every shark movie is inevitably compared (unfavourably) against Spielberg’s classic 1975 tourist-muncher. And “The Shallows” is no exception. But while not a 5-Fad classic, this flick comes pretty close by being hugely enjoyable and having a lot going for it.
Waxing lyrically. The shapely Blake Liveley.
Waxing lyrically. The shapely Blake Liveley.
Blake Lively (“The Age of Adeline“) plays surfer and trainee doctor Nancy, still grieving the recent death from cancer of her mother and travelling to a remote Mexican surf beach where she has photos of her mother surfing while pregnant with her. While surfing alone, Nancy is attacked a couple of hundred yards from the shore by a Great White and severely injured. She has the choice of refuge of either a low rock or another less palatable floating object. Choosing the rock (at low tide) she is faced with the dilemma of both surviving her injuries and then being rescued before the high tide takes the rock and leaves her to the mercy of the ever circling big-fish.
We're going to need a bigger rock.
We’re going to need a bigger rock.
A big summer blockbuster this is not, with a total cast of eleven (not including a guest appearance of Steven Seagull (as himself)). But the small cast doesn’t make it less gripping, and gripping it most certainly is, with tension building progressively (emphasised periodically by an on-screen clock) with the countdown to high tide.
Blake Lively is an underrated actress and really delivers the goods here. And bearing in mind the problems that Spielberg had with his mechanical shark Bruce (named after Spielberg’s lawyer) the appearance of the shark is limited to where actually needed, with Lively having to fill in the blanks with reaction shots. As your imagination is still far better than any special effects, this is hugely effective for certain sequences.
Pure horror: here Dad had gone down to the video rental and come back with 'Dirty Grandpa'.
Pure horror: her Dad had gone down to the video rental and come back with ‘Dirty Grandpa’.
The film draws similarities to another interesting entry in the “Jaws” genre – “Open Water 2: Adrift” from 2006. In that film there was the same incessant threat of shark attack combined with the audience frustration that safety (in that case, the deck of their yacht, if only they had let a ladder down) being so near. Here the 200 yards to the shore is shoutable to but still 190 yards too far.
The cinematography (by Flavio Martínez Labiano) is also just beautifully done with some stunning surf and underwater shots that not only highlight Ms Lively’s lithely (sic) figure and her Californian surfing skills, but also the beauty of the ‘Mexican coast’ (actually Lord Howe Island in New South Wales, Australia).
“The Shallows” was written by Anthony Jaswinski and directed by Jaume Collet-Serra (the director of “Non-Stop“, aka Taken 3.5). It comes with a truly impressive BvS quotient of just 5.9%!
So with all of this going for it, you would think that my rating is heading towards at least a 4.5. But all films like this require a satisfying denouement, and unfortunately this is where this one comes off the rails. It is just plain silly and, together with an unnecessary and irritating epilogue scene, diminishes what was on track to be one of the best films of the summer. So here’s the “One Mann’s Movies” solution:
Using Final Cut X, Adobe Premier or your favourite video editing suite, cut out the scene from 115:00 to 116:00 from “Jaws”;
Photoshop Blake Lively’s face onto Roy Scheider’s body.
Insert the finished clip into “The Shallows” at about 82 minutes in.
Enjoy a 5-Fad classic!
This limitation aside, it’s still worth your while hunting it out at a cinema near you, since the fantastic cinematography is best suited to a big screen.
Waxing lyrically. The shapely Blake Liveley.
Waxing lyrically. The shapely Blake Liveley.
Blake Lively (“The Age of Adeline“) plays surfer and trainee doctor Nancy, still grieving the recent death from cancer of her mother and travelling to a remote Mexican surf beach where she has photos of her mother surfing while pregnant with her. While surfing alone, Nancy is attacked a couple of hundred yards from the shore by a Great White and severely injured. She has the choice of refuge of either a low rock or another less palatable floating object. Choosing the rock (at low tide) she is faced with the dilemma of both surviving her injuries and then being rescued before the high tide takes the rock and leaves her to the mercy of the ever circling big-fish.
We're going to need a bigger rock.
We’re going to need a bigger rock.
A big summer blockbuster this is not, with a total cast of eleven (not including a guest appearance of Steven Seagull (as himself)). But the small cast doesn’t make it less gripping, and gripping it most certainly is, with tension building progressively (emphasised periodically by an on-screen clock) with the countdown to high tide.
Blake Lively is an underrated actress and really delivers the goods here. And bearing in mind the problems that Spielberg had with his mechanical shark Bruce (named after Spielberg’s lawyer) the appearance of the shark is limited to where actually needed, with Lively having to fill in the blanks with reaction shots. As your imagination is still far better than any special effects, this is hugely effective for certain sequences.
Pure horror: here Dad had gone down to the video rental and come back with 'Dirty Grandpa'.
Pure horror: her Dad had gone down to the video rental and come back with ‘Dirty Grandpa’.
The film draws similarities to another interesting entry in the “Jaws” genre – “Open Water 2: Adrift” from 2006. In that film there was the same incessant threat of shark attack combined with the audience frustration that safety (in that case, the deck of their yacht, if only they had let a ladder down) being so near. Here the 200 yards to the shore is shoutable to but still 190 yards too far.
The cinematography (by Flavio Martínez Labiano) is also just beautifully done with some stunning surf and underwater shots that not only highlight Ms Lively’s lithely (sic) figure and her Californian surfing skills, but also the beauty of the ‘Mexican coast’ (actually Lord Howe Island in New South Wales, Australia).
“The Shallows” was written by Anthony Jaswinski and directed by Jaume Collet-Serra (the director of “Non-Stop“, aka Taken 3.5). It comes with a truly impressive BvS quotient of just 5.9%!
So with all of this going for it, you would think that my rating is heading towards at least a 4.5. But all films like this require a satisfying denouement, and unfortunately this is where this one comes off the rails. It is just plain silly and, together with an unnecessary and irritating epilogue scene, diminishes what was on track to be one of the best films of the summer. So here’s the “One Mann’s Movies” solution:
Using Final Cut X, Adobe Premier or your favourite video editing suite, cut out the scene from 115:00 to 116:00 from “Jaws”;
Photoshop Blake Lively’s face onto Roy Scheider’s body.
Insert the finished clip into “The Shallows” at about 82 minutes in.
Enjoy a 5-Fad classic!
This limitation aside, it’s still worth your while hunting it out at a cinema near you, since the fantastic cinematography is best suited to a big screen.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Light Between Oceans (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“You only have to forgive once. To resent, you have to do it all day, every day”.
In my review of “The Two Faces of January” I described it as a film that “will be particularly enjoyed by older viewers who remember when story and location were put far ahead of CGI-based special effects”. In watching this film I was again linking in my mind to that earlier film… and that was before the lead character suddenly brought up the two faces of Janus!
For this is a good old-fashioned weepy melodrama: leisurely, character based and guaranteed to give the tear ducts a good old cleaning out.
It’s 1918 and Michael Fassbender plays Tom Sherbourne, a damaged man seeking solitude and reflection after four years of hell in the trenches. As a short-term job he takes the post of lighthouse keeper on the isolated slab of rock called Janus – sat between two oceans (presumably as this is Western Australia, the Indian and the Southern Oceans). The isolation of the job previously sent his predecessor off his trolley.
En route to his workplace he is immediately attracted to headmaster’s daughter Isabel (Alicia Vikander) who practically THROWS herself at Tom (the hussy), given that they only have snatches of a day at a time to be together during shore leave. Tom falls for her (as a hot blooded man, and with Vikander’s performance, this is entirely believable!) and the two marry to retire to their ‘fortress of solitude’ together to raise a family and live happily ever after…. or not… For the path of true motherhood runs not smoothly for poor Isabel, and a baby in a drifting boat spells both joy and despair for the couple as the story unwinds.
(I’ll stop my synopsis there, since I think the trailer – and other reviews I’ve read – give too much away).
While Fassbender again demonstrates what a mesmerising actor he is, the acting kudos in this one really goes again to Vikander, who pulls out all the stops in a role that demands fragility, naivety, resentment, anger and despair across its course. While I don’t think the film in general will trouble the Oscars, this is a leading actress performance that I could well see nominated. In a supporting role, with less screen-time, is Rachel Weisz who again needs to demonstrate her acting stripes in a demanding role. (Also a shout-out to young Florence Clery who is wonderfully naturalistic as the 4 year old Lucy-Grace.)
So this is a film with a stellar class, but it doesn’t really all gel together satisfyingly into a stellar – or at least particularly memorable – movie. After a slow start, director Derek Cianfrance (“The Place Beyond the Pines”) ladles on the melodrama interminably, and over a two hour running time the word overwrought comes to mind.
The script (also by Cianfrance, from the novel by M.L.Stedman) could have been tightened up, particularly in the first reel, and the audience given a bit more time to reflect and absorb in the second half.
The film is also curiously ‘place-less’. I assumed this was somewhere off Ireland until someone suddenly starting singing “Waltzing Matilda” (badly) and random people started talking in Aussie accents: most strange.
Cinematography by Adam Arkapaw (“Macbeth”) is also frustratingly inconsistent. The landscapes of the island, steam trains, sunsets and the multiple boatings in between is just beautiful (assisted by a delicate score by the great Alexandre Desplat which is well used) but get close up (and the camera does often get VERY close up) and a lack of ‘steadicam’ becomes infuriating, with faces dancing about the screen and – in one particular scene early on – wandering off on either side with the camera apparently unsure which one to follow!
A memorable cinema experience only for Vikander’s outstanding performance. Now where are those tissues…
For this is a good old-fashioned weepy melodrama: leisurely, character based and guaranteed to give the tear ducts a good old cleaning out.
It’s 1918 and Michael Fassbender plays Tom Sherbourne, a damaged man seeking solitude and reflection after four years of hell in the trenches. As a short-term job he takes the post of lighthouse keeper on the isolated slab of rock called Janus – sat between two oceans (presumably as this is Western Australia, the Indian and the Southern Oceans). The isolation of the job previously sent his predecessor off his trolley.
En route to his workplace he is immediately attracted to headmaster’s daughter Isabel (Alicia Vikander) who practically THROWS herself at Tom (the hussy), given that they only have snatches of a day at a time to be together during shore leave. Tom falls for her (as a hot blooded man, and with Vikander’s performance, this is entirely believable!) and the two marry to retire to their ‘fortress of solitude’ together to raise a family and live happily ever after…. or not… For the path of true motherhood runs not smoothly for poor Isabel, and a baby in a drifting boat spells both joy and despair for the couple as the story unwinds.
(I’ll stop my synopsis there, since I think the trailer – and other reviews I’ve read – give too much away).
While Fassbender again demonstrates what a mesmerising actor he is, the acting kudos in this one really goes again to Vikander, who pulls out all the stops in a role that demands fragility, naivety, resentment, anger and despair across its course. While I don’t think the film in general will trouble the Oscars, this is a leading actress performance that I could well see nominated. In a supporting role, with less screen-time, is Rachel Weisz who again needs to demonstrate her acting stripes in a demanding role. (Also a shout-out to young Florence Clery who is wonderfully naturalistic as the 4 year old Lucy-Grace.)
So this is a film with a stellar class, but it doesn’t really all gel together satisfyingly into a stellar – or at least particularly memorable – movie. After a slow start, director Derek Cianfrance (“The Place Beyond the Pines”) ladles on the melodrama interminably, and over a two hour running time the word overwrought comes to mind.
The script (also by Cianfrance, from the novel by M.L.Stedman) could have been tightened up, particularly in the first reel, and the audience given a bit more time to reflect and absorb in the second half.
The film is also curiously ‘place-less’. I assumed this was somewhere off Ireland until someone suddenly starting singing “Waltzing Matilda” (badly) and random people started talking in Aussie accents: most strange.
Cinematography by Adam Arkapaw (“Macbeth”) is also frustratingly inconsistent. The landscapes of the island, steam trains, sunsets and the multiple boatings in between is just beautiful (assisted by a delicate score by the great Alexandre Desplat which is well used) but get close up (and the camera does often get VERY close up) and a lack of ‘steadicam’ becomes infuriating, with faces dancing about the screen and – in one particular scene early on – wandering off on either side with the camera apparently unsure which one to follow!
A memorable cinema experience only for Vikander’s outstanding performance. Now where are those tissues…
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Denial (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Jewry Trial.
It’s the mid-90’s and Deborah Lipstadt (Rachael Weisz, “The Lobster“), an American professor of Holocaust studies at a US university has written a book naming and shaming David Irving (Timothy Spall, “Mr Turner”) as a Nazi-apologist who denies that the Holocaust ever happened. Filing a law suit against Penguin Books and Lipstadt in the UK, Lipstadt chooses to fight rather than settle and takes the case to the High Courts in a much publicised trial.
Help is required and Lipstadt is assigned a hot-shot solicitor (if that’s not an oxymoron) in the form of Anthony Julius (Andrew Scott, “Sherlock”) and top barrister Richard Rampton (Tom Wilkinson, “Selma“). The stage is set for an epic legal battle that will establish not just legal precedent but also historical precedent affecting the entire Jewish people.
This film’s trailer really appealed to me, and I was looking forward to this film. And that view clearly also got through to people of my age bracket (and older) since the cinema was pretty full. But ultimately I was disappointed by the film.
But first the good points.
The cinematography by Haris Zambarloukos (“Thor”, “Mamma Mia”) is memorable, particularly for the Auschwitz tour which is done in an impressively bleak way on an astoundingly bleak winter’s day.
Andrew Scott, so woefully miscast as “C” in “Spectre“, here is a nice shoo-in for the cocksure but aloof expert. And Tom Wilkinson, who can seldom put a movie foot wrong, is also perfectly cast as the claret-swigging defence-lead: passionless and analytical even when facing the horrors of a trip to Auschwitz.
Timothy Spall’s Irving is well portrayed as the intelligent and articulate – albeit deluded – eccentric he no doubt is.
There are also some nice cameo performances, including John Sessions (“Florence Foster Jenkins“) as an Oxbridge history boffin and Mark Gatiss (“Sherlock”) as an Auschwitz expert.
However, these positives don’t outweigh the big negative that the broader ensemble cast never really gels together well. The first time this is evident is in an office meeting of the defence team where the interactions have a sheen of falseness about them that is barely hidden behind some weak script and forced nervous laughter. Tea can’t help.
In particular, attractive Kiwi actress Caren Pistorius (“The Light Between Oceans“) seems to have been given a poor hand to play with as the junior member of the team. A late night interaction with her boyfriend, who whinges at her for having to work late, seems to be taken from a more sexist age: “the 70’s called and they want their script back”.
None of this is helped by Rachel Weisz, who I’m normally a fan of, but here she is hindered by some rather dodgy lines by David Hare (“The Reader”) and an unconvincing (well, to me at least) New York accent. For me I’m afraid she just doesn’t seem to adequately convey her passion for the cause.
While the execution of the court scenes are well done, the film is hampered by its opening five words: “Based on a True Story”. This is something of a disease at the moment in the movies, and whilst in many films (the recent “Lion” for example) the story is in the journey rather than the result, with “Denial” the story is designed to build to a tense result that unfortunately lacks any sort of tension – since the result is pre-ordained.
This is all a great shame, since director Mick Jackson (“LA Story”, in his first feature for nearly 15 years) has the potential here for a great movie. Perhaps a more fictionalised version (“vaguely based on a true story”) might have provided more of a foundation for a better film?
Help is required and Lipstadt is assigned a hot-shot solicitor (if that’s not an oxymoron) in the form of Anthony Julius (Andrew Scott, “Sherlock”) and top barrister Richard Rampton (Tom Wilkinson, “Selma“). The stage is set for an epic legal battle that will establish not just legal precedent but also historical precedent affecting the entire Jewish people.
This film’s trailer really appealed to me, and I was looking forward to this film. And that view clearly also got through to people of my age bracket (and older) since the cinema was pretty full. But ultimately I was disappointed by the film.
But first the good points.
The cinematography by Haris Zambarloukos (“Thor”, “Mamma Mia”) is memorable, particularly for the Auschwitz tour which is done in an impressively bleak way on an astoundingly bleak winter’s day.
Andrew Scott, so woefully miscast as “C” in “Spectre“, here is a nice shoo-in for the cocksure but aloof expert. And Tom Wilkinson, who can seldom put a movie foot wrong, is also perfectly cast as the claret-swigging defence-lead: passionless and analytical even when facing the horrors of a trip to Auschwitz.
Timothy Spall’s Irving is well portrayed as the intelligent and articulate – albeit deluded – eccentric he no doubt is.
There are also some nice cameo performances, including John Sessions (“Florence Foster Jenkins“) as an Oxbridge history boffin and Mark Gatiss (“Sherlock”) as an Auschwitz expert.
However, these positives don’t outweigh the big negative that the broader ensemble cast never really gels together well. The first time this is evident is in an office meeting of the defence team where the interactions have a sheen of falseness about them that is barely hidden behind some weak script and forced nervous laughter. Tea can’t help.
In particular, attractive Kiwi actress Caren Pistorius (“The Light Between Oceans“) seems to have been given a poor hand to play with as the junior member of the team. A late night interaction with her boyfriend, who whinges at her for having to work late, seems to be taken from a more sexist age: “the 70’s called and they want their script back”.
None of this is helped by Rachel Weisz, who I’m normally a fan of, but here she is hindered by some rather dodgy lines by David Hare (“The Reader”) and an unconvincing (well, to me at least) New York accent. For me I’m afraid she just doesn’t seem to adequately convey her passion for the cause.
While the execution of the court scenes are well done, the film is hampered by its opening five words: “Based on a True Story”. This is something of a disease at the moment in the movies, and whilst in many films (the recent “Lion” for example) the story is in the journey rather than the result, with “Denial” the story is designed to build to a tense result that unfortunately lacks any sort of tension – since the result is pre-ordained.
This is all a great shame, since director Mick Jackson (“LA Story”, in his first feature for nearly 15 years) has the potential here for a great movie. Perhaps a more fictionalised version (“vaguely based on a true story”) might have provided more of a foundation for a better film?
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Spectre (2015) in Movies
Jul 20, 2017
Well written (1 more)
Good direction
Mr Hinx (1 more)
Not enough Cristoph Waltz
As good as the last?
Contains spoilers, click to show
When Casino Royale released in 2006, it was to be a soft reboot of the franchise that showed viewers the events of Bond’s first mission and it strived to rectify some of the silly gadgets etc that were being over-used with Brosnan’s Bond. In my opinion, Casino Royale was a great film, it just wasn’t a Bond film. It done away with all of the silly gimmicks and cheesy one liners and was an introduction to a more grounded version of the iconic character, which made for a great spy thriller but not a great Bond movie. Then Quantum of Solace came out and literally nobody cared, not many people went to see it, it didn’t make much money at the box office and to this day I’ve still not seen that whole movie from start to finish and to be honest, I’m perfectly okay with that. Skyfall was the third Craig Bond movie to be released and it was a triumph. Finally Craig felt like he was actually playing Bond and not just some random hard ass military spy. It even flirted with the idea of gadgets, had a flamboyant supervillain and introduced a young, fresh faced Q, which was a nice touch. The movie ended with Silva killing Judi Dench’s M and Bond killing Silva, Ralph Fiennes was then appointed with the title of M and Naomi Harris was revealed to be the new Moneypenny. So with the last movie pleasing both long time Bond fans and newcomers alike, SPECTRE had a lot to live up to.
The movie opens with Bond in Mexico City, during the Day Of The Dead festival, Bond listens in on a meeting of two Mafioso and learns about a mysterious organisation hoping to achieve world domination and their illusive leader known as ‘The Pale King.’ He then blows up the building they are in and ends up in a chopper fight with one of the gangsters, whom he eventually kills. This leads into a stunning opening credits sequence, that really is one of the best I’ve seen, (even though the song is still crap.) This is an awesome intro and probably tops Skyfall’s intro which was also very cool.
The rest of the movie is a joy to a long time Bond fan like me. It checks off all of the boxes that make up a classic Bond movie. An awesome Aston Martin car chase – check, a big bad henchman who doesn’t say much but is very hard to kill – check, an effective use of gadgets and cheesy one liners – check, a supervillain that has an epic secret layer that he invites Bond to – check, Bond being strapped to an elaborate device in that secret layer and tortured – check. Now all of this is really well executed, but the problem with it is that it throws any of the gritty realism shown in the last three movies right out of the window, which like I say is perfectly okay, but it causes this movie to feel as if it is taking place in a separate universe from the last three. This is not a problem to me, I am more than happy to have a good old fashioned Bond movie back on our screens that isn’t afraid to shy away from the use of gadgets and witty quips and it’s a movie that actually handles it well unlike some of the naff late Brosnan movies. On the other hand though, I can totally see why some people would have a problem with this movie, especially if you aren’t a long time Bond fan and prefer Craig’s more realistic turn as Bond. If that is the case then this movie really won’t be for you and the chances are that you will leave the cinema leaving pretty disappointed.
Now, let’s forget for a minute that this is a 007 movie and just analyse it as a traditional piece of cinema. First off, I’m really glad that they brought Sam Mendes back to direct this one, he is very obviously a passionate Bond fan and I think he has done a great job with both Bond movies that he has made and I also really hope they can keep him on to do at least one more movie in the series. This is also a well written movie, its script is witty and fast paced, while keeping making sure that although the audience is kept intrigued, they are never lost in whatever is going on. The cinematography in this movie is also great, besides a shaky cam chase sequence during the opening of the movie, I’d actually say that this is a masterfully shot movie. Hoyte Van Hoytema was the principle of photography for this movie and that guy really likes his eye pleasing shots and his use of the rule of thirds, which is especially evident in the funeral scene where Monica Belluci is introduced. There were two Bond girls in this movie and they were both serviceable, Belluci was really only there for exposition, but Lea Seadoux did a good job with her more fleshed out role.
Now, I want to talk about the main villain in the movie, played by the incredible Christophe Waltz. When he is in the movie, he steals every scene, however that leads me on to a problem I have with the movie. He is introduced near the beginning of the movie, within the first half hour, then a good hour passes before he is reintroduced, and although what is going on during that hour is entertaining, when you have already introduced a villain played by the master of playing villains that is Mr Waltz, it’s hard not to wonder when he is going to be back in the movie. Also I feel that this movie is quite long, possibly due to the large number of different locales and although it is actually only a few more minutes longer than Skyfall, Skyfall didn’t feel that long and this movie feels a lot longer. Also Mr Hinx is a pretty rubbish henchman, he is as forgetful as Jaws and Oddjob were memorable and doesn’t have a line until the last fight with Bond, I felt he was just very underused.
Now I’m going to go into spoiler territory, so if you haven’t seen the film yet, you may want to jump to the end of the review. Okay, we all good? Well turns out Christophe Waltz is actually the new Blofeld, which really isn’t surprising since he is the head of SPECTRE. What did annoy me a little, is the fact that he was Bond’s step-brother, kind of? But whatever, I can live with it. Also, although the villains lair was kind of a trope and wasn’t really used all too much before it was blown up, once Blofeld got his scar, he did look the part. So that is another classic Bond thing to introduce, Blofeld is to Bond what The Joker is to Batman and it is nice to have the arch nemesis introduced. One of the downsides to introducing Blofeld though is that it was obvious they weren’t going to kill him off, at least not in this movie, also Mr Hinx’s death was also rather anticlimactic. Andrew Scott’s character C was revealed to be a spy for SPECTRE and again had a fairly anticlimactic death, but he was perfectly serviceable in the role.
Overall I did enjoy the movie a great deal and although this is a review based on my opinion, I do somewhat have to take into consideration the bigger picture and how other fans will feel upon seeing this film. Like I have said, I think fans of old fashioned traditional Bond will love this movie as it finally fulfils the criteria for it to be labelled a ‘Bond’ movie, I can definitely see a lot of people being disappointed in the film if they go in expected another realistic spy thriller.
The movie opens with Bond in Mexico City, during the Day Of The Dead festival, Bond listens in on a meeting of two Mafioso and learns about a mysterious organisation hoping to achieve world domination and their illusive leader known as ‘The Pale King.’ He then blows up the building they are in and ends up in a chopper fight with one of the gangsters, whom he eventually kills. This leads into a stunning opening credits sequence, that really is one of the best I’ve seen, (even though the song is still crap.) This is an awesome intro and probably tops Skyfall’s intro which was also very cool.
The rest of the movie is a joy to a long time Bond fan like me. It checks off all of the boxes that make up a classic Bond movie. An awesome Aston Martin car chase – check, a big bad henchman who doesn’t say much but is very hard to kill – check, an effective use of gadgets and cheesy one liners – check, a supervillain that has an epic secret layer that he invites Bond to – check, Bond being strapped to an elaborate device in that secret layer and tortured – check. Now all of this is really well executed, but the problem with it is that it throws any of the gritty realism shown in the last three movies right out of the window, which like I say is perfectly okay, but it causes this movie to feel as if it is taking place in a separate universe from the last three. This is not a problem to me, I am more than happy to have a good old fashioned Bond movie back on our screens that isn’t afraid to shy away from the use of gadgets and witty quips and it’s a movie that actually handles it well unlike some of the naff late Brosnan movies. On the other hand though, I can totally see why some people would have a problem with this movie, especially if you aren’t a long time Bond fan and prefer Craig’s more realistic turn as Bond. If that is the case then this movie really won’t be for you and the chances are that you will leave the cinema leaving pretty disappointed.
Now, let’s forget for a minute that this is a 007 movie and just analyse it as a traditional piece of cinema. First off, I’m really glad that they brought Sam Mendes back to direct this one, he is very obviously a passionate Bond fan and I think he has done a great job with both Bond movies that he has made and I also really hope they can keep him on to do at least one more movie in the series. This is also a well written movie, its script is witty and fast paced, while keeping making sure that although the audience is kept intrigued, they are never lost in whatever is going on. The cinematography in this movie is also great, besides a shaky cam chase sequence during the opening of the movie, I’d actually say that this is a masterfully shot movie. Hoyte Van Hoytema was the principle of photography for this movie and that guy really likes his eye pleasing shots and his use of the rule of thirds, which is especially evident in the funeral scene where Monica Belluci is introduced. There were two Bond girls in this movie and they were both serviceable, Belluci was really only there for exposition, but Lea Seadoux did a good job with her more fleshed out role.
Now, I want to talk about the main villain in the movie, played by the incredible Christophe Waltz. When he is in the movie, he steals every scene, however that leads me on to a problem I have with the movie. He is introduced near the beginning of the movie, within the first half hour, then a good hour passes before he is reintroduced, and although what is going on during that hour is entertaining, when you have already introduced a villain played by the master of playing villains that is Mr Waltz, it’s hard not to wonder when he is going to be back in the movie. Also I feel that this movie is quite long, possibly due to the large number of different locales and although it is actually only a few more minutes longer than Skyfall, Skyfall didn’t feel that long and this movie feels a lot longer. Also Mr Hinx is a pretty rubbish henchman, he is as forgetful as Jaws and Oddjob were memorable and doesn’t have a line until the last fight with Bond, I felt he was just very underused.
Now I’m going to go into spoiler territory, so if you haven’t seen the film yet, you may want to jump to the end of the review. Okay, we all good? Well turns out Christophe Waltz is actually the new Blofeld, which really isn’t surprising since he is the head of SPECTRE. What did annoy me a little, is the fact that he was Bond’s step-brother, kind of? But whatever, I can live with it. Also, although the villains lair was kind of a trope and wasn’t really used all too much before it was blown up, once Blofeld got his scar, he did look the part. So that is another classic Bond thing to introduce, Blofeld is to Bond what The Joker is to Batman and it is nice to have the arch nemesis introduced. One of the downsides to introducing Blofeld though is that it was obvious they weren’t going to kill him off, at least not in this movie, also Mr Hinx’s death was also rather anticlimactic. Andrew Scott’s character C was revealed to be a spy for SPECTRE and again had a fairly anticlimactic death, but he was perfectly serviceable in the role.
Overall I did enjoy the movie a great deal and although this is a review based on my opinion, I do somewhat have to take into consideration the bigger picture and how other fans will feel upon seeing this film. Like I have said, I think fans of old fashioned traditional Bond will love this movie as it finally fulfils the criteria for it to be labelled a ‘Bond’ movie, I can definitely see a lot of people being disappointed in the film if they go in expected another realistic spy thriller.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Captain Marvel (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
Midnight screening... what was I thinking? Somehow I managed to stay awake in the cinema (others didn't fare so well), but I went in pretty pumped up. Not so much for the film but the overall atmosphere of a Marvel first screening. There were over 100 tickets pre-booked, and the cinema was certainly very busy. There's something about the buzz of an audience that big. I did try and hold a couple of conversations while I was there, they were not successful due to my brain's impaired state.
*sigh*
Let me just get this out now... I enjoyed this movie, but I also didn't like it. I know, what does that even mean? I'm going to waffle a bit and hopefully it'll become clear.
I don't have a lot of pre-knowledge about Captain Marvel, in fact, until the trailers started coming out I'd probably have asked if you meant Ms Marvel or Shazam. As always the similarities between characters and brand is a complete mess.
Brie Larson had some pretty big boots to fill as the MCU's first headlining female character. I feel a bit sorry for Black Widow to be honest, but this is probably a bit lighter than her offering would have been considering her background.
Watching the trailers for this I wasn't left wowed. Vers comes across as rather cocky and after seeing the film I don't think she needed to be that way. Part of me thinks that a difference actress would have played it better, but mainly I'm just happy that they didn't ruin it.
Samuel L. Jackson was a treat, but then when isn't he?! It was nice seeing this more light-hearted side of his character. It leaves us with a little gap in his history that makes me wonder what happened to him. As ever he's a great presence and shows us just a glimpse of what's to come (or rather what we've already seen) while still being funny.
Ben Mendelsohn has made a rather large splash over the last few years in big-ticket movies. Rogue One, Ready Player One, Robin Hood and now Captain Marvel. His character of Talos is comical and warm but I found it slightly strange hearing him with his normal accent. That seems even weirder when I write it down, I guess I'm just hardwired to expect most aliens to sound American! He's definitely my stand out actor in this, he handles the twists and turns of the story wonderfully and made for an incredible surprise. There was one moment with a terrible bit of script that made me cringe at the screen but everything else made up for it.
I probably need to say something about Jude Law, that something is going to be "meh". I'm not sure that I'm fuzzed by any of his roles historically, and this isn't really any different. He also suffered from a dubious bit of script near the end of the film that feels out of place, but I'll leave that one for you to contemplate on.
I know I've been a bit of a mix so far about Captain Marvel but there are a lot of things to like about this movie. In particular, Marvel have really nailed music on the head recently, Guardians Of The Galaxy (1 not 2) and Thor: Ragnarok being two of my favourites. There's that moment of joy when you hear those old tunes, a smile crept across my face for every one of them. It was a great selection and they fitted into place amongst the story so well.
Nostalgia value is high in this one. Ahh, Blockbuster, I do miss you. There are plenty of things to spot, I'm sure that someone has already created a bingo game to go along with it... or a drinking game, "cry into your drink uncontrollably when you see Stan Lee". We obviously knew he'd filmed some cameos before he moved on into his big ol' galaxy, it was lovely to see him smiling out at us. Not only was it a fun little cameo but Marvel also did something magical with those opening titles and it made me cry... don't judge me!! I didn't cry as much as I did during the credit tribute in Once Upon A Deadpool though.
I could keep waffling, I'm fully aware that I've gone on a lot longer than normal about this one. I'll try not to keep you too much longer.
Obviously they've used some artistic license with the characters from the comics, as they do. The Skrull minions are so close to the comics, I was a little dubious about them when they popped up but they're carbon copies. The main thing that I know they changed was Nick Fury's eye, this version is better than the comics. I'd be interested to know how SLJ felt about finally being able to play Fury with both his eyes.
De-aging was used again but with much heavier usage than we've seen before. It was a bold choice doing it on one of the main characters when he's got so much screen time but I'm glad they chose this over recasting him. There weren't any of the minor oddities that were visible during Ant-Man & The Wasp's use of it, it all looked quite natural. There's no denying that Coulson might be a little overdone but *squeeeeee* little Coulson is so adorable that I don't care!
I mentioned my issues with Vers in the trailers, that wasn't the only misgiving I had. There weren't as many as the "I'm never going to see this movie" crowd (you know you're going to see it, get ahold of yourselves) but there were a few.
We've been with this series for over 10 years, this film leads into the last film in the sequence... and now they're giving us a new character? That's what I have an issue with. Don't get me wrong, I like the idea that they're bringing in a female character to clear up the mess created by the (mainly) boy's club, it's art imitating life... I'm joking, partly... but I can't help feeling like this is more of a last minute add-on. Previous new additions have appeared in other films, they've been able to interact with characters. The whole way through we've been shown teamwork and camaraderie, and throwing Captain Marvel in at the last minute flies in the face of that. But if we'd had her around before this then we probably wouldn't have needed Endgame because there would have been no distractions from what needed to be done. (Before you start on me we see that for a fact, none of Thor and Starlord's nonsense.)
For all of my waffling about it feeling separate they have clearly tried to connect her to the existing MCU. There are links in there on multiple fronts which give you hints at other films, it's quite impressive that they managed to make this without it being filled with series continuity errors.
As my last parting comment I want to say that Goose was amazing. Sadly not so hot on the CGI, I did wonder at one point if he was going to jump up and dance Garfield-style at one point. Annoyingly I already knew some details about this fluffy character before seeing the film but it just left me with anticipation. I didn't think that Fury would be a cat person though.
What you should do
If you're a Marvel fan you're going to have to see it before Endgame, but quite frankly you should want to see it. You could skip it if you really want to... but do you want to risk it? No, I didn't think so.
REMEMBER: There are two credit scenes, one in the middle and one at the end.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Of all the things I'd have to say Goose, that cute little floof would brighten my day as well as coming in handy for several reasons.
*sigh*
Let me just get this out now... I enjoyed this movie, but I also didn't like it. I know, what does that even mean? I'm going to waffle a bit and hopefully it'll become clear.
I don't have a lot of pre-knowledge about Captain Marvel, in fact, until the trailers started coming out I'd probably have asked if you meant Ms Marvel or Shazam. As always the similarities between characters and brand is a complete mess.
Brie Larson had some pretty big boots to fill as the MCU's first headlining female character. I feel a bit sorry for Black Widow to be honest, but this is probably a bit lighter than her offering would have been considering her background.
Watching the trailers for this I wasn't left wowed. Vers comes across as rather cocky and after seeing the film I don't think she needed to be that way. Part of me thinks that a difference actress would have played it better, but mainly I'm just happy that they didn't ruin it.
Samuel L. Jackson was a treat, but then when isn't he?! It was nice seeing this more light-hearted side of his character. It leaves us with a little gap in his history that makes me wonder what happened to him. As ever he's a great presence and shows us just a glimpse of what's to come (or rather what we've already seen) while still being funny.
Ben Mendelsohn has made a rather large splash over the last few years in big-ticket movies. Rogue One, Ready Player One, Robin Hood and now Captain Marvel. His character of Talos is comical and warm but I found it slightly strange hearing him with his normal accent. That seems even weirder when I write it down, I guess I'm just hardwired to expect most aliens to sound American! He's definitely my stand out actor in this, he handles the twists and turns of the story wonderfully and made for an incredible surprise. There was one moment with a terrible bit of script that made me cringe at the screen but everything else made up for it.
I probably need to say something about Jude Law, that something is going to be "meh". I'm not sure that I'm fuzzed by any of his roles historically, and this isn't really any different. He also suffered from a dubious bit of script near the end of the film that feels out of place, but I'll leave that one for you to contemplate on.
I know I've been a bit of a mix so far about Captain Marvel but there are a lot of things to like about this movie. In particular, Marvel have really nailed music on the head recently, Guardians Of The Galaxy (1 not 2) and Thor: Ragnarok being two of my favourites. There's that moment of joy when you hear those old tunes, a smile crept across my face for every one of them. It was a great selection and they fitted into place amongst the story so well.
Nostalgia value is high in this one. Ahh, Blockbuster, I do miss you. There are plenty of things to spot, I'm sure that someone has already created a bingo game to go along with it... or a drinking game, "cry into your drink uncontrollably when you see Stan Lee". We obviously knew he'd filmed some cameos before he moved on into his big ol' galaxy, it was lovely to see him smiling out at us. Not only was it a fun little cameo but Marvel also did something magical with those opening titles and it made me cry... don't judge me!! I didn't cry as much as I did during the credit tribute in Once Upon A Deadpool though.
I could keep waffling, I'm fully aware that I've gone on a lot longer than normal about this one. I'll try not to keep you too much longer.
Obviously they've used some artistic license with the characters from the comics, as they do. The Skrull minions are so close to the comics, I was a little dubious about them when they popped up but they're carbon copies. The main thing that I know they changed was Nick Fury's eye, this version is better than the comics. I'd be interested to know how SLJ felt about finally being able to play Fury with both his eyes.
De-aging was used again but with much heavier usage than we've seen before. It was a bold choice doing it on one of the main characters when he's got so much screen time but I'm glad they chose this over recasting him. There weren't any of the minor oddities that were visible during Ant-Man & The Wasp's use of it, it all looked quite natural. There's no denying that Coulson might be a little overdone but *squeeeeee* little Coulson is so adorable that I don't care!
I mentioned my issues with Vers in the trailers, that wasn't the only misgiving I had. There weren't as many as the "I'm never going to see this movie" crowd (you know you're going to see it, get ahold of yourselves) but there were a few.
We've been with this series for over 10 years, this film leads into the last film in the sequence... and now they're giving us a new character? That's what I have an issue with. Don't get me wrong, I like the idea that they're bringing in a female character to clear up the mess created by the (mainly) boy's club, it's art imitating life... I'm joking, partly... but I can't help feeling like this is more of a last minute add-on. Previous new additions have appeared in other films, they've been able to interact with characters. The whole way through we've been shown teamwork and camaraderie, and throwing Captain Marvel in at the last minute flies in the face of that. But if we'd had her around before this then we probably wouldn't have needed Endgame because there would have been no distractions from what needed to be done. (Before you start on me we see that for a fact, none of Thor and Starlord's nonsense.)
For all of my waffling about it feeling separate they have clearly tried to connect her to the existing MCU. There are links in there on multiple fronts which give you hints at other films, it's quite impressive that they managed to make this without it being filled with series continuity errors.
As my last parting comment I want to say that Goose was amazing. Sadly not so hot on the CGI, I did wonder at one point if he was going to jump up and dance Garfield-style at one point. Annoyingly I already knew some details about this fluffy character before seeing the film but it just left me with anticipation. I didn't think that Fury would be a cat person though.
What you should do
If you're a Marvel fan you're going to have to see it before Endgame, but quite frankly you should want to see it. You could skip it if you really want to... but do you want to risk it? No, I didn't think so.
REMEMBER: There are two credit scenes, one in the middle and one at the end.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Of all the things I'd have to say Goose, that cute little floof would brighten my day as well as coming in handy for several reasons.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Blade Runner 2049 (2017) in Movies
Oct 9, 2017 (Updated Oct 13, 2017)
One of the most visually stunning movies I have ever seen. (8 more)
Awesome production design.
Brilliant direction.
Beautiful cinematography.
Solid performances.
Incredible SFX.
Great score.
Good use of lighting.
Well written script and dialogue.
Villeneuve Strikes Gold Yet Again
Wow, this movie is a feast for your eyeballs. I won't go on about the visuals too much, as I'm sure that you have already heard how good looking this movie is, all I'll say is this; the movie deserves to be seen in the biggest screen possible. What is even better though, is unlike a Zack Snyder film, Blade Runner 2049 has more to it than just surface level, pretty visuals.
Somehow, Denis Villeneuve has achieved the impossible. He has directed a movie every year for the last five years and they have all been absolutely incredible, also he has managed to pull off a fantastic sequel to a 35 year old classic.
I loved almost every part of this movie. The direction was masterful to watch, with the movie being moved along at a deliberate, purposeful pace, rather than rushing through from action scene to action scene. The sets in this were out of this world, some props were really cool to look at and the use of mostly practical backdrops made a huge difference as opposed to using an abundance of green screen. Rodger Deakins' cinematography was astonishing, you could honestly screen grab an image from any time stamp in this movie and it would work perfectly as a beautiful desktop background.
I also thought that the performances were fantastic and everyone did a great job. Although Ford doesn't appear until the movie's third act, when he does he is great. Gosling commands his leading man role as we've come to expect him to. Robin Wright and Dave Bautista were the other standouts for me in terms of their performances.
The more technical elements of the movie worked perfectly in tandem with the story being told as well. The special effects were beautifully implemented and the lighting in the movie added a whole other layer of visual depth as well. The score also worked for the tone that the movie was aiming to achieve. The script was also solid and tightly woven.
The only thing I will say is; if you are going into the film expecting a sci-fi action blockbuster, you will come out disappointed. This is a slow paced, sci-fi noir, detective story. There are a few sparse moments of action and it does feel impactful when it occurs, but it is not the focus of the movie at all.
The one small element that bothered me was Jared Leto's performance. He took me out of the movie and was the only cast member who didn't feel like a real character within this world. Maybe I'm just being biased, as Jared Leto has always annoyed me in general, but for me he was the one bad part of this near masterpiece. Thankfully he doesn't get that much screen time, so it could have been worse. Also, the fact that David Bowie was originally cast in that role adds an extra sprinkle of salt in the wound.
Unfortunately, much like the original movie, this hasn't done great at the box office on its opening weekend. If like me, you are sick of mindless sequel cash cows that are total garbage such as Jurassic World, go and see this movie and vote with your wallet. If you don't, we are telling Hollywood that as a collective, we don't want sequels with depth and integrity, we want dumb, rushed, forgettable nonsense and that is what we will end up getting. Support this movie for the betterment of filmmaking and cinema, even if you haven't seen the original.
Overall I loved the movie, but I can see why people are finding it divisive. For me though, the vast majority of this movie's parts were absolutely fantastic and come together to form a journey that you must experience for yourself.
Somehow, Denis Villeneuve has achieved the impossible. He has directed a movie every year for the last five years and they have all been absolutely incredible, also he has managed to pull off a fantastic sequel to a 35 year old classic.
I loved almost every part of this movie. The direction was masterful to watch, with the movie being moved along at a deliberate, purposeful pace, rather than rushing through from action scene to action scene. The sets in this were out of this world, some props were really cool to look at and the use of mostly practical backdrops made a huge difference as opposed to using an abundance of green screen. Rodger Deakins' cinematography was astonishing, you could honestly screen grab an image from any time stamp in this movie and it would work perfectly as a beautiful desktop background.
I also thought that the performances were fantastic and everyone did a great job. Although Ford doesn't appear until the movie's third act, when he does he is great. Gosling commands his leading man role as we've come to expect him to. Robin Wright and Dave Bautista were the other standouts for me in terms of their performances.
The more technical elements of the movie worked perfectly in tandem with the story being told as well. The special effects were beautifully implemented and the lighting in the movie added a whole other layer of visual depth as well. The score also worked for the tone that the movie was aiming to achieve. The script was also solid and tightly woven.
The only thing I will say is; if you are going into the film expecting a sci-fi action blockbuster, you will come out disappointed. This is a slow paced, sci-fi noir, detective story. There are a few sparse moments of action and it does feel impactful when it occurs, but it is not the focus of the movie at all.
The one small element that bothered me was Jared Leto's performance. He took me out of the movie and was the only cast member who didn't feel like a real character within this world. Maybe I'm just being biased, as Jared Leto has always annoyed me in general, but for me he was the one bad part of this near masterpiece. Thankfully he doesn't get that much screen time, so it could have been worse. Also, the fact that David Bowie was originally cast in that role adds an extra sprinkle of salt in the wound.
Unfortunately, much like the original movie, this hasn't done great at the box office on its opening weekend. If like me, you are sick of mindless sequel cash cows that are total garbage such as Jurassic World, go and see this movie and vote with your wallet. If you don't, we are telling Hollywood that as a collective, we don't want sequels with depth and integrity, we want dumb, rushed, forgettable nonsense and that is what we will end up getting. Support this movie for the betterment of filmmaking and cinema, even if you haven't seen the original.
Overall I loved the movie, but I can see why people are finding it divisive. For me though, the vast majority of this movie's parts were absolutely fantastic and come together to form a journey that you must experience for yourself.
mostlyinpyjamas (13 KP) rated It Only Happens in the Movies in Books
Nov 25, 2017
Another cracker by Holly Bourne
The blurb; Audrey is over romance. Since her parents relationship imploded her mother’s been catatonic, so she takes a cinema job to get out of the house. But there she meets wannabe film-maker Harry.
Nobody expects Audrey and Harry to fall in love as hard and fast as they do. But that doesn’t mean things are easy.
Because real love isn’t like the movies…The greatest love story ever told doesn’t feature kissing in the snow, or racing to airports. It features pain and confusion and hope and wonder, and a ban on cheesy clichés. Oh, and Zombies.
~
I’m a huge fan of Holly Bourne, and with It only happens in the movies she has written another cracker!
It only happens in the movies challenges all those cliches from romantic movies, and the message they give about what love and relationships are like.
Audrey is instantly likeable, positive feminist characters are exactly what’s needed and Holly Bourne writes them so well. Audrey is getting over being dumped after having sex for the first time, trying to cope with her mum having a breakdown, and she’s been distant from her friends since her break up, her life is messy – and then she meets Harry.
Harry, with a reputation for being a player! He doesn’t always understand Audrey’s point of view, and he says the wrong things …
‘You’re not like other girls, are you?
but I like Harry. He tries!
In chapter 25, Audrey and her friend Alice talk about first time sex in a refreshingly honest way and this is, in my opinion, such an important thing to see in young adult books. Some girls, for whatever reason, don’t have someone they can talk about these things with, and I feel that it’s such a good thing that authors such as Holly Bourne are putting it out there.
I’ve read a number of feminist YA books this week, and I’m so pleased that they are being written. Conversations about consent, sexism, misogyny and rape culture are so important and these books help to get the message out there.
Excerpt from the book ; Men in films regularly kiss women who don’t want to be kissed. And those are supposed to be the good kisses. Either the woman is taken by surprise, or storming off in a mood, or having a huge go at them, or is engaged to somebody else, or claims she’s just plain Not Interested. And,how do men in movies respond to this clear instruction of “no”? They grab the woman’s face, and kiss her anyway. Roughly. Using their masculine force. And rather than being slapped or even arrested, these movie men are rewarded for their… well… sexual violence. The women “give into” the kiss after a brief moment of fighting it. You see, according to Hollywood, these women wanted to be kissed all along. It was just the male lead’s job to break through the barriers. Barriers like WILFUL CONSENT. Outside Hollywood movies, there is a term for being kissed against your will. This term isn’t “spontaneous” or “romantic” or “passionate”. No, it’s called sexual assault. It’s a crime punishable in the UK by up to ten years in prison.
~
Holly Bourne writes about feminist issues without being patronising and without telling her readers that we should hate all men.
If I’ve made it sound at all like It only happens in the movies is all feminist messages and no story then I must add that it’s entirely not that at all.
I enjoyed the story so much that I read it over a weekend, staying up far too late because I just couldn’t put it down. There’s plenty of drama, humour, and some lovely, touching moments! The ending – although it was perfect – exactly the way this story was meant to end – broke me. I cried actual tears.
Love isn’t just a feeling. Love is a choice too. And you may not be able to help your feelings, but you are responsible for the choices you make about what to do with them. (From It only happens in the movies).
Nobody expects Audrey and Harry to fall in love as hard and fast as they do. But that doesn’t mean things are easy.
Because real love isn’t like the movies…The greatest love story ever told doesn’t feature kissing in the snow, or racing to airports. It features pain and confusion and hope and wonder, and a ban on cheesy clichés. Oh, and Zombies.
~
I’m a huge fan of Holly Bourne, and with It only happens in the movies she has written another cracker!
It only happens in the movies challenges all those cliches from romantic movies, and the message they give about what love and relationships are like.
Audrey is instantly likeable, positive feminist characters are exactly what’s needed and Holly Bourne writes them so well. Audrey is getting over being dumped after having sex for the first time, trying to cope with her mum having a breakdown, and she’s been distant from her friends since her break up, her life is messy – and then she meets Harry.
Harry, with a reputation for being a player! He doesn’t always understand Audrey’s point of view, and he says the wrong things …
‘You’re not like other girls, are you?
but I like Harry. He tries!
In chapter 25, Audrey and her friend Alice talk about first time sex in a refreshingly honest way and this is, in my opinion, such an important thing to see in young adult books. Some girls, for whatever reason, don’t have someone they can talk about these things with, and I feel that it’s such a good thing that authors such as Holly Bourne are putting it out there.
I’ve read a number of feminist YA books this week, and I’m so pleased that they are being written. Conversations about consent, sexism, misogyny and rape culture are so important and these books help to get the message out there.
Excerpt from the book ; Men in films regularly kiss women who don’t want to be kissed. And those are supposed to be the good kisses. Either the woman is taken by surprise, or storming off in a mood, or having a huge go at them, or is engaged to somebody else, or claims she’s just plain Not Interested. And,how do men in movies respond to this clear instruction of “no”? They grab the woman’s face, and kiss her anyway. Roughly. Using their masculine force. And rather than being slapped or even arrested, these movie men are rewarded for their… well… sexual violence. The women “give into” the kiss after a brief moment of fighting it. You see, according to Hollywood, these women wanted to be kissed all along. It was just the male lead’s job to break through the barriers. Barriers like WILFUL CONSENT. Outside Hollywood movies, there is a term for being kissed against your will. This term isn’t “spontaneous” or “romantic” or “passionate”. No, it’s called sexual assault. It’s a crime punishable in the UK by up to ten years in prison.
~
Holly Bourne writes about feminist issues without being patronising and without telling her readers that we should hate all men.
If I’ve made it sound at all like It only happens in the movies is all feminist messages and no story then I must add that it’s entirely not that at all.
I enjoyed the story so much that I read it over a weekend, staying up far too late because I just couldn’t put it down. There’s plenty of drama, humour, and some lovely, touching moments! The ending – although it was perfect – exactly the way this story was meant to end – broke me. I cried actual tears.
Love isn’t just a feeling. Love is a choice too. And you may not be able to help your feelings, but you are responsible for the choices you make about what to do with them. (From It only happens in the movies).
Lee (2222 KP) rated It Comes At Night (2017) in Movies
Jul 14, 2017
Tension packed, slow burner
I headed into ‘It Comes At Night’ in a similar way to when I saw ‘Get Out‘ a few months back – having seen a lot of positive four or five star buzz about it on my news feeds, but without actually seeing the trailer. I skimmed a couple of reviews this time, just to get a rough idea of what I was in for, and one of the words which seemed to crop up on a number of them was ‘unsettling’. Well, that sold it for me! Get Out is my favourite movie of the year so far, and I felt that my enjoyment of seeing that had been greatly improved having not seen the trailer, and with no expectations. So, I went into ‘It Comes At Night’ hoping for a similar experience.
The opening scene sets the tone for what’s to come. A sick old man listens to his daughter Sarah tell him she loves him. She’s wearing a protective gas mask, as are her husband and son. Husband Paul and son Travis then take grandpa out of the cabin they’re in, into the woods where they proceed to wrap him up in a sheet, shoot him in the head, roll him into a ditch and set fire to him. It becomes apparent that we’re in a post apocalyptic world where some kind of plague has taken hold, and Grandpa had unfortunately become infected. We’re not shown any TV news footage, we don’t hear any radio broadcast of any kind and there aren’t any zombies or infected people wandering around. There’s just this small family, out in the middle of nowhere and with no idea what state the rest of the world is currently in or how bad things are. They keep their cabin boarded up, with only one locked door for entry. They lead a lonely, basic existence, taking no chances with whatever is going on out in the rest of the world.
And then one night they’re awoken by somebody breaking in downstairs. A man who claims he thought the place was empty. He claims to be only out scavenging for water for his family. His name is Will and he says that he’s left his wife and young son behind some 50 miles away and is only interested in providing for them. Paul and his family don’t know whether to believe him and this feeling of uncertainty, paranoia and tension is something which takes hold and continues throughout the entire movie. Not knowing if Will is infected or not, they tie him to a tree overnight to see if infection sets in. When it doesn’t, they come to an understanding and agree to go and get Wills family and bring them back to the safety of the cabin. The family seem to integrate well, falling in line with Pauls strict routine of eating, washing and going to the toilet, and all seems to be going well for a while.
Sadly, I think the expectation of an experience similar to ‘Get Out’ affected my overall enjoyment of the movie. Sure I was tense and on edge for pretty much the whole movie, but I guess I was expecting it all to build up to something much more. It did reach a pretty intense finale of sorts, but then it just seemed to fizzle out until the credits rolled and a sense of overall disappointment set in. I don’t think I was the only one either. As I stood to leave the cinema, the guy across the aisle from me, along with a couple of others seated nearby, all kind of looked at each other in disbelief and with a ‘WTF?!’ expression. It was definitely a good movie, which deserves to be seen, but it just didn’t leave that much of a lasting impression on me.
The opening scene sets the tone for what’s to come. A sick old man listens to his daughter Sarah tell him she loves him. She’s wearing a protective gas mask, as are her husband and son. Husband Paul and son Travis then take grandpa out of the cabin they’re in, into the woods where they proceed to wrap him up in a sheet, shoot him in the head, roll him into a ditch and set fire to him. It becomes apparent that we’re in a post apocalyptic world where some kind of plague has taken hold, and Grandpa had unfortunately become infected. We’re not shown any TV news footage, we don’t hear any radio broadcast of any kind and there aren’t any zombies or infected people wandering around. There’s just this small family, out in the middle of nowhere and with no idea what state the rest of the world is currently in or how bad things are. They keep their cabin boarded up, with only one locked door for entry. They lead a lonely, basic existence, taking no chances with whatever is going on out in the rest of the world.
And then one night they’re awoken by somebody breaking in downstairs. A man who claims he thought the place was empty. He claims to be only out scavenging for water for his family. His name is Will and he says that he’s left his wife and young son behind some 50 miles away and is only interested in providing for them. Paul and his family don’t know whether to believe him and this feeling of uncertainty, paranoia and tension is something which takes hold and continues throughout the entire movie. Not knowing if Will is infected or not, they tie him to a tree overnight to see if infection sets in. When it doesn’t, they come to an understanding and agree to go and get Wills family and bring them back to the safety of the cabin. The family seem to integrate well, falling in line with Pauls strict routine of eating, washing and going to the toilet, and all seems to be going well for a while.
Sadly, I think the expectation of an experience similar to ‘Get Out’ affected my overall enjoyment of the movie. Sure I was tense and on edge for pretty much the whole movie, but I guess I was expecting it all to build up to something much more. It did reach a pretty intense finale of sorts, but then it just seemed to fizzle out until the credits rolled and a sense of overall disappointment set in. I don’t think I was the only one either. As I stood to leave the cinema, the guy across the aisle from me, along with a couple of others seated nearby, all kind of looked at each other in disbelief and with a ‘WTF?!’ expression. It was definitely a good movie, which deserves to be seen, but it just didn’t leave that much of a lasting impression on me.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Lady In The Van (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019 (Updated Jun 11, 2019)
Like a particularly lethargic sloth
Cinema has a long lasting love of people having their homes invaded by unwanted intruders, and not just because that’s how most directors view anyone who tries to tell them their opinion on filmmaking. It’s because there’s a lot of different directions one can take with the drama and excitement of home invasion. The horror of Wait Until Dark, the brutality of Straw Dogs, the silliness of Home Alone, the potential is quite large. And now throwing in its own interpretation of this theme is The Lady in the Van, based on the somewhat true story of Alan Bennett’s relationship with a transient woman who parked her van on his driveway. So, how does he and the audience respond?
With a dull, mild curiosity.
Despite being from the viewpoint of two Alan Bennetts, described as one being the writer and the other living the life, the main character is Miss Sheppard, the lady in the van. The film insists that we should be interested in her mysterious life, her past as a pianist and a nun, and why she chooses to live in the van, but throughout most of the film I was only thinking “Oh, let’s just go back and hear Alan Bennett be cynical some more.” The words are witty and sharp, but it’s mostly said about things we don’t care about. Miss Sheppard is a flat, mostly dull character, and the audience is unwillingly handcuffed to her.
The highlight of the film is its acting, with the cast being a veritable who’s who of Britain’s finest talent, and James Corden. What dimension Miss Sheppard has is provided almost entirely by the volatile yet vulnerable performance by Maggie Smith, and Alex Jennings is as real an Alan Bennett as the actual Alan Bennett. Even in the small roles, everyone from Roger Allam to Gwen Taylor manage to force themselves to shine. The only bad performance is from, of all people, Jim Broadbent, who pops up to antagonise Miss Sheppard but appears less like a real human being and more like a cartoon supervillain. For a second, I thought the character’s name was Baron von Drakkhen.
But great players cannot save a bad game, and the story of the film is flat, predictable and boring. If you don’t immediately care about Miss Sheppard, then the film becomes more tedious and lifeless by the second. I guessed long before the end the mystery behind Miss Sheppard, but even if I hadn’t I would still have been bored due to the lack of any interest. The film believes that the existence of a mystery to be motivation enough to solve it, which just isn’t the case; I don’t know what John McCririck had for breakfast, but I’m not going to stare at his stools to find out.
Not helping matters is a very by the numbers direction by Nicholas Hytner. While not incompetent, there’s very little in the way of style or flair without being casual. The only parts that show any sort of imagination are the fourth wall breaks, but the best only happen towards the end. It’s a shame that the potential of having two Alan Bennetts and seeing the film from the perspective of the writer only starts to be explored as the film is drawing to a close. Otherwise, a robot could’ve directed this film.
Alan Bennett is a highly praised writer, and rightfully so, but The Lady in the Van just isn’t his best. The above-average but by no means stellar script is tied to a plot as lifeless and sluggish as a particularly lethargic sloth. If you’re really hurting to see Bennett at his best, it’d be a lot cheaper and a lot more entertaining to rent The Madness of King George or The History Boys or even one of The Secret Policeman’s Ball’s, plus you can order some pizza from your sofa. Otherwise, The Lady in the Van, unlike the real Miss Sheppard, can very safely be ignored.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/11/19/like-a-particularly-lethargic-sloth-the-lady-in-the-van-review/
With a dull, mild curiosity.
Despite being from the viewpoint of two Alan Bennetts, described as one being the writer and the other living the life, the main character is Miss Sheppard, the lady in the van. The film insists that we should be interested in her mysterious life, her past as a pianist and a nun, and why she chooses to live in the van, but throughout most of the film I was only thinking “Oh, let’s just go back and hear Alan Bennett be cynical some more.” The words are witty and sharp, but it’s mostly said about things we don’t care about. Miss Sheppard is a flat, mostly dull character, and the audience is unwillingly handcuffed to her.
The highlight of the film is its acting, with the cast being a veritable who’s who of Britain’s finest talent, and James Corden. What dimension Miss Sheppard has is provided almost entirely by the volatile yet vulnerable performance by Maggie Smith, and Alex Jennings is as real an Alan Bennett as the actual Alan Bennett. Even in the small roles, everyone from Roger Allam to Gwen Taylor manage to force themselves to shine. The only bad performance is from, of all people, Jim Broadbent, who pops up to antagonise Miss Sheppard but appears less like a real human being and more like a cartoon supervillain. For a second, I thought the character’s name was Baron von Drakkhen.
But great players cannot save a bad game, and the story of the film is flat, predictable and boring. If you don’t immediately care about Miss Sheppard, then the film becomes more tedious and lifeless by the second. I guessed long before the end the mystery behind Miss Sheppard, but even if I hadn’t I would still have been bored due to the lack of any interest. The film believes that the existence of a mystery to be motivation enough to solve it, which just isn’t the case; I don’t know what John McCririck had for breakfast, but I’m not going to stare at his stools to find out.
Not helping matters is a very by the numbers direction by Nicholas Hytner. While not incompetent, there’s very little in the way of style or flair without being casual. The only parts that show any sort of imagination are the fourth wall breaks, but the best only happen towards the end. It’s a shame that the potential of having two Alan Bennetts and seeing the film from the perspective of the writer only starts to be explored as the film is drawing to a close. Otherwise, a robot could’ve directed this film.
Alan Bennett is a highly praised writer, and rightfully so, but The Lady in the Van just isn’t his best. The above-average but by no means stellar script is tied to a plot as lifeless and sluggish as a particularly lethargic sloth. If you’re really hurting to see Bennett at his best, it’d be a lot cheaper and a lot more entertaining to rent The Madness of King George or The History Boys or even one of The Secret Policeman’s Ball’s, plus you can order some pizza from your sofa. Otherwise, The Lady in the Van, unlike the real Miss Sheppard, can very safely be ignored.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/11/19/like-a-particularly-lethargic-sloth-the-lady-in-the-van-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 1 (2011) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Finally, a Twilight film that doesn’t have men in the audience going green with envy as they stare at Taylor Lautner’s washboard abs and finally, a Twilight film that doesn’t actually stink.
Of course, those of you familiar with my reviews know that I’m not fond of the Twilight Saga in the slightest, but here I’m prepared to eat my words as newcomer Bill Condon (Dreamgirls) directs a surprisingly enjoyable outing. Unfortunately, it all comes a bit late as this is the penultimate film in Stephanie Meyer’s book series.
Sadly, the Twilight films have never had the critical success of their Harry Potter cousins, probably due to their wooden acting, dire scripting and disappointing special effects, but here, Breaking Dawn Part 1 manages to be at least as good as the first two films of its wizarding counterpart.
The similarities between the two series’ don’t stop there. The decision to split the final book in the Twilight series was probably done because of the success Harry Potter had by splitting the final book into two films.
Here, Bill Condon manages to inject some life into the franchise with good acting, good special effects and finally, a good storyline. Edward (Robert Pattinson) and Bella (Kristen Stewart) have finally decided to tie the knot. Naturally, Jacob (Taylor Lautner) is less than pleased with this announcement and decides to run away in a fit of rage. Will he be back for the wedding? GASP!
Alas, he makes it and just before Edward whisks Bella on their honeymoon, some pleasantries are exchanged between the bride and the wolf. So, the honeymoon comes and Bella realises she’s pregnant; oh dear. The film then follows her journey to becoming a mother and the growing beast inside her. Thankfully, the point where the film is split doesn’t jar like it did in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows and seems to follow a natural ending.
The special effects have also upped their game for the latest instalment as the (still blatantly obvious) CGI werewolves look much more realistic. Also, the acting has improved leaps and bounds with Kristen Stewart being a real highlight. The realisation that motherhood could kill her is fantastically portrayed by Stewart, though the special effects making her look frail probably helped here.
Taylor Lautner is the best out of the male leads and does the role some justice, whilst Robert Pattinson is mediocre as Edward.
There’s still a problem with the films pacing however. It seems that events that would take 10 minutes worth of screen time in other films have to take 30 in the Twilight saga; it’s a major annoyance as it interrupts the flow of the film and the constant close ups of the characters’ faces grate after a while.
Also, Condon has clearly not directed many films that require action scenes. A major fight with the werewolves and the Cullen’s should have been a real highlight, but it’s a sloppily directed sequence with bodies mashing together. You’re unsure as to who is who, a problem which blights the Transformers film series.
Thankfully there are numerous highlights, the shots of Rio are breath-taking and Bella giving birth is truly horrific, you can’t take your eyes of the screen for a second. Also worth a mention is a part where the werewolves are running through the forest and end up in a logging plant. It’s a fabulous sequence that really makes you grip your seat.
The Twlight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 1 is a good film. It finally makes use of the promising source material it has been blessed with and it’s pleasing to see that a good sense of direction is all it takes to turn around the fortunes of a film series. It’s far from perfect, with sloppy action scenes and terrible pacing, but finally, I left the cinema with a sense of happiness – I’m actually looking forward to part two. (I can’t believe I just said that.)
https://moviemetropolis.net/2011/11/27/the-twilight-saga-breaking-dawn-part-1-2011/
Of course, those of you familiar with my reviews know that I’m not fond of the Twilight Saga in the slightest, but here I’m prepared to eat my words as newcomer Bill Condon (Dreamgirls) directs a surprisingly enjoyable outing. Unfortunately, it all comes a bit late as this is the penultimate film in Stephanie Meyer’s book series.
Sadly, the Twilight films have never had the critical success of their Harry Potter cousins, probably due to their wooden acting, dire scripting and disappointing special effects, but here, Breaking Dawn Part 1 manages to be at least as good as the first two films of its wizarding counterpart.
The similarities between the two series’ don’t stop there. The decision to split the final book in the Twilight series was probably done because of the success Harry Potter had by splitting the final book into two films.
Here, Bill Condon manages to inject some life into the franchise with good acting, good special effects and finally, a good storyline. Edward (Robert Pattinson) and Bella (Kristen Stewart) have finally decided to tie the knot. Naturally, Jacob (Taylor Lautner) is less than pleased with this announcement and decides to run away in a fit of rage. Will he be back for the wedding? GASP!
Alas, he makes it and just before Edward whisks Bella on their honeymoon, some pleasantries are exchanged between the bride and the wolf. So, the honeymoon comes and Bella realises she’s pregnant; oh dear. The film then follows her journey to becoming a mother and the growing beast inside her. Thankfully, the point where the film is split doesn’t jar like it did in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows and seems to follow a natural ending.
The special effects have also upped their game for the latest instalment as the (still blatantly obvious) CGI werewolves look much more realistic. Also, the acting has improved leaps and bounds with Kristen Stewart being a real highlight. The realisation that motherhood could kill her is fantastically portrayed by Stewart, though the special effects making her look frail probably helped here.
Taylor Lautner is the best out of the male leads and does the role some justice, whilst Robert Pattinson is mediocre as Edward.
There’s still a problem with the films pacing however. It seems that events that would take 10 minutes worth of screen time in other films have to take 30 in the Twilight saga; it’s a major annoyance as it interrupts the flow of the film and the constant close ups of the characters’ faces grate after a while.
Also, Condon has clearly not directed many films that require action scenes. A major fight with the werewolves and the Cullen’s should have been a real highlight, but it’s a sloppily directed sequence with bodies mashing together. You’re unsure as to who is who, a problem which blights the Transformers film series.
Thankfully there are numerous highlights, the shots of Rio are breath-taking and Bella giving birth is truly horrific, you can’t take your eyes of the screen for a second. Also worth a mention is a part where the werewolves are running through the forest and end up in a logging plant. It’s a fabulous sequence that really makes you grip your seat.
The Twlight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 1 is a good film. It finally makes use of the promising source material it has been blessed with and it’s pleasing to see that a good sense of direction is all it takes to turn around the fortunes of a film series. It’s far from perfect, with sloppy action scenes and terrible pacing, but finally, I left the cinema with a sense of happiness – I’m actually looking forward to part two. (I can’t believe I just said that.)
https://moviemetropolis.net/2011/11/27/the-twilight-saga-breaking-dawn-part-1-2011/