Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated First Man (2018) in Movies
Oct 13, 2018
GREAT, Visceral Space Scenes - Boring, Soap-Opera-ish Earth Scenes
Get to the largest screen you can find with the best sound system and check out FIRST MAN. The visceral spectacle of space travel is expertly captured and needs to be seen on the BIG screen while your chair vibrates from the sound. You, the audience, fwill eel like you are in the spaceship with Neil Armstrong on his way to the moon.
Too bad the Earth-bound moments of this film don't go to the same heights.
Directed by Damien Chazelle in his follow-up to his Oscar winning Directorial stint with LA LA LAND, FIRST MAN tells the story of Neil Armstrong in the 1960s, going from test pilot to the First Man who stepped foot on the moon.
As I stated earlier, the times that we are in the space capsule, or flight plane or test simulator with Armstrong are a visceral experience not to be missed. Chazelle puts his camera close in, often times seeing what Armstrong is seeing - most of that time with loud, shimming and shaking noises and shimming and shaking cameras that left me wonder how these Pioneers of Space Flight ever made it to the Moon and back safely. These scenes - and especially the last 1/2 hour of the film when Armstrong & Co. go to the moon - are worth the price of admission alone. Add on top of that a driving, visceral (there's that word again) score by Chazelle's musical collaborator Justin Hurwitz (Oscar winner for the music for LA LA LAND) and your heart will be thumping loudly in your chest during these exhilarating scenes.
And that is good, for Chazelle and screenwriter Josh Singer (SPOTLIGHT) try to squeeze in a Soap-Opera-esque plot and motivation for Armstrong throughout this film that just didn't work for me. They tried too hard to give Armstrong some "personal" motivations for being stoic, pragmatic and driven to his vision.
As for the acting, Ryan Gosling is...well...stoic, pragmatic and driven to his vision as Armstrong. Do you see that look on Gosling/Armstrong's face in the picture that is accompanying this review? You get that 90% of the time with him. Most of the other actors - Jason Clarke, Kyle Chandler, Pablo Schreiber, Ethan Embry, Lukas Haas - all give the same stoic, pragmatic performance, so there is no real personality here. Even the great Ciaran Hinds - who normally can chew scenery with the best of them - was toned way down to stoic, pragmatic proportions.
This made the performance of Corey Stoll as Buzz Aldrin all the more jarring for he bursts into this film at about the halfway point, cracking jokes and having a personality. Unfortunately, this was annoying at this point, rather than refreshing and I ended up thinking what a jerk Aldrin is.
Add to that Claire Foy (THE CROWN) as Armstrong's wife who has a constant pained expression on her face. She will get an Oscar nomination, for she had the big "Oscars" speech as the worried wife and mother - a speech where Gosling/Armstrong looked at her pragmatically and with solid stoicism.
Fortunately, what saves this movie is that these Earth-bound scenes of fairly boring people in cliched situations are quickly wiped away with awe-inspiring action pieces - they really are worth the price of admission - even the higher price you will need to pay to see it in IMAX with a kick-butt sound system.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars - have I mentioned how great the space scenes in this film are?
And you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Too bad the Earth-bound moments of this film don't go to the same heights.
Directed by Damien Chazelle in his follow-up to his Oscar winning Directorial stint with LA LA LAND, FIRST MAN tells the story of Neil Armstrong in the 1960s, going from test pilot to the First Man who stepped foot on the moon.
As I stated earlier, the times that we are in the space capsule, or flight plane or test simulator with Armstrong are a visceral experience not to be missed. Chazelle puts his camera close in, often times seeing what Armstrong is seeing - most of that time with loud, shimming and shaking noises and shimming and shaking cameras that left me wonder how these Pioneers of Space Flight ever made it to the Moon and back safely. These scenes - and especially the last 1/2 hour of the film when Armstrong & Co. go to the moon - are worth the price of admission alone. Add on top of that a driving, visceral (there's that word again) score by Chazelle's musical collaborator Justin Hurwitz (Oscar winner for the music for LA LA LAND) and your heart will be thumping loudly in your chest during these exhilarating scenes.
And that is good, for Chazelle and screenwriter Josh Singer (SPOTLIGHT) try to squeeze in a Soap-Opera-esque plot and motivation for Armstrong throughout this film that just didn't work for me. They tried too hard to give Armstrong some "personal" motivations for being stoic, pragmatic and driven to his vision.
As for the acting, Ryan Gosling is...well...stoic, pragmatic and driven to his vision as Armstrong. Do you see that look on Gosling/Armstrong's face in the picture that is accompanying this review? You get that 90% of the time with him. Most of the other actors - Jason Clarke, Kyle Chandler, Pablo Schreiber, Ethan Embry, Lukas Haas - all give the same stoic, pragmatic performance, so there is no real personality here. Even the great Ciaran Hinds - who normally can chew scenery with the best of them - was toned way down to stoic, pragmatic proportions.
This made the performance of Corey Stoll as Buzz Aldrin all the more jarring for he bursts into this film at about the halfway point, cracking jokes and having a personality. Unfortunately, this was annoying at this point, rather than refreshing and I ended up thinking what a jerk Aldrin is.
Add to that Claire Foy (THE CROWN) as Armstrong's wife who has a constant pained expression on her face. She will get an Oscar nomination, for she had the big "Oscars" speech as the worried wife and mother - a speech where Gosling/Armstrong looked at her pragmatically and with solid stoicism.
Fortunately, what saves this movie is that these Earth-bound scenes of fairly boring people in cliched situations are quickly wiped away with awe-inspiring action pieces - they really are worth the price of admission - even the higher price you will need to pay to see it in IMAX with a kick-butt sound system.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars - have I mentioned how great the space scenes in this film are?
And you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Merissa (12058 KP) rated A Timeline Restored (Prevent the Past #3) in Books
Jun 15, 2023
A TIMELINE RESTORED is the outstanding finale in the Prevent the Past trilogy and we finish with a bang!
It is Alora and Eli's turn - two people who have suffered more than most and are firmly on board with Lainey's plan. Now, I'm going to be honest here. I haven't suffered what Alora has (thank goodness) so I have no idea how I'd react, either during or after the event. I understand that, I do, but I did find myself telling her to move on; that Eli had done the best he could in a horrible situation, and that he wasn't the one to actually do the deed. She didn't listen to me and poor Eli paid the price. Him-I loved, which actually surprised me considering the things he has done. But, oh man, he knew he had done them and paid for them every moment of every day. Tortured hero, anyone? Sign me up!
Anyway, there is more to this book than just Eli and Alora. We also have Elle and Zach, plus Lainey and Hunter, plus Claire and Cyrus, and let's not forget the indomitable Marie. Can someone please pass me a hanky?
The ending - oh, my; let's talk about that ending, shall we? The words perfect, shocking, twisted, and is it really over? pass through my mind! I won't say anymore but oh, boy. Strap yourselves in because it's a bumpy ride but definitely worth it!
This has been such a great series, outside my normal comfort zone with all the talk of time travel, paradoxes, and science, but I have loved each and every book. Rebecca Hefner was already a go-to author for me for paranormal romance. Now I know that it doesn't matter the genre; if she writes it, I will read it!
HIGHLY recommended but please start with book one so you have some idea of what's going on!
** same worded review will appear elsewhere **
* A copy of this book was provided to me with no requirements for a review. I voluntarily read this book; the comments here are my honest opinion. *
Merissa
Archaeolibrarian - I Dig Good Books!
Jun 15, 2023
It is Alora and Eli's turn - two people who have suffered more than most and are firmly on board with Lainey's plan. Now, I'm going to be honest here. I haven't suffered what Alora has (thank goodness) so I have no idea how I'd react, either during or after the event. I understand that, I do, but I did find myself telling her to move on; that Eli had done the best he could in a horrible situation, and that he wasn't the one to actually do the deed. She didn't listen to me and poor Eli paid the price. Him-I loved, which actually surprised me considering the things he has done. But, oh man, he knew he had done them and paid for them every moment of every day. Tortured hero, anyone? Sign me up!
Anyway, there is more to this book than just Eli and Alora. We also have Elle and Zach, plus Lainey and Hunter, plus Claire and Cyrus, and let's not forget the indomitable Marie. Can someone please pass me a hanky?
The ending - oh, my; let's talk about that ending, shall we? The words perfect, shocking, twisted, and is it really over? pass through my mind! I won't say anymore but oh, boy. Strap yourselves in because it's a bumpy ride but definitely worth it!
This has been such a great series, outside my normal comfort zone with all the talk of time travel, paradoxes, and science, but I have loved each and every book. Rebecca Hefner was already a go-to author for me for paranormal romance. Now I know that it doesn't matter the genre; if she writes it, I will read it!
HIGHLY recommended but please start with book one so you have some idea of what's going on!
** same worded review will appear elsewhere **
* A copy of this book was provided to me with no requirements for a review. I voluntarily read this book; the comments here are my honest opinion. *
Merissa
Archaeolibrarian - I Dig Good Books!
Jun 15, 2023
KalJ95 (25 KP) rated Resident Evil 3 (Remake) in Video Games
Apr 10, 2020
Nemesis. Oh, Nemesis. (1 more)
An action focused plot works more for Jill's experience in Racoon City.
Unbelievably short campaign. (2 more)
Cut corners for both the narrative and Nemesis.
Feels like downloadable content for RE2.
Nemesis of their own making.
RE3 is an enigma. After last years remake for RE2, I think the bar was set very high for RE3 to be on par, if not even better due to the introduction of the ultimate weapon in Nemesis. And although the action is amped up significantly, the horror is still here in buckets. So, this is another Resident Evil classic, revamped from the ground up, a classic for the current generation, right?
No, not in the slightest.
RE3 feels rushed, as if Capcom listened to fans begging for their next slice of nostalgia, and wanted to capitalise on the success of RE2. While RE2 felt like a continuous flow of Leon/Claire's story, RE3 feels like segments, all separated within cutscenes. This is more evident when you keep flitting between Jill and Carlos, both of whom don't have as much charisma or emotional weight as Claire or Leon. The opening is a blast of adrenaline and bullets, all contained within the beautifully burning remains of Racoon City. There is just enough exploration, puzzles and zombies to keep you satisfied. That is until Nemesis enters the game. As soon as the indestructible behemoth appears for a second time, the cat and mouse chase begins. Reminiscent of Mr X but on steroids, he simply never lets up, constantly on your back, looking to kill Jill whatever it takes. It's utterly relentless, thrilling, heart-pounding. This section was everything I expected RE3 to be.
Then everything collapsed under sections of nothing more than point and shoot. I know, this is RE, but the fear feels drained from the experience. Nemesis himself becomes a background character, simply added to the story just for boss battles. His pursuit of Jill doesn't feel spontaneous, but scripted, exactly the opposite of Mr X. The realisation of how disappointed I felt towards RE3 was when I discovered sections of the game were simply reused from RE2. The creativity that went into RE2 was so meticulous, crafted and positioned for the players experience. When I entered the Police Station with Carlos, a mass onslaught of zombies gathered in one section, only meant for me to rain bullets upon them. And this is the issue with the entire experience. Its nothing more than a five hour storm of sections of shooting monsters.
I do hate this game though. RE3 is fun, and anything remotely like last years experience I will play and enjoy. The story of Jill's residency in Racoon City being turned upside down over the space of a few days is excellent, and the new sections are all well fleshed out and great to explore, especially Racoon City and the Hospital. Its extremely short, and for a full retail price I think its absolutely scandalous, but there's so much replay value here.
If I had to end the review here, I want to end it on a message solely centred at Capcom. Why, in the name of God did you focus your time on the multiplayer mode, Resistance, rather than properly making RE3 a full experience? The past tells you Resident Evil doesn't work well mixed with multiplayer. For as much fun I had within my four hours and thirty two minute playthrough, this game is nothing more than DLC for RE2. And that hurts.
No, not in the slightest.
RE3 feels rushed, as if Capcom listened to fans begging for their next slice of nostalgia, and wanted to capitalise on the success of RE2. While RE2 felt like a continuous flow of Leon/Claire's story, RE3 feels like segments, all separated within cutscenes. This is more evident when you keep flitting between Jill and Carlos, both of whom don't have as much charisma or emotional weight as Claire or Leon. The opening is a blast of adrenaline and bullets, all contained within the beautifully burning remains of Racoon City. There is just enough exploration, puzzles and zombies to keep you satisfied. That is until Nemesis enters the game. As soon as the indestructible behemoth appears for a second time, the cat and mouse chase begins. Reminiscent of Mr X but on steroids, he simply never lets up, constantly on your back, looking to kill Jill whatever it takes. It's utterly relentless, thrilling, heart-pounding. This section was everything I expected RE3 to be.
Then everything collapsed under sections of nothing more than point and shoot. I know, this is RE, but the fear feels drained from the experience. Nemesis himself becomes a background character, simply added to the story just for boss battles. His pursuit of Jill doesn't feel spontaneous, but scripted, exactly the opposite of Mr X. The realisation of how disappointed I felt towards RE3 was when I discovered sections of the game were simply reused from RE2. The creativity that went into RE2 was so meticulous, crafted and positioned for the players experience. When I entered the Police Station with Carlos, a mass onslaught of zombies gathered in one section, only meant for me to rain bullets upon them. And this is the issue with the entire experience. Its nothing more than a five hour storm of sections of shooting monsters.
I do hate this game though. RE3 is fun, and anything remotely like last years experience I will play and enjoy. The story of Jill's residency in Racoon City being turned upside down over the space of a few days is excellent, and the new sections are all well fleshed out and great to explore, especially Racoon City and the Hospital. Its extremely short, and for a full retail price I think its absolutely scandalous, but there's so much replay value here.
If I had to end the review here, I want to end it on a message solely centred at Capcom. Why, in the name of God did you focus your time on the multiplayer mode, Resistance, rather than properly making RE3 a full experience? The past tells you Resident Evil doesn't work well mixed with multiplayer. For as much fun I had within my four hours and thirty two minute playthrough, this game is nothing more than DLC for RE2. And that hurts.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated First Man (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
He captured a feeling. Sky with no ceiling.
A memorable event
I am a child of the 60’s, born in 1961. The “Space Race” for me was not some historical concept but a pervasive backdrop to my childhood. I still recall, at the age of 8, being marched into my junior school’s assembly hall. We all peered at the grainy black-and-white pictures of Neil Armstrong as he spoke his famously fluffed line before stepping onto the lunar surface. The event happened at 3:54am UK time, so clearly my recollection of “seeing it live” is bogus. (I read that the BBC stayed on air until 10:30 in the morning, so it was probably a ‘final review’ of the night’s events I saw). It is probably lodged in my memory less for the historical event and more due to the fact that there was TELEVISION ON IN THE MORNING! (Kids, ask your grandparents!)
A very personal connection. My personal copy of Waddington’s “Blast Off” board game, briefly shown in the film.
The plot
But back to Damien Chazelle‘s film. We start early in the 60’s with America getting well and truly kicked up the proberbial by the Russians in the space race: they fail to get the first man in space; they fail to carry out the first spacewalk. So the Americans, following the famous JFK speech, set their sights on the moon. It’s the equivalent of making a mess of cutting your toenails but then deciding to have a go at brain surgery. NASA develop the Gemini programme to practice the essential docking manoevers required as a precursor for the seemingly impossible (‘two blackboard’) mission that is Apollo.
But the price paid for such ambition is high.
Ryan Gosling plays Neil Armstrong as a dedicated, prickly, professional; altogether not a terribly likeable individual. Claire Foy plays his long-suffering wife Janet, putting her support for her husband’s dangerous profession ahead of her natural fears of becoming a single mother.
Review
There is obviously little tension to be mined from a film that has such a well-known historical context. Those with even a subliminal knowledge of the subject will be aware of the key triumphs and tragedies along the way. The script (by Josh Singer, “The Post“; “Spotlight“) is very well done in developing a creeping dread of knowing what is shortly to come.
Even with these inherent spoilers, Chazelle still manages to evoke armrest-squeezing tension into the space flight sequences. A lot of this is achieved through disorientating camera movements and flashing images that may irritate some but I found to be highly effective. (Did anyone else flash back to that excellent “Mission Space” ride at Epcot during the launch sequences?) This hand-held cinematography by Linus Sandgren (Chazelle’s “La La Land” collaborator) is matched by some utterly drop-dead gorgeous shots – beautifully framed; beautifully lit – that would be worthy of a Kaminski/Spielberg collaboration.
Those expecting a rollercoaster thrill-ride of the likes of “Apollo 13” will be disappointed. The film has more of the slow-and-long-burn feeling of “The Right Stuff” in mood and, at 141 minutes, some might even find it quite boring. There is significant time, for example, spent within the family home. These scenes include turbulent events of which I wasn’t previously aware: events that form the cornerstone of the film’s drama. For me, the balance of the personal and the historical background was perfectly done. I found it curious though that with such a family-oriented drama Chazelle chose to ditch completely any cuts away to the earthbound onlookers during the tense lunar landing sequence. (Compare and contrast with Ron Howard‘s masterly inter-cutting in the re-entry scene of “Apollo 13”). With the outcome foretold, perhaps such tension building was considered unnecessary? I’m not suggesting it was wrong to ‘stay in the moment’ with the astronauts, but it’s a bold directorial move.
Overall, the foolhardiness of NASA trying to do what they did with the 60’s technology at their disposal is well-portrayed. If you’ve been lucky enough, as I have, to view the Apollo 11 capsule in the National Air and Space museum in Washington you can’t help but be impressed by the bravery of Armstong, Aldrin and Collins in getting in that bucket of bolts and putting their lives on the line. True American heroes.
On that topic, the “flag issue” has generated much self-righteous heat within the US media; that is regarding Chazelle not showing the American flag being planted. This seems fatuous to me. Not only is the flag shown on the moon, but the film ably demonstrates the American know-how and bravery behind the mission. If Clint Eastwood had been directing he would have probably gone there: but for me it certainly didn’t need any further patriotism rubbed in the viewer’s face.
The turns
Are Oscar nominations on the cards for Ryan Gosling and Claire Foy? For me, it would be staggering if they are not: this film has “Oscar nomination” written all over it. I’d also certainly not bet against Foy winning for Best Actress: her portrayal of a wife on the edge is nothing short of brilliant. And perhaps, just perhaps, this might be Gosling’s year too.
Elsewhere there are strong supporting performances from Kyle Chandler (as Deke Slayton), Corey Stoll (as the ‘tell it how it is’ Buzz Aldrin) and Jason Clarke (as Ed White). It’s also great to see Belfast-born Ciarán Hinds in another mainstream Hollywood release.
For me, another dead cert Oscar nomination will be Justin Hurwitz for the score which is breathtakingly brilliant, not just in its compelling themes but also in its orchestration: the use of the eerie theremin and melodic harp are just brilliant together. I haven’t heard a score this year that’s more fitting to the visuals: although it’s early in the Oscar season to be calling it, I’d be very surprised if this didn’t walk away with the statuette.
Summary
Loved this. Damien Chazelle – with “Whiplash“, “La La Land” and now “First Man” – has hit all of three out of the park in my book. It’s not really a film for thrill-seekers, who might get bored, but anyone, like me, with an interest in the history of space exploration will I think lap it up: for this was surely the most memorable decade in space history… so far.
On leaving the cinema I looked up at the rising moon and marvelled once more at the audacity of man. My eyes then drifted across to the red dot that was Mars. How long I wonder? And how many dramatic film biographies still to come?
I am a child of the 60’s, born in 1961. The “Space Race” for me was not some historical concept but a pervasive backdrop to my childhood. I still recall, at the age of 8, being marched into my junior school’s assembly hall. We all peered at the grainy black-and-white pictures of Neil Armstrong as he spoke his famously fluffed line before stepping onto the lunar surface. The event happened at 3:54am UK time, so clearly my recollection of “seeing it live” is bogus. (I read that the BBC stayed on air until 10:30 in the morning, so it was probably a ‘final review’ of the night’s events I saw). It is probably lodged in my memory less for the historical event and more due to the fact that there was TELEVISION ON IN THE MORNING! (Kids, ask your grandparents!)
A very personal connection. My personal copy of Waddington’s “Blast Off” board game, briefly shown in the film.
The plot
But back to Damien Chazelle‘s film. We start early in the 60’s with America getting well and truly kicked up the proberbial by the Russians in the space race: they fail to get the first man in space; they fail to carry out the first spacewalk. So the Americans, following the famous JFK speech, set their sights on the moon. It’s the equivalent of making a mess of cutting your toenails but then deciding to have a go at brain surgery. NASA develop the Gemini programme to practice the essential docking manoevers required as a precursor for the seemingly impossible (‘two blackboard’) mission that is Apollo.
But the price paid for such ambition is high.
Ryan Gosling plays Neil Armstrong as a dedicated, prickly, professional; altogether not a terribly likeable individual. Claire Foy plays his long-suffering wife Janet, putting her support for her husband’s dangerous profession ahead of her natural fears of becoming a single mother.
Review
There is obviously little tension to be mined from a film that has such a well-known historical context. Those with even a subliminal knowledge of the subject will be aware of the key triumphs and tragedies along the way. The script (by Josh Singer, “The Post“; “Spotlight“) is very well done in developing a creeping dread of knowing what is shortly to come.
Even with these inherent spoilers, Chazelle still manages to evoke armrest-squeezing tension into the space flight sequences. A lot of this is achieved through disorientating camera movements and flashing images that may irritate some but I found to be highly effective. (Did anyone else flash back to that excellent “Mission Space” ride at Epcot during the launch sequences?) This hand-held cinematography by Linus Sandgren (Chazelle’s “La La Land” collaborator) is matched by some utterly drop-dead gorgeous shots – beautifully framed; beautifully lit – that would be worthy of a Kaminski/Spielberg collaboration.
Those expecting a rollercoaster thrill-ride of the likes of “Apollo 13” will be disappointed. The film has more of the slow-and-long-burn feeling of “The Right Stuff” in mood and, at 141 minutes, some might even find it quite boring. There is significant time, for example, spent within the family home. These scenes include turbulent events of which I wasn’t previously aware: events that form the cornerstone of the film’s drama. For me, the balance of the personal and the historical background was perfectly done. I found it curious though that with such a family-oriented drama Chazelle chose to ditch completely any cuts away to the earthbound onlookers during the tense lunar landing sequence. (Compare and contrast with Ron Howard‘s masterly inter-cutting in the re-entry scene of “Apollo 13”). With the outcome foretold, perhaps such tension building was considered unnecessary? I’m not suggesting it was wrong to ‘stay in the moment’ with the astronauts, but it’s a bold directorial move.
Overall, the foolhardiness of NASA trying to do what they did with the 60’s technology at their disposal is well-portrayed. If you’ve been lucky enough, as I have, to view the Apollo 11 capsule in the National Air and Space museum in Washington you can’t help but be impressed by the bravery of Armstong, Aldrin and Collins in getting in that bucket of bolts and putting their lives on the line. True American heroes.
On that topic, the “flag issue” has generated much self-righteous heat within the US media; that is regarding Chazelle not showing the American flag being planted. This seems fatuous to me. Not only is the flag shown on the moon, but the film ably demonstrates the American know-how and bravery behind the mission. If Clint Eastwood had been directing he would have probably gone there: but for me it certainly didn’t need any further patriotism rubbed in the viewer’s face.
The turns
Are Oscar nominations on the cards for Ryan Gosling and Claire Foy? For me, it would be staggering if they are not: this film has “Oscar nomination” written all over it. I’d also certainly not bet against Foy winning for Best Actress: her portrayal of a wife on the edge is nothing short of brilliant. And perhaps, just perhaps, this might be Gosling’s year too.
Elsewhere there are strong supporting performances from Kyle Chandler (as Deke Slayton), Corey Stoll (as the ‘tell it how it is’ Buzz Aldrin) and Jason Clarke (as Ed White). It’s also great to see Belfast-born Ciarán Hinds in another mainstream Hollywood release.
For me, another dead cert Oscar nomination will be Justin Hurwitz for the score which is breathtakingly brilliant, not just in its compelling themes but also in its orchestration: the use of the eerie theremin and melodic harp are just brilliant together. I haven’t heard a score this year that’s more fitting to the visuals: although it’s early in the Oscar season to be calling it, I’d be very surprised if this didn’t walk away with the statuette.
Summary
Loved this. Damien Chazelle – with “Whiplash“, “La La Land” and now “First Man” – has hit all of three out of the park in my book. It’s not really a film for thrill-seekers, who might get bored, but anyone, like me, with an interest in the history of space exploration will I think lap it up: for this was surely the most memorable decade in space history… so far.
On leaving the cinema I looked up at the rising moon and marvelled once more at the audacity of man. My eyes then drifted across to the red dot that was Mars. How long I wonder? And how many dramatic film biographies still to come?