Search
Search results
Sassy Brit (97 KP) rated The Beguiled in Books
Jun 5, 2019
“A classic slice of Southern Gothic, shot through with psychological suspense, which is the basis for Sofia Coppola’s (winner of Best Director at Cannes) 2017 film of the same name starring Nicola Kidman, Colin Farrell and Kirsten Dunst”. Source: wiki/The_Beguiled_(2017_film).
The book was originally written with the title A Painted Devil and some of you eagle-eyed readers and film fanatics may also remember this was a film starring Clint Eastwood and Geraldine Page in the ’70s. The maid in the latter film and this 1966 novel, was black and there was also another bi-racial character, too. However, in the new film, mentioned above, this bi-racial character was played by Kirsten Dunst. This totally ruined the whole point of the book that the black woman was really a slave in their household and the bi-racial woman (who was a free woman) could not seem to see that she herself was not truly white. And that, dear readers, is a very relevant part of the original book, why change it? (Rolls eyes). Is it so wrong to portray this black woman exactly how the author intended her to be? The way I see it, what she did in that house was her way of surviving. It’s an integral part of the story. Why hide it?
After all, if you look at the underage sex and the way the main male character acts by taking advantage of his position in a household full of young girls who are basically shut away from society, should he also be seen as wrong? These young girls are easy prey, but some, are also very willing to learn… Incidentally, I must say the heat and sexual tension within the book is superbly done.
I found parts of the way this was written to be a little repetitive and confusing in style, despite this, it was still a great story. It’s only told from the girls’ perspective, which in many ways adds to this atmospheric, hothouse of lies and deceit the further into the story you delve.
The Beguiled is chock full with a Gothic sense of foreboding and unease, set against a backdrop of the Civil War, which made for some serious, ghostly tension. Who is this injured solider who turns up on their doorstep? How can these girls protect themselves from this seductive man when they have no idea what life is like outside the four walls of the house they live in?
If you read right to the end you’ll find out the brilliant twist of fate this story has in store for you. A devious surprise!
The book was originally written with the title A Painted Devil and some of you eagle-eyed readers and film fanatics may also remember this was a film starring Clint Eastwood and Geraldine Page in the ’70s. The maid in the latter film and this 1966 novel, was black and there was also another bi-racial character, too. However, in the new film, mentioned above, this bi-racial character was played by Kirsten Dunst. This totally ruined the whole point of the book that the black woman was really a slave in their household and the bi-racial woman (who was a free woman) could not seem to see that she herself was not truly white. And that, dear readers, is a very relevant part of the original book, why change it? (Rolls eyes). Is it so wrong to portray this black woman exactly how the author intended her to be? The way I see it, what she did in that house was her way of surviving. It’s an integral part of the story. Why hide it?
After all, if you look at the underage sex and the way the main male character acts by taking advantage of his position in a household full of young girls who are basically shut away from society, should he also be seen as wrong? These young girls are easy prey, but some, are also very willing to learn… Incidentally, I must say the heat and sexual tension within the book is superbly done.
I found parts of the way this was written to be a little repetitive and confusing in style, despite this, it was still a great story. It’s only told from the girls’ perspective, which in many ways adds to this atmospheric, hothouse of lies and deceit the further into the story you delve.
The Beguiled is chock full with a Gothic sense of foreboding and unease, set against a backdrop of the Civil War, which made for some serious, ghostly tension. Who is this injured solider who turns up on their doorstep? How can these girls protect themselves from this seductive man when they have no idea what life is like outside the four walls of the house they live in?
If you read right to the end you’ll find out the brilliant twist of fate this story has in store for you. A devious surprise!
Rachel King (13 KP) rated Black Magic Sanction (The Hollows, #8) in Books
Feb 11, 2019
This book was like one long game of fight-or-flight, mixed in with multiple escape plans when Rachel could not avoid getting caught. Being Rachel Morgan must be quite exhausting. Being eight books in now, I have been able to come up with many reasons why I enjoy reading this series so much. For starters, I love how Kim Harrison plays off of Clint Eastwood films for her book titles. I also love how each race of supernatural beings are so creatively developed to be both unique and intriguing, right down to the intimate biological makeup. I especially love how Rachel operates "by the seat of her pants" so to speak. Her instincts are nearly always spot on, and she's got reflexes that put a cat's to shame. Even though her deceased father inadvertedly put her in this position of power, able to change the course of history on her version of Earth, she still strives to be "normal" and refuses to be anyone's puppet.
This book was all about crossing moral lines for the right reasons and how far Rachel is willing to cross them to protect those she loves and be free herself. The plot was exciting and fast-paced almost from cover to cover, except for a sad note that had me shedding a few tears - even though the series has given the reader fair warning of what would eventually happen - as well as a hot-and-heavy interlude - because it wouldn't be a Rachel Morgan book without it. I love the mental, unvoiced quips that Rachel dreams up to convey her thoughts, which are so much more entertaining than just base cussing. Case in point: "Are frogs coming from the sun in shapeships, too?" How can a person not laugh at that? Jenks' frequent quips about Tinkerbell can be quite hilarious, too. The ending to the book holds quite a bit of promise for the next one, Pale Demon, especially in regards to Rachel's relationship with the elf, Trent. Speaking of relationships, I am rather intrigued by Al's obsession with Rachel, especially after he changed his appearance with his gargoyle Treble. While I admit my interest may be heavy on the icky, one must admit the potential for certain interludes is strong and highly possible, given what Rachel is becoming. Plus, Al makes no secret of his interest in Rachel, trying three times to convince her to move in the ever-after, though I have my suspicions that his interest is more than just physical. The close look that the reader got of the Coven of Moral and Ethical Standards shows some interesting possibilities given that Pierce is a past member of it. Oh the havoc that Rachel can cause will keep me interested in this series for as long as Kim Harrison keeps writing it!
This book was all about crossing moral lines for the right reasons and how far Rachel is willing to cross them to protect those she loves and be free herself. The plot was exciting and fast-paced almost from cover to cover, except for a sad note that had me shedding a few tears - even though the series has given the reader fair warning of what would eventually happen - as well as a hot-and-heavy interlude - because it wouldn't be a Rachel Morgan book without it. I love the mental, unvoiced quips that Rachel dreams up to convey her thoughts, which are so much more entertaining than just base cussing. Case in point: "Are frogs coming from the sun in shapeships, too?" How can a person not laugh at that? Jenks' frequent quips about Tinkerbell can be quite hilarious, too. The ending to the book holds quite a bit of promise for the next one, Pale Demon, especially in regards to Rachel's relationship with the elf, Trent. Speaking of relationships, I am rather intrigued by Al's obsession with Rachel, especially after he changed his appearance with his gargoyle Treble. While I admit my interest may be heavy on the icky, one must admit the potential for certain interludes is strong and highly possible, given what Rachel is becoming. Plus, Al makes no secret of his interest in Rachel, trying three times to convince her to move in the ever-after, though I have my suspicions that his interest is more than just physical. The close look that the reader got of the Coven of Moral and Ethical Standards shows some interesting possibilities given that Pierce is a past member of it. Oh the havoc that Rachel can cause will keep me interested in this series for as long as Kim Harrison keeps writing it!
JT (287 KP) rated The Little Things (2021) in Movies
Feb 6, 2021
The opening of The Little Things promises a lot but ultimately the tension that is driven during the first ten minutes is nowhere to be seen for the rest of the run time.
With three Oscar-winning actors and a genre that I absolutely love I couldn’t have been more excited, but that excitement started to take a nosedive when ‘The Little Things‘ started to get a ‘little dull’. Joe ‘Deke’ Deacon (Denzel Washington) is former Los Angeles cop turned local county sheriff, whose content with chasing small-time criminals. When he is asked to go back to the city to pick up some evidence for another case he crosses paths with Jim Baxter (Rami Malek) who is on the hunt for a sadistic serial killer.
Baxter realising that he is in the presence of greatness asks Deacon to accompany him to a crime scene, at which point Deke’s instincts point to someone potentially far more dangerous. Set in the 90s this is raw police work and the use of technology is limited, this is about assessing a crime scene in-depth, or in this case why the killer posed his victims in specific ways or returned to the crime scene later to move them.
Director John Lee Hancock wrote the script 30 years ago which is where it has remained until now. At one point Steven Spielberg and Clint Eastwood were rumoured to direct. The film bears resemblance to such thrillers as Se7en and Zodiac, however, The Little Things might be 30 years too late. The atmosphere and ambience is a neo-noir, at one point Deke is lying on a bed in a run-down motel room starring at polaroid photos of past victims on the wall. An obsession burning inside to catch the killer, which during flashbacks, he has encountered before.
And then there is Albert Sparma (Jared Leto) the prime suspect, or is he? Such is the film’s ambiguity that the third act will leave you scratching your head, trying to piece the evidence together yourself in a bid to catch the killer. Sparma has all the tendencies of a serial killer, he certainly has the look and demeanour. But he may also be a self-obsessed crime buff, with a morbid fascination for death and crime scenes.
All three actors give a solid account of themselves, with Leto making the biggest impression. He’s creepy in a way that will get under your skin. The film is bursting with ideas and places to ramp up the tension but it falls short which is such a shame. As someone who is very fond of a good psychological thriller, this was definitely a missed opportunity.
With three Oscar-winning actors and a genre that I absolutely love I couldn’t have been more excited, but that excitement started to take a nosedive when ‘The Little Things‘ started to get a ‘little dull’. Joe ‘Deke’ Deacon (Denzel Washington) is former Los Angeles cop turned local county sheriff, whose content with chasing small-time criminals. When he is asked to go back to the city to pick up some evidence for another case he crosses paths with Jim Baxter (Rami Malek) who is on the hunt for a sadistic serial killer.
Baxter realising that he is in the presence of greatness asks Deacon to accompany him to a crime scene, at which point Deke’s instincts point to someone potentially far more dangerous. Set in the 90s this is raw police work and the use of technology is limited, this is about assessing a crime scene in-depth, or in this case why the killer posed his victims in specific ways or returned to the crime scene later to move them.
Director John Lee Hancock wrote the script 30 years ago which is where it has remained until now. At one point Steven Spielberg and Clint Eastwood were rumoured to direct. The film bears resemblance to such thrillers as Se7en and Zodiac, however, The Little Things might be 30 years too late. The atmosphere and ambience is a neo-noir, at one point Deke is lying on a bed in a run-down motel room starring at polaroid photos of past victims on the wall. An obsession burning inside to catch the killer, which during flashbacks, he has encountered before.
And then there is Albert Sparma (Jared Leto) the prime suspect, or is he? Such is the film’s ambiguity that the third act will leave you scratching your head, trying to piece the evidence together yourself in a bid to catch the killer. Sparma has all the tendencies of a serial killer, he certainly has the look and demeanour. But he may also be a self-obsessed crime buff, with a morbid fascination for death and crime scenes.
All three actors give a solid account of themselves, with Leto making the biggest impression. He’s creepy in a way that will get under your skin. The film is bursting with ideas and places to ramp up the tension but it falls short which is such a shame. As someone who is very fond of a good psychological thriller, this was definitely a missed opportunity.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Hacksaw Ridge (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
In God, and Doss, we Trust.
Those dreaded words – “Based On A True Story” – emerge again from the blackness of the opening page. Actually, no. In a move that could be considered arrogant if it wasn’t so well researched, here we even lose the first two words.
When a war film is described as being “visceral” then you know you need to steel yourself mentally for what you might see. But given that this film is based around the horrendously brutal combat between the Americans and the Japanese on the Pacific island of Okinawa in 1945 this is a warning well-founded. For the battle scenes in this film are reminiscent of the opening scenes of “Saving Private Ryan” in their brutality: long gone are the war films of John Wayne where there would be a shot, a grasp of the stomach and a casual descent to earth.
But before we get to the battle itself, the film has a leisurely hour of character building which is time well spent (although it could have perhaps been trimmed a tad tighter). Desmond Doss (Andrew Garfield, “The Amazing Spiderman”, “Never Let Me Go”) grows up a God-fearing youngster in the beautiful surroundings of the Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia. His alcoholic father (Hugo Weaving, “The Lord of the Rings”, “The Matrix”) has been mentally traumatised by the First World War, further strengthening Desmond’s fervent belief in following the Ten Commandments; most notably “Thou Shalt Not Kill”. But his patriotic sense of duty is also strong, and Doss signs up after Pearl Harbor and is posted to a rifle brigade that – given his refusal to even touch a rifle – puts him on a collision course with the US Army. It also (obviously) disrupts his romance with nurse sweetheart Dorothy (Teresa Palmer).
This is really two films in one, with the first half setting up extremely well the characters that make the second half so effective. For you care – really care – for what happens to most of the characters involved, especially the zealous and determined Doss who has nothing to face the Japanese hoards with but a medical bag. The feelings that comes to top of mind are awe that these real people actually had to go through this horror and hope that in today’s increasingly unstable political world we will never need to again face such inhumanity of man against man again.
Andrew Garfield really carries this film, and his Best Actor Oscar nomination is well-deserved. He is perfectly cast as the (onward) Christian soldier. Also outstanding is Hugo Weaving in an emotional and persuasive role playing opposite Rachel Griffiths (“Saving Mr Banks”) his wife. But the real acting surprise here for me was Vince Vaughn (“The Wedding Crashers”) who plays the no-nonsense platoon Sergeant Howell: never one of my favourite actors, here he brings in a warm and nuanced performance that ends with a memorable action scene.
Also worthy of specific note is Dan Oliver (“Mad Max: Fury Road”) and his team of special effects technicians, the stunt teams (led by Kyle Gardiner and Mic Rodgers), production designer Barry Robinson and the hair and makeup team, all of who collaborate to make the final half of the film so gripping.
The film marks a comeback from the film society ‘naughty step’ of Mel Gibson after his much publicised fall from grace in the mid-noughties. A Best Director Oscar nomination would appear to cement that resurrection. For this is a phenomenal achievement in direction and one that should be applauded.
The film bears closest comparison with the interesting two-film combo from Clint Eastwood – “Flags of our Fathers” (from the American viewpoint) and “Letters from Iwo Jima” (from the Japanese viewpoint). While all three films share the same blood and guts quotient, with “Hacksaw Ridge” edging this award, the Eastwood films tend to have more emotional depth and a more thought-provoking treatment of the Japanese angle. In “Hacksaw Ridge”, while the war crimes of the Japanese are clear, the war crimes of the Americans are quietly cloaked behind a cryptic line (“They didn’t make it”).
That being said, there is no crime in a rollicking good story well told, and “Hacksaw Ridge” is certainly that. This was a film I did not have high hopes for. But I was surprised to be proved wrong. Recommended.
When a war film is described as being “visceral” then you know you need to steel yourself mentally for what you might see. But given that this film is based around the horrendously brutal combat between the Americans and the Japanese on the Pacific island of Okinawa in 1945 this is a warning well-founded. For the battle scenes in this film are reminiscent of the opening scenes of “Saving Private Ryan” in their brutality: long gone are the war films of John Wayne where there would be a shot, a grasp of the stomach and a casual descent to earth.
But before we get to the battle itself, the film has a leisurely hour of character building which is time well spent (although it could have perhaps been trimmed a tad tighter). Desmond Doss (Andrew Garfield, “The Amazing Spiderman”, “Never Let Me Go”) grows up a God-fearing youngster in the beautiful surroundings of the Blue Ridge Mountains of Virginia. His alcoholic father (Hugo Weaving, “The Lord of the Rings”, “The Matrix”) has been mentally traumatised by the First World War, further strengthening Desmond’s fervent belief in following the Ten Commandments; most notably “Thou Shalt Not Kill”. But his patriotic sense of duty is also strong, and Doss signs up after Pearl Harbor and is posted to a rifle brigade that – given his refusal to even touch a rifle – puts him on a collision course with the US Army. It also (obviously) disrupts his romance with nurse sweetheart Dorothy (Teresa Palmer).
This is really two films in one, with the first half setting up extremely well the characters that make the second half so effective. For you care – really care – for what happens to most of the characters involved, especially the zealous and determined Doss who has nothing to face the Japanese hoards with but a medical bag. The feelings that comes to top of mind are awe that these real people actually had to go through this horror and hope that in today’s increasingly unstable political world we will never need to again face such inhumanity of man against man again.
Andrew Garfield really carries this film, and his Best Actor Oscar nomination is well-deserved. He is perfectly cast as the (onward) Christian soldier. Also outstanding is Hugo Weaving in an emotional and persuasive role playing opposite Rachel Griffiths (“Saving Mr Banks”) his wife. But the real acting surprise here for me was Vince Vaughn (“The Wedding Crashers”) who plays the no-nonsense platoon Sergeant Howell: never one of my favourite actors, here he brings in a warm and nuanced performance that ends with a memorable action scene.
Also worthy of specific note is Dan Oliver (“Mad Max: Fury Road”) and his team of special effects technicians, the stunt teams (led by Kyle Gardiner and Mic Rodgers), production designer Barry Robinson and the hair and makeup team, all of who collaborate to make the final half of the film so gripping.
The film marks a comeback from the film society ‘naughty step’ of Mel Gibson after his much publicised fall from grace in the mid-noughties. A Best Director Oscar nomination would appear to cement that resurrection. For this is a phenomenal achievement in direction and one that should be applauded.
The film bears closest comparison with the interesting two-film combo from Clint Eastwood – “Flags of our Fathers” (from the American viewpoint) and “Letters from Iwo Jima” (from the Japanese viewpoint). While all three films share the same blood and guts quotient, with “Hacksaw Ridge” edging this award, the Eastwood films tend to have more emotional depth and a more thought-provoking treatment of the Japanese angle. In “Hacksaw Ridge”, while the war crimes of the Japanese are clear, the war crimes of the Americans are quietly cloaked behind a cryptic line (“They didn’t make it”).
That being said, there is no crime in a rollicking good story well told, and “Hacksaw Ridge” is certainly that. This was a film I did not have high hopes for. But I was surprised to be proved wrong. Recommended.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Crank 2: High Voltage (2009) in Movies
Apr 12, 2020
A Very Poor Man's Hardcore Henry
Chev Chelios (Jason Statham) is back (because apparently falling out of a helicopter thousands of feet in the air can’t kill him) facing off against a gang of thugs that want to harvest his “special” heart for their leader. Artificial heart attached, Chev has to keep recharging himself or slow down and, ultimately, die. Can’t make this shit up…
Acting: 2
Beginning: 4
Characters: 3
You might find it a challenge to find a more disinteresting group of characters wrapped in one movie. I’m not exaggerating when I say I hated just about everyone in Crank 2: High Voltage. Every character is overdone and represents one big waste of space. And the man of the hour, Chev Chelios? Yep, hate him too. He’s crass (and not in the cool Logan kind of way), racist (and not in the cool Clint Eastwood kind of way), and only cares about himself. Thirty minutes in, I was wishing he would run out of options and his heart would just stop, putting me out of my misery once and for all.
I wish he was the worst, but yes it gets worse. The other characters are a combination of racist stereotypes, antagonists that would be better off with a couple of lines rather than pages of them, and fodder for gunfire. The combination was painful to say the least.
Cinematography/Visuals: 9
Conflict: 7
The action is far out there and I definitely give them a C for effort. I know farfetched is the name of the game when it comes to this movie, but so is Hardcore Henry by comparison and I loved those action scenes. Perfect example: A gunfight breaks out at a mansion. A gardener continues to hedge the bushes while bullets are flying all around him before he finally gets shot. Come on, man! Too lazy for words.
Entertainment Value: 5
Memorability: 7
For better or worse, there are definitely moments of this movie I will never forget. Like the sex scene on the horse racetrack. During a live horse race. Or the head in the jar. Or the random porn star protest. Or or or…I never said they were great memorable moments, but they are in there.
Pace: 7
Plot: 4
The story doesn’t even begin to make sense. I’m only giving it a four because the whole story revolves around Chev beating people the hell up so the story really shouldn’t matter that much. Still, if you’re looking for something coherent, please save your time and go watch something else.
Resolution: 4
Overall: 52
On my quest to watch 366 movies in a year, yes, I have seen worse movies than Crank 2: High Voltage. But not many. It’s bad. Real bad. Please save your time and avoid this movie at all costs.
Acting: 2
Beginning: 4
Characters: 3
You might find it a challenge to find a more disinteresting group of characters wrapped in one movie. I’m not exaggerating when I say I hated just about everyone in Crank 2: High Voltage. Every character is overdone and represents one big waste of space. And the man of the hour, Chev Chelios? Yep, hate him too. He’s crass (and not in the cool Logan kind of way), racist (and not in the cool Clint Eastwood kind of way), and only cares about himself. Thirty minutes in, I was wishing he would run out of options and his heart would just stop, putting me out of my misery once and for all.
I wish he was the worst, but yes it gets worse. The other characters are a combination of racist stereotypes, antagonists that would be better off with a couple of lines rather than pages of them, and fodder for gunfire. The combination was painful to say the least.
Cinematography/Visuals: 9
Conflict: 7
The action is far out there and I definitely give them a C for effort. I know farfetched is the name of the game when it comes to this movie, but so is Hardcore Henry by comparison and I loved those action scenes. Perfect example: A gunfight breaks out at a mansion. A gardener continues to hedge the bushes while bullets are flying all around him before he finally gets shot. Come on, man! Too lazy for words.
Entertainment Value: 5
Memorability: 7
For better or worse, there are definitely moments of this movie I will never forget. Like the sex scene on the horse racetrack. During a live horse race. Or the head in the jar. Or the random porn star protest. Or or or…I never said they were great memorable moments, but they are in there.
Pace: 7
Plot: 4
The story doesn’t even begin to make sense. I’m only giving it a four because the whole story revolves around Chev beating people the hell up so the story really shouldn’t matter that much. Still, if you’re looking for something coherent, please save your time and go watch something else.
Resolution: 4
Overall: 52
On my quest to watch 366 movies in a year, yes, I have seen worse movies than Crank 2: High Voltage. But not many. It’s bad. Real bad. Please save your time and avoid this movie at all costs.
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated 16 Blocks (2006) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
A burnt out cop with a bad limp and a taste for the bottle has just finished his shift and is looking forward to heading home for some rest. Sadly for Detective Jack Mosley (Bruce Willis), his day is about to get much longer than he expected.
On his way out of the precinct, his Lieutenant tasks him to escort a prisoner named Eddie Bunker (Mos Def), 16 blocks in 90 minutes so he can testify before a jury. Since the jury will disband in 90 minutes, it is vital that Eddie appear before them or else months of work in a prime case will be lost.
Jack is less than thrilled to be stuck with Eddie as his high voice and rapid fire style of speech really annoy Jack, who decides to take a detour from the non stop rants of Eddie to purchase a bottle of alcohol so he can drown his sorrows.
No sooner does Jack complete his purchase at a favorite store than an attempt is made on Eddie by armed men forcing Jack and Eddie to flee on foot and take refuge in a local bar where they are soon met by detective Frank Nugent (David Morse), who said he was in the area and responded to Jack’s call for assistance.
Frank informs his former partner Jack that he is escorting a snitch who is about to give evidence that will implicate many cops who were simply doing business. Frank suggests that Jack head home and rest while he cleans up the problem by taking charge of Eddie.
When Jack learns that Frank and his associates intend to kill Eddie to keep him from testifying, Jack decides to defend Eddie and the two of them begin a deadly race against the clock as they attempt to not only get Eddie to the courthouse in time, but to simply stay alive against a cadre of corrupt cops.
Since he went up against fellow cops, Jack is reported as a rogue who turned on fellow officers, which leaves him with nowhere to turn and without backup as he attempt to stay one step ahead of the relentless Frank and his associates as they venture from one city block to another in order to stay alive. Along the way, the two men bond, and Jack begins to learn that what Eddie knows will get them all killed and that in a city the size of New York, there are precious few places to hide, when people are determined to find you.
The solid pacing of the film and the quality work by Morse, Willis, and Mos Def keeps 16 Blocks an entertaining and engaging film. The chemistry amongst the leads draws you in more than most typical action dramas do, as you find yourself caring about the two individuals and want them to succeed.
Director Richard Donner has dialed down his usual explosions but has not sacrificed the action as it is always appropriate to the story and never seems tacked on. The film does loose some steam towards the end but does ultimately arrive at a conclusion that makes the trip worthwhile.
The film does borrow in parts from the classic Clint Eastwood film “The Gauntlet”. Even down to the heroes taking refuge in a city bus and attempted to evade the police in the bus amidst an armada of armed officers who are looking to shoot first and ask questions later.
If you are a fan of Willis or Mos Def and like action dramas, then 16 Blocks is a trip well worth taking.
On his way out of the precinct, his Lieutenant tasks him to escort a prisoner named Eddie Bunker (Mos Def), 16 blocks in 90 minutes so he can testify before a jury. Since the jury will disband in 90 minutes, it is vital that Eddie appear before them or else months of work in a prime case will be lost.
Jack is less than thrilled to be stuck with Eddie as his high voice and rapid fire style of speech really annoy Jack, who decides to take a detour from the non stop rants of Eddie to purchase a bottle of alcohol so he can drown his sorrows.
No sooner does Jack complete his purchase at a favorite store than an attempt is made on Eddie by armed men forcing Jack and Eddie to flee on foot and take refuge in a local bar where they are soon met by detective Frank Nugent (David Morse), who said he was in the area and responded to Jack’s call for assistance.
Frank informs his former partner Jack that he is escorting a snitch who is about to give evidence that will implicate many cops who were simply doing business. Frank suggests that Jack head home and rest while he cleans up the problem by taking charge of Eddie.
When Jack learns that Frank and his associates intend to kill Eddie to keep him from testifying, Jack decides to defend Eddie and the two of them begin a deadly race against the clock as they attempt to not only get Eddie to the courthouse in time, but to simply stay alive against a cadre of corrupt cops.
Since he went up against fellow cops, Jack is reported as a rogue who turned on fellow officers, which leaves him with nowhere to turn and without backup as he attempt to stay one step ahead of the relentless Frank and his associates as they venture from one city block to another in order to stay alive. Along the way, the two men bond, and Jack begins to learn that what Eddie knows will get them all killed and that in a city the size of New York, there are precious few places to hide, when people are determined to find you.
The solid pacing of the film and the quality work by Morse, Willis, and Mos Def keeps 16 Blocks an entertaining and engaging film. The chemistry amongst the leads draws you in more than most typical action dramas do, as you find yourself caring about the two individuals and want them to succeed.
Director Richard Donner has dialed down his usual explosions but has not sacrificed the action as it is always appropriate to the story and never seems tacked on. The film does loose some steam towards the end but does ultimately arrive at a conclusion that makes the trip worthwhile.
The film does borrow in parts from the classic Clint Eastwood film “The Gauntlet”. Even down to the heroes taking refuge in a city bus and attempted to evade the police in the bus amidst an armada of armed officers who are looking to shoot first and ask questions later.
If you are a fan of Willis or Mos Def and like action dramas, then 16 Blocks is a trip well worth taking.
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated The 15:17 To Paris (2018) in Movies
Jul 8, 2019
Based on book, The 15:17 to Paris: The True Story of a Terrorist, a Train, and Three American Soldiers by Jeffrey E. Stern, Spencer Stone, Anthony Sadler and Alek Skarlatos, the film, The 15:17 to Paris tells the story of three America friends who stop a terrorist attempt on a train to Paris.
The men are heroes and it is inspiring to see how ordinary people can step up and put their lives at risk to save lives.
As such, this film would have been better told as a short documentary. Mostly because I found myself wondering what these men were thinking in those moments. How were they feeling when they saw people running and heard a gunshot. What made them take action? Was there doubt? And how did their friendship/bond contribute to being able to support each other in that moment and after?
Unfortunately, we do not get the answers to these questions. Instead Director Clint Eastwood decided to make a film that was trying to imitate real life as much as possible. So much so, the three actual heroes Stone, Sadler and Skarlatos play themselves. If Eastwood’s goal was to show how mundane life is in every day moments and a terrorist attack can happen at any moment in any mundane situation and end just as quickly, he succeeded. These three friends have cringe worthy dialogue that goes nowhere throughout the story. It makes these real life friends feel like they do not have any chemistry as it is clear they all feel out of their element in front of the camera. Not exactly the level of amateurism you would expect from a full feature film.
The semi bright spot is when we are shown how these three men became friends as boys and how they grew up. We get an understanding of how they like to play “war” in their back yard and how they would get in trouble but still have each other’s back when it counted. However, like the rest of this film, I wish this was told as a documentary or dramatic documentary. I wanted to hear from them firsthand what they thought about their friendship and how it evolved.
Stone, Sadler and Skarlatos are Heroes. They deserve better than this film. These three men deserve an opportunity to have their story told so people everywhere can care and understand. One of them had a call to duty because of his grandfather who served in WWII. What did that truly mean to him? We don’t know. One felt like he was being pushed to greatness by the universe. What did that mean to him now that it’s happened? We don’t know because we don’t hear from him first hand. The other was always just looking to have a good time. How does he feel about what happened and his friends? We don’t know. Because we are never given anything buy hollow dialogue, some loose information to surmise these things and bad screen chemistry from three real life friends.
I left the movie in awe of what the trio did in a moment where most people would run or think only of themselves. But I cannot in good faith recommend anyone spend money at a theater for a film that feels like it was produced by an amateur and should have been premiered on YouTube.
The men are heroes and it is inspiring to see how ordinary people can step up and put their lives at risk to save lives.
As such, this film would have been better told as a short documentary. Mostly because I found myself wondering what these men were thinking in those moments. How were they feeling when they saw people running and heard a gunshot. What made them take action? Was there doubt? And how did their friendship/bond contribute to being able to support each other in that moment and after?
Unfortunately, we do not get the answers to these questions. Instead Director Clint Eastwood decided to make a film that was trying to imitate real life as much as possible. So much so, the three actual heroes Stone, Sadler and Skarlatos play themselves. If Eastwood’s goal was to show how mundane life is in every day moments and a terrorist attack can happen at any moment in any mundane situation and end just as quickly, he succeeded. These three friends have cringe worthy dialogue that goes nowhere throughout the story. It makes these real life friends feel like they do not have any chemistry as it is clear they all feel out of their element in front of the camera. Not exactly the level of amateurism you would expect from a full feature film.
The semi bright spot is when we are shown how these three men became friends as boys and how they grew up. We get an understanding of how they like to play “war” in their back yard and how they would get in trouble but still have each other’s back when it counted. However, like the rest of this film, I wish this was told as a documentary or dramatic documentary. I wanted to hear from them firsthand what they thought about their friendship and how it evolved.
Stone, Sadler and Skarlatos are Heroes. They deserve better than this film. These three men deserve an opportunity to have their story told so people everywhere can care and understand. One of them had a call to duty because of his grandfather who served in WWII. What did that truly mean to him? We don’t know. One felt like he was being pushed to greatness by the universe. What did that mean to him now that it’s happened? We don’t know because we don’t hear from him first hand. The other was always just looking to have a good time. How does he feel about what happened and his friends? We don’t know. Because we are never given anything buy hollow dialogue, some loose information to surmise these things and bad screen chemistry from three real life friends.
I left the movie in awe of what the trio did in a moment where most people would run or think only of themselves. But I cannot in good faith recommend anyone spend money at a theater for a film that feels like it was produced by an amateur and should have been premiered on YouTube.
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated American Sniper (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Every once in a while a movie just sneaks up on me. A movie that comes out of nowhere to be one of the best that I have seen in a long while. This is how American Sniper hit me. I had seen previews, and thought that it might end up being a decent flick, but I did not expect it to grab a hold of me and teach me something about myself as well.
American Sniper sees Bradley Cooper as Chris Kyle in his second movie with “American” in the title (see 2013’s American Hustle). Most of us know the story of Chris Kyle, but for those that don’t here’s a quick rundown. Chris Kyle is the most lethal sniper in American history with 160 confirmed kills as a Navy SEAL, and another 95 probable kills. He served four tours, and wrote a book about his life. This film is based on that book. It tells the story of how he was influenced by his father, joined the military, and then went on to serve four tours while trying to balance his life at home with his wife and children. Acting as the true Sheepdog to all in his life, American Sniper looks at the struggle Kyle went through, and tells the story with passion and respect.
Cooper did a fantastic job portraying Texas-native Kyle. He was almost unrecognizable onscreen, as he put in 8 months of prep to get ready for this role, including a 4-hour a day training regime, and another two with a vocal coach. It was even said that some of Kyle’s brothers-in-arms who helped train Cooper and serve as consultants on the movie could feel his presence through Cooper at the end of training and all throughout filming. Sienna Miller was a great compliment to Cooper’s performance as Taya Kyle, Chris’ wife and the mother of his children. And not surprisingly, Clint Eastwood knocked it out of the park in this go at the Director’s chair. This is his best movie in years, though one would hope so with Chris Kyle’s father threatening to unleash hell if the memory of his son was disrespected with the film.
Mr. Kyle’s passing was a tragic event for those that knew him, and even those that did not know him. I think he may rest well knowing that this film, adapted from his own auto-biography, was handled beautifully with such passion and respect. If I have one issue with the film, it was the rapidity at which things progressed. So many different events packed into 15 minute segments with time just seemed to be rushing like a river, and glossing over parts of the story that could really have used some more build up or exploring. But such is the case when adapting a movie from a book. Though I am sure that movie-goers would not have minded lengthy the movie a bit, even with a run-time of 132 minutes.
If you see one movie this month, let it be American Sniper. If you have not heard of Chris Kyle, or his story, go see American Sniper. Hopefully, the Legend will live on through the lives he touched, and saved.
American Sniper sees Bradley Cooper as Chris Kyle in his second movie with “American” in the title (see 2013’s American Hustle). Most of us know the story of Chris Kyle, but for those that don’t here’s a quick rundown. Chris Kyle is the most lethal sniper in American history with 160 confirmed kills as a Navy SEAL, and another 95 probable kills. He served four tours, and wrote a book about his life. This film is based on that book. It tells the story of how he was influenced by his father, joined the military, and then went on to serve four tours while trying to balance his life at home with his wife and children. Acting as the true Sheepdog to all in his life, American Sniper looks at the struggle Kyle went through, and tells the story with passion and respect.
Cooper did a fantastic job portraying Texas-native Kyle. He was almost unrecognizable onscreen, as he put in 8 months of prep to get ready for this role, including a 4-hour a day training regime, and another two with a vocal coach. It was even said that some of Kyle’s brothers-in-arms who helped train Cooper and serve as consultants on the movie could feel his presence through Cooper at the end of training and all throughout filming. Sienna Miller was a great compliment to Cooper’s performance as Taya Kyle, Chris’ wife and the mother of his children. And not surprisingly, Clint Eastwood knocked it out of the park in this go at the Director’s chair. This is his best movie in years, though one would hope so with Chris Kyle’s father threatening to unleash hell if the memory of his son was disrespected with the film.
Mr. Kyle’s passing was a tragic event for those that knew him, and even those that did not know him. I think he may rest well knowing that this film, adapted from his own auto-biography, was handled beautifully with such passion and respect. If I have one issue with the film, it was the rapidity at which things progressed. So many different events packed into 15 minute segments with time just seemed to be rushing like a river, and glossing over parts of the story that could really have used some more build up or exploring. But such is the case when adapting a movie from a book. Though I am sure that movie-goers would not have minded lengthy the movie a bit, even with a run-time of 132 minutes.
If you see one movie this month, let it be American Sniper. If you have not heard of Chris Kyle, or his story, go see American Sniper. Hopefully, the Legend will live on through the lives he touched, and saved.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Richard Jewell (2019) in Movies
Jan 15, 2020
Richard Jewell tells the true story of a security guard, hailed a hero for spotting a suspicious package at the 1996 Olympic games in Atlanta, before going on to be accused of masterminding the whole thing and having his life turned upside down by the media and the FBI. Directed by Clint Eastwood, Richard Jewell is another one of those stories from recent history that I knew very few details about, other than there was a bombing at the Olympics, and it's a story that clearly deserves to be told.
We start by getting to know a bit about Richard Jewell (Paul Walter Hauser) and how he eventually found himself working security at such a high profile event. When we first meet Richard, he's working as a supply clerk for a public law firm in 1986. He meets attorney Watson Bryant (Sam Rockwell), who can be heard from across the other side of the office loudly and angrily shouting at somebody on the phone. He's not much friendlier to Richard when he puts the phone down either, discovering that Richard has very kindly replaced some stationery in his desk drawers, and even added some more Snickers bars in there after noticing empty wrappers in Watson's bin. But the pair do eventually build up a good rapport, even sharing an interest in playing video games at a local arcade during their lunch breaks.
Richard eventually leaves the firm to become a security guard at a college. With dreams of some day working his way up into law enforcement, Richard takes his role a bit too seriously, resulting in a number of complaints being made to the dean and his subsequent dismissal. Having moved in with his mother Bobi (Kathy Bates) in Atlanta, Richard lands a job working security at the Olympic games, working alongside police officers in Centennial Park during a number of events. His mother joins him to enjoy a Kenny Rogers concert one night, and then a few nights later Richard gets to work while his favourite group are playing. It's during that time, while trying to move on a group of drunk and rowdy boys, that Richard notices a suspicious backpack beneath a nearby bench. Police are alerted, and the backpack is determined to be carrying a bomb. As Richard and the police officers try to disperse the crowd, the bomb detonates and casualties are much lower than they could have been. Richard is hailed a hero.
As Richard quickly begins appearing on TV, and being offered book deals, the FBI begin their investigation. Agent Shaw (Jon Hamm) was there when the bomb went off and feels responsible for something that happened on his watch, so is determined to find the man responsible. It's not long before they decide that Richard fits the profile of previous bombers - a wannabe police officer who carries out attacks and then seeks fame and glory by helping out his victims. The situation isn't helped when ballsy reporter Kathy Scruggs (Olivia Wilde), who will go to any lengths to get her story, including sleeping around, publishes a front page story declaring Richard to be prime suspect with the FBI. From there, Richard's life, along with his mothers, is sent into turmoil and Richard is forced to contact old friend Watson Bryant to see if he'll help defend him as his lawyer.
The dynamic between Richard and Watson is what really made this movie for me. They're old friends, but clearly two very different people - Watson doesn't take any crap from anyone while Richard is a kindly, thoughtful man who just wants to help everyone, so ends up not doing himself any favours. On one occasion, Watson tells Richard not to say a word while the FBI are searching his home, and then Richard proceeds to talk to them all about anything and everything, blissfully ignorant of the glares he's receiving from Watson. There's a lot of humour in Richard Jewell, which I wasn't really expecting, and while it did make for an enjoyable movie, I felt it detracted a little from the drama and tension at times. Outside of that, both Jon Hamm and Kathy Bates were perfect in their roles, Kathy Bates this week receiving an Oscar nomination for her performance.
As the movie progresses, the injustice of it all is truly incredible. Just by Watson walking the route from the phone-booth where the warning call originated and the location where Richard was when the bomb went off, it was clear that he couldn't have done it. He even passed a polygraph test and yet he still continued to be hounded in the absence of any other leads or suspects, as he was just an easy target. It's an enjoyable watch, and certainly an important story, but because of the humour I described earlier, it just didn't have enough intensity or drama to make a bigger impact on me.
We start by getting to know a bit about Richard Jewell (Paul Walter Hauser) and how he eventually found himself working security at such a high profile event. When we first meet Richard, he's working as a supply clerk for a public law firm in 1986. He meets attorney Watson Bryant (Sam Rockwell), who can be heard from across the other side of the office loudly and angrily shouting at somebody on the phone. He's not much friendlier to Richard when he puts the phone down either, discovering that Richard has very kindly replaced some stationery in his desk drawers, and even added some more Snickers bars in there after noticing empty wrappers in Watson's bin. But the pair do eventually build up a good rapport, even sharing an interest in playing video games at a local arcade during their lunch breaks.
Richard eventually leaves the firm to become a security guard at a college. With dreams of some day working his way up into law enforcement, Richard takes his role a bit too seriously, resulting in a number of complaints being made to the dean and his subsequent dismissal. Having moved in with his mother Bobi (Kathy Bates) in Atlanta, Richard lands a job working security at the Olympic games, working alongside police officers in Centennial Park during a number of events. His mother joins him to enjoy a Kenny Rogers concert one night, and then a few nights later Richard gets to work while his favourite group are playing. It's during that time, while trying to move on a group of drunk and rowdy boys, that Richard notices a suspicious backpack beneath a nearby bench. Police are alerted, and the backpack is determined to be carrying a bomb. As Richard and the police officers try to disperse the crowd, the bomb detonates and casualties are much lower than they could have been. Richard is hailed a hero.
As Richard quickly begins appearing on TV, and being offered book deals, the FBI begin their investigation. Agent Shaw (Jon Hamm) was there when the bomb went off and feels responsible for something that happened on his watch, so is determined to find the man responsible. It's not long before they decide that Richard fits the profile of previous bombers - a wannabe police officer who carries out attacks and then seeks fame and glory by helping out his victims. The situation isn't helped when ballsy reporter Kathy Scruggs (Olivia Wilde), who will go to any lengths to get her story, including sleeping around, publishes a front page story declaring Richard to be prime suspect with the FBI. From there, Richard's life, along with his mothers, is sent into turmoil and Richard is forced to contact old friend Watson Bryant to see if he'll help defend him as his lawyer.
The dynamic between Richard and Watson is what really made this movie for me. They're old friends, but clearly two very different people - Watson doesn't take any crap from anyone while Richard is a kindly, thoughtful man who just wants to help everyone, so ends up not doing himself any favours. On one occasion, Watson tells Richard not to say a word while the FBI are searching his home, and then Richard proceeds to talk to them all about anything and everything, blissfully ignorant of the glares he's receiving from Watson. There's a lot of humour in Richard Jewell, which I wasn't really expecting, and while it did make for an enjoyable movie, I felt it detracted a little from the drama and tension at times. Outside of that, both Jon Hamm and Kathy Bates were perfect in their roles, Kathy Bates this week receiving an Oscar nomination for her performance.
As the movie progresses, the injustice of it all is truly incredible. Just by Watson walking the route from the phone-booth where the warning call originated and the location where Richard was when the bomb went off, it was clear that he couldn't have done it. He even passed a polygraph test and yet he still continued to be hounded in the absence of any other leads or suspects, as he was just an easy target. It's an enjoyable watch, and certainly an important story, but because of the humour I described earlier, it just didn't have enough intensity or drama to make a bigger impact on me.
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?