Search
Search results
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Truth Seekers - Season 1 in TV
Nov 8, 2020
Enjoyably British
Truth Seekers is the latest collaboration from Nick Frost and Simon Pegg, and centres around employees of a network services provider who run a YouTube channel as amateur paranormal investigators.
The series follows Gus Roberts (Nick Frost), the top installation engineer for network provider Smyle. He lives with his dad (Malcolm McDowell) and investigates paranormal activities in his spare time, running his own YouTube channel as ‘The Truth Seeker’. His boss Dave (Simon Pegg) pairs Gus with a new employee Elton John (Samson Kayo), and Truth Seekers follows the pair as they increasingly encounter paranormal and mysterious entities as they go about their daily work, including a haunted young woman called Astrid (Emma D’Arcy).
Truth Seekers starts off as a case by episode series, with a new spooky encounter every time (think Supernatural but very British) and then mid-way works into a bigger overall plot involving Julian Barratt’s Dr Peter Toynbee that seems to tie all the earlier elements together. As a supernatural horror show, this works really well. It doesn’t rely on typical jump scares, and instead uses well known horror situations to be as creepy as possible. Admittedly this is a tad cliched – think of all the known supernatural experiences you’d expect to see (psychiatric hospitals, hotels, demons and satanic books to name a few) and you’ll definitely find them here. However this doesn’t matter as they’re done well and in such a smart, creepy and very British way. Even the special effects are impressive for something that looks like it should be fairly low budget.
Whilst this is made out to be a horror comedy, it’s the comedy side that appears to be a little lacking. Don’t get me wrong, this has its’s funny and witty moments and seems to relish all of the pop culture references it throws in at every opportunity, however it doesn’t seem quite as edgy and quick witted as Frost and Pegg’s previous collaborations. Frost delivers his usual deadpan style well and is ably supported by Samson Kayo’s Elton as his rather adorable and unwitting partner. The standout though is unsurprisingly Malcolm McDowell as Gus’ dad Richard. Right from the first episode McDowell shines and is an absolute riot. Every scene he’s in gives rise to so many laughs and in particular there’s one scene featuring him going upstairs on a stair lift so slowly that nearly had me crying with laughter. But despite this the humour is maybe a little lacking from what we’d expect. I also felt like some of the pop culture references were a little forced and unnatural, which is a shame as there were also a lot that worked quite well – nods to Aliens and The Shawshank Redemption were particularly appreciated.
Truth Seekers may be lacking a little in humour, but what is there is adeptly delivered by a rather stellar cast. Pegg takes a backseat as boss Dave with an atrocious hairpiece and there are some small roles for Kelly MacDonald, Susie Wokoma and Julian Barratt, but everyone puts in a great performance no matter the screen time. McDowell undoubtedly steals the show, but the main trio of Frost, Kayo and D’Arcy carry the show well between them.
What surprised me the most about Truth Seekers is how short it was. A mere eight episodes running at 30 minutes each doesn’t seem like enough – by the end of the eighth episode I was shocked to see there wasn’t any more, although the final scenes do at least set this up for a second series that will hopefully come to fruition. I was a little concerned about the main plot involving Toynbee as it did get a little convoluted towards the end, and the final scenes do nothing but add to this and hint at a much bigger story going on. This could end up being rather good, but it could also turn what is by and large a very enjoyable British supernatural series into something rather crazy and confused. Only series two will tell.
The series follows Gus Roberts (Nick Frost), the top installation engineer for network provider Smyle. He lives with his dad (Malcolm McDowell) and investigates paranormal activities in his spare time, running his own YouTube channel as ‘The Truth Seeker’. His boss Dave (Simon Pegg) pairs Gus with a new employee Elton John (Samson Kayo), and Truth Seekers follows the pair as they increasingly encounter paranormal and mysterious entities as they go about their daily work, including a haunted young woman called Astrid (Emma D’Arcy).
Truth Seekers starts off as a case by episode series, with a new spooky encounter every time (think Supernatural but very British) and then mid-way works into a bigger overall plot involving Julian Barratt’s Dr Peter Toynbee that seems to tie all the earlier elements together. As a supernatural horror show, this works really well. It doesn’t rely on typical jump scares, and instead uses well known horror situations to be as creepy as possible. Admittedly this is a tad cliched – think of all the known supernatural experiences you’d expect to see (psychiatric hospitals, hotels, demons and satanic books to name a few) and you’ll definitely find them here. However this doesn’t matter as they’re done well and in such a smart, creepy and very British way. Even the special effects are impressive for something that looks like it should be fairly low budget.
Whilst this is made out to be a horror comedy, it’s the comedy side that appears to be a little lacking. Don’t get me wrong, this has its’s funny and witty moments and seems to relish all of the pop culture references it throws in at every opportunity, however it doesn’t seem quite as edgy and quick witted as Frost and Pegg’s previous collaborations. Frost delivers his usual deadpan style well and is ably supported by Samson Kayo’s Elton as his rather adorable and unwitting partner. The standout though is unsurprisingly Malcolm McDowell as Gus’ dad Richard. Right from the first episode McDowell shines and is an absolute riot. Every scene he’s in gives rise to so many laughs and in particular there’s one scene featuring him going upstairs on a stair lift so slowly that nearly had me crying with laughter. But despite this the humour is maybe a little lacking from what we’d expect. I also felt like some of the pop culture references were a little forced and unnatural, which is a shame as there were also a lot that worked quite well – nods to Aliens and The Shawshank Redemption were particularly appreciated.
Truth Seekers may be lacking a little in humour, but what is there is adeptly delivered by a rather stellar cast. Pegg takes a backseat as boss Dave with an atrocious hairpiece and there are some small roles for Kelly MacDonald, Susie Wokoma and Julian Barratt, but everyone puts in a great performance no matter the screen time. McDowell undoubtedly steals the show, but the main trio of Frost, Kayo and D’Arcy carry the show well between them.
What surprised me the most about Truth Seekers is how short it was. A mere eight episodes running at 30 minutes each doesn’t seem like enough – by the end of the eighth episode I was shocked to see there wasn’t any more, although the final scenes do at least set this up for a second series that will hopefully come to fruition. I was a little concerned about the main plot involving Toynbee as it did get a little convoluted towards the end, and the final scenes do nothing but add to this and hint at a much bigger story going on. This could end up being rather good, but it could also turn what is by and large a very enjoyable British supernatural series into something rather crazy and confused. Only series two will tell.
Song Sleuth: Auto Bird Song ID
Reference and Education
App
Song Sleuth turns your iPhone or iPad into an automatic bird song identifier covering the 200 most...
AmpliTube MESA/Boogie
Music and Entertainment
App
ROCK OUT AND RECORD WITH THE LEGENDARY REAL-DEAL HIGH-GAIN MESA/BOOGIE® TONE ON YOUR iPHONE OR...
PDF Reader Pro Edition®
Business and Productivity
App
**Winner of the Tabby Awards for best iPad- Productivity/Documents App** PDF Reader Pro Edition is...
Cyn Armistead (14 KP) rated American Gods in Books
Mar 1, 2018
I'm trying to remember whether or not I've read any of Gaiman's other novels before, and I'm fairly certain that I haven't. I read [b:Good Omens|12067|Good Omens|Terry Pratchett|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1266659394s/12067.jpg|4110990], but that was co-written with [a:Terry Pratchett|1654|Terry Pratchett|http://photo.goodreads.com/authors/1235562205p2/1654.jpg], and the collaboration was genius. I know that the entire world seems to love Sandman, of course, but I'm just not a fan of graphic novels. In fact, it took me a while to realize that the Good Omens co-author and the Sandman author were one and the same.
I've certainly read some short stories, too. The most memorable, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow,_Glass,_Apples">"Snow, Glass, Apples"</a> was reprinted in an anthology I read recently. I find it disturbing, so I won't re-read it. Well-written, of course—it wouldn't be so very memorably distressing if it weren't so masterfully done! (I found the <a href="http://www.holycow.com/dreaming/stories/snow-glass-apples">text online</a> if you care to read it, but please understand that the story deals with pedophilia, necrophilia, and incest here. It is the polar opposite of all things Disney.) Snow White was never one of of my favorite fairy tales, and Gaiman definitely pushed it much farther down the list.
In any case, I don't know what I was expecting from Gaiman, but <i>American Gods</i> wasn't it. I like stories with happy endings, and within the first few chapters I was fairly sure that there wouldn't be one. Is Gaiman fundamentally opposed to joy, or is it just happiness that he doesn't allow?
The novel is epic. It is masterful. All that stuff from the big critics is dead on. The book could be used as the backbone of a mythological scavenger hunt if a teacher were willing to run a very unstructured but engaging course that way. I certainly enjoyed that aspect of it, and it made me glad that I was reading it on my iTouch so that I could look up anything I liked online at any time, no matter where I happened to be (which was almost always at home or somewhere else that had wifi access, happily).
I seldom want to see illustrations in any book, but yes, I think I would like to see good pictures of some of the characters Gaiman described in this one. On the other hand, without artwork I spent time imagining what the characters looked like based on the descriptions. I don't normally stop to do that, as such matters as seldom relevant to a plot, but these beings caught my fancy. Not enough that I would sit through an entire graphic novel, I'm afraid, but if I saw one now I might flip through it to see how the artist's renderings compare with my versions.
I'm seldom able to identify an overall Theme to the books I read. Most of them, honestly, are fluff. I'm fine with that. I read them because they entertain me. <i>American Gods</i> is different. It is entertaining, but it isn't light or fluffy in the least. It definitely has an easily identifiably Theme and Tropes and all those elements that I recall from long-ago classes, the sorts of things that put me off from my original English major because I hated tearing other author's works apart instead of writing anything original. (Now, I begin to understand that we were being taught to recognize what makes for good writing so we might have some hope of possibly creating some of it one day.)
I somewhat timidly conclude that <i>American Gods</i> is the first piece of Literature I've read in a very long time, and well worth the time spent reading it. (I find it rather amusing that it would be British Literature, despite its title, due to the author's nationality.) I'm not going to state the theme, because that would be a spoiler, and I hate putting those in reviews—but it's something that I see as a Truth, and one that needs to be stated far more often, especiallly today. It's even more interesting that it took a Brit to say it.
The book is dark, although it does have some very bright spots in it. I will acknowledge that I was going through a particularly bad time with regards to my health when I was reading it, but I still think it might be best for some people to read this one when in a fairly positive state of mind.
I've certainly read some short stories, too. The most memorable, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow,_Glass,_Apples">"Snow, Glass, Apples"</a> was reprinted in an anthology I read recently. I find it disturbing, so I won't re-read it. Well-written, of course—it wouldn't be so very memorably distressing if it weren't so masterfully done! (I found the <a href="http://www.holycow.com/dreaming/stories/snow-glass-apples">text online</a> if you care to read it, but please understand that the story deals with pedophilia, necrophilia, and incest here. It is the polar opposite of all things Disney.) Snow White was never one of of my favorite fairy tales, and Gaiman definitely pushed it much farther down the list.
In any case, I don't know what I was expecting from Gaiman, but <i>American Gods</i> wasn't it. I like stories with happy endings, and within the first few chapters I was fairly sure that there wouldn't be one. Is Gaiman fundamentally opposed to joy, or is it just happiness that he doesn't allow?
The novel is epic. It is masterful. All that stuff from the big critics is dead on. The book could be used as the backbone of a mythological scavenger hunt if a teacher were willing to run a very unstructured but engaging course that way. I certainly enjoyed that aspect of it, and it made me glad that I was reading it on my iTouch so that I could look up anything I liked online at any time, no matter where I happened to be (which was almost always at home or somewhere else that had wifi access, happily).
I seldom want to see illustrations in any book, but yes, I think I would like to see good pictures of some of the characters Gaiman described in this one. On the other hand, without artwork I spent time imagining what the characters looked like based on the descriptions. I don't normally stop to do that, as such matters as seldom relevant to a plot, but these beings caught my fancy. Not enough that I would sit through an entire graphic novel, I'm afraid, but if I saw one now I might flip through it to see how the artist's renderings compare with my versions.
I'm seldom able to identify an overall Theme to the books I read. Most of them, honestly, are fluff. I'm fine with that. I read them because they entertain me. <i>American Gods</i> is different. It is entertaining, but it isn't light or fluffy in the least. It definitely has an easily identifiably Theme and Tropes and all those elements that I recall from long-ago classes, the sorts of things that put me off from my original English major because I hated tearing other author's works apart instead of writing anything original. (Now, I begin to understand that we were being taught to recognize what makes for good writing so we might have some hope of possibly creating some of it one day.)
I somewhat timidly conclude that <i>American Gods</i> is the first piece of Literature I've read in a very long time, and well worth the time spent reading it. (I find it rather amusing that it would be British Literature, despite its title, due to the author's nationality.) I'm not going to state the theme, because that would be a spoiler, and I hate putting those in reviews—but it's something that I see as a Truth, and one that needs to be stated far more often, especiallly today. It's even more interesting that it took a Brit to say it.
The book is dark, although it does have some very bright spots in it. I will acknowledge that I was going through a particularly bad time with regards to my health when I was reading it, but I still think it might be best for some people to read this one when in a fairly positive state of mind.
Gareth von Kallenbach (974 KP) rated By The Sea (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Today, we have yet another film that strays from ‘the norm’. A film that not only stars one of the most beloved celebrity couples on the planet but also harkens back to the Italian dramatic films of the late 1960s/early 70s. It most definitely qualifies as an ‘art house’ film.
Since the world saw Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt together in ‘Mr. & Mrs. Smith’ it has awaited the day when the couple would appear together again in another film. Although it’s not the sequel to THAT film many had hoped for, it is most definitely and intriguing look at how the couple appear together in a movie in a completely genre with the creative control Angelina had.
‘By the Sea’ stars Angelina Jolie Pitt, Brad Pitt, Mélanie Laurent, Melvil Poupaud, Niels Arestrup, and Richard Bohringer. The film was also written, directed, and co-produced by Angelina with Brad Pitt serving as co-producer.
The film opens in the south of France in the mid-1970s. Roland (Brad Pitt), a writer from New York City and his wife Vannessa (Angelina Jolie Pitt), a former dancer, have traveled to a seaside town to quote,”Get away from it all”. Their marriage is strained and there is a distance between the two that is sometimes obvious to those around them and hidden at other times. The trip is clearly an effort by them to reconnect with one another but they spend much of their time apart once they get settled. Rolland is attempting to write another book but he cannot find anything as inspiration and Vanessa is using drugs and alcohol to numb the pain of a recent trauma. When they’re not spending their time alone they associate with some of the towns more colorful characters including the local barkeeper/cafe owner, the hotel manager, and a newlywed couple who are spending their honeymoon not only in the same town but in the room next door. One night, just when it seems like the strain of their marriage will finally snap a bizarre occurrence in their hotel room leads to a reconnection despite its volatile nature.
First off, I have not seen all the films that Angelina and Brad have appeared in but I must say I the both of them were almost completely unrecognizable in the way they portray the characters. Second, I believe this is Angelina’s second run as director and if this film and her previous film ‘Unbroken’ are any Indiction I believe we’ll see her directing movies in the future more than acting.
This film was a true homage the the Italian dramatic films of the 1970s I mentioned earlier.
The only way I believe they could’ve ‘replicated’ that so precisely would be to have filmed the movie with the cameras and equipment available to film makers during that period. Christian Berger the film’s cinematographer used mostly natural light throughout the filming process which was also one of the most impressive qualities of the movie which is not done nearly enough with modern film in my opinion.
Not everyone is going to like this film. It’s quite unique when put side by side with ‘modern day American movies’. Even if you are a die hard fan of either Angelina and or Brad’s work that alone might not save the film in your eyes. Some critics are calling this film a ‘vanity project’ on the part of Jolie and Pitt. I find that to be ridiculous. No sane person would’ve made that accusation against Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall. Everyone’s been screaming for Angelina and Brad to make another film together. Big deal if they want to have creative control over it too. They’re both accomplished actors and decided to put together a film themselves and and get other accomplished cast and crew members to sign on for the project. Honestly what the hell more do the critics want? If you are a fan of foreign movies or curious about the second acting collaboration between the husband and wife power couple though you should see it. I’d actually recommend checking out one or two films from the genre/era it represents before going to see this one.
The film is rated R and clocks in at 132 minutes. I’d recommend catching it at a small indie or art house theater and make sure you grab some snacks and a drink for this one. It opens in all the major theaters Friday the 18th of November but you can catch in those smaller theaters now.
It’s not my normal ‘cup of coffee’ but I will give the film 4 stars.
Since the world saw Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt together in ‘Mr. & Mrs. Smith’ it has awaited the day when the couple would appear together again in another film. Although it’s not the sequel to THAT film many had hoped for, it is most definitely and intriguing look at how the couple appear together in a movie in a completely genre with the creative control Angelina had.
‘By the Sea’ stars Angelina Jolie Pitt, Brad Pitt, Mélanie Laurent, Melvil Poupaud, Niels Arestrup, and Richard Bohringer. The film was also written, directed, and co-produced by Angelina with Brad Pitt serving as co-producer.
The film opens in the south of France in the mid-1970s. Roland (Brad Pitt), a writer from New York City and his wife Vannessa (Angelina Jolie Pitt), a former dancer, have traveled to a seaside town to quote,”Get away from it all”. Their marriage is strained and there is a distance between the two that is sometimes obvious to those around them and hidden at other times. The trip is clearly an effort by them to reconnect with one another but they spend much of their time apart once they get settled. Rolland is attempting to write another book but he cannot find anything as inspiration and Vanessa is using drugs and alcohol to numb the pain of a recent trauma. When they’re not spending their time alone they associate with some of the towns more colorful characters including the local barkeeper/cafe owner, the hotel manager, and a newlywed couple who are spending their honeymoon not only in the same town but in the room next door. One night, just when it seems like the strain of their marriage will finally snap a bizarre occurrence in their hotel room leads to a reconnection despite its volatile nature.
First off, I have not seen all the films that Angelina and Brad have appeared in but I must say I the both of them were almost completely unrecognizable in the way they portray the characters. Second, I believe this is Angelina’s second run as director and if this film and her previous film ‘Unbroken’ are any Indiction I believe we’ll see her directing movies in the future more than acting.
This film was a true homage the the Italian dramatic films of the 1970s I mentioned earlier.
The only way I believe they could’ve ‘replicated’ that so precisely would be to have filmed the movie with the cameras and equipment available to film makers during that period. Christian Berger the film’s cinematographer used mostly natural light throughout the filming process which was also one of the most impressive qualities of the movie which is not done nearly enough with modern film in my opinion.
Not everyone is going to like this film. It’s quite unique when put side by side with ‘modern day American movies’. Even if you are a die hard fan of either Angelina and or Brad’s work that alone might not save the film in your eyes. Some critics are calling this film a ‘vanity project’ on the part of Jolie and Pitt. I find that to be ridiculous. No sane person would’ve made that accusation against Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall. Everyone’s been screaming for Angelina and Brad to make another film together. Big deal if they want to have creative control over it too. They’re both accomplished actors and decided to put together a film themselves and and get other accomplished cast and crew members to sign on for the project. Honestly what the hell more do the critics want? If you are a fan of foreign movies or curious about the second acting collaboration between the husband and wife power couple though you should see it. I’d actually recommend checking out one or two films from the genre/era it represents before going to see this one.
The film is rated R and clocks in at 132 minutes. I’d recommend catching it at a small indie or art house theater and make sure you grab some snacks and a drink for this one. It opens in all the major theaters Friday the 18th of November but you can catch in those smaller theaters now.
It’s not my normal ‘cup of coffee’ but I will give the film 4 stars.
TheDefunctDiva (304 KP) rated Bohemian Rhapsody (2018) in Movies
Feb 17, 2019 (Updated Feb 17, 2019)
I want it all. I want it all. I want it all. And I want it now
Contains spoilers, click to show
“I want it all. I want it all. I want it all. And I want it now.”
“I Want It All,” Queen, The Miracle, 1989
I am hating having to write this review though I feel compelled to do so. I bought this movie knowing I would like it. I didn’t have much money left in my checking account, but I thought, yes, this would be worth what little I had left to spend. I gifted it to my kiddo for Valentine’s Day knowing she would surely love it, too.
I didn’t love it. I didn’t even really like it.
I haven’t made a mistake this bad since the much-renowned Lost in Translation. Why the ire? Because Bohemian Rhapsody taught me some things, but not enough. Not what I wanted to know. I wanted to learn more than what a rudimentary Google search would have taught me about the band. Instead, I obtained only basic information about the band’s success. I think to really do the band justice you would need a series. Maybe that is my problem. The film had too much general information crammed into it, and I needed MORE, PEOPLE.
I should have liked this film because it revolved around Queen’s music. The best thing about this film is the soundtrack. I think contemplating some of Queen’s lyrics throughout would have really enhanced the film, though. They talked about the poetry but didn’t examine it. And I was disappointed.
Malek’s Mercury just didn’t do it for me though I admire his dedication to the craft. I do think he did an excellent job, but there was something missing that I can’t put my finger on. It felt very much like pretending. And I can’t even adequately explain why. I did love the costuming though. Especially the hair. The transformation of Mercury from boy to man was impressive. It made me want to grow a mustache.
The supporting characters were stereotypical. The supporting cast members might have been cardboard cutouts for all of the attachment I felt to them. The film also didn’t undertake the concept of what it meant to be LGBT in that era. Therefore, it didn’t fully explore the ramifications of the risks that Mercury was taking both professionally and personally. Conflicts just didn’t resonate with the high drama I felt they should have especially considering the in-your-face elements of Mercury’s personality. The passion just wasn’t there. And a real miracle would have been adequately examining the collaboration between the musicians.
I also felt the film was generally stilted by the writing, which seemed comprised of the most overused clichés in the English language.
Bohemian Rhapsody didn’t delve into the AIDS crisis deep enough to evoke much of an emotional response in me. I appreciate that Freddie Mercury didn’t want his life to be a “cautionary tale.” I get that. But the tragedy of his death seemed really downplayed to me for some reason. I wasn’t expecting the emotional response you would get from a film like Philadelphia. But something close would have been nice. Maybe I’ve seen too many films that focus on tragedy and expected to be weeping by the end of the film. Or the beginning of the film, or at any point during the film. But I was left feeling hollow.
The crowd scene from Live Aid and the Live Aid performance rightfully stole what remained of this show. The looks on the faces of the crowd. The expanse of the crowd. The scene reflected what it must have felt like to be a performer or a fan in such a large venue. Malek was awesome in this scene and deserves his due. It might be what earns him the Oscar.
I hate to say it, but I liked Mark Wahlberg and Rock Star (2001) better than I liked this movie. I just felt they could have done a better job with it. It didn’t live up to the hype.
And now I’ve touched upon the real issue. I could never get enough of this band, or of Mercury, and DAMNIT. The experience they provided fans around the world was just gone too soon.
And I just don’t feel the movie did the band or Mercury’s life justice.
I spent my Saturday listening to music in my car, wondering what a septuagenarian Mercury would have thought of today’s saturated music market. I imagine he would have been like my late father, fascinated by both the popular and the underground.
Ok, NOW I’m crying.
But touch my tears, with your lips
Touch my world, with your fingertips.
And we can have forever
And we can love forever
Forever is our today…
Queen, “Who Wants to Live Forever,” It’s Kind of Magic, 1986
“I Want It All,” Queen, The Miracle, 1989
I am hating having to write this review though I feel compelled to do so. I bought this movie knowing I would like it. I didn’t have much money left in my checking account, but I thought, yes, this would be worth what little I had left to spend. I gifted it to my kiddo for Valentine’s Day knowing she would surely love it, too.
I didn’t love it. I didn’t even really like it.
I haven’t made a mistake this bad since the much-renowned Lost in Translation. Why the ire? Because Bohemian Rhapsody taught me some things, but not enough. Not what I wanted to know. I wanted to learn more than what a rudimentary Google search would have taught me about the band. Instead, I obtained only basic information about the band’s success. I think to really do the band justice you would need a series. Maybe that is my problem. The film had too much general information crammed into it, and I needed MORE, PEOPLE.
I should have liked this film because it revolved around Queen’s music. The best thing about this film is the soundtrack. I think contemplating some of Queen’s lyrics throughout would have really enhanced the film, though. They talked about the poetry but didn’t examine it. And I was disappointed.
Malek’s Mercury just didn’t do it for me though I admire his dedication to the craft. I do think he did an excellent job, but there was something missing that I can’t put my finger on. It felt very much like pretending. And I can’t even adequately explain why. I did love the costuming though. Especially the hair. The transformation of Mercury from boy to man was impressive. It made me want to grow a mustache.
The supporting characters were stereotypical. The supporting cast members might have been cardboard cutouts for all of the attachment I felt to them. The film also didn’t undertake the concept of what it meant to be LGBT in that era. Therefore, it didn’t fully explore the ramifications of the risks that Mercury was taking both professionally and personally. Conflicts just didn’t resonate with the high drama I felt they should have especially considering the in-your-face elements of Mercury’s personality. The passion just wasn’t there. And a real miracle would have been adequately examining the collaboration between the musicians.
I also felt the film was generally stilted by the writing, which seemed comprised of the most overused clichés in the English language.
Bohemian Rhapsody didn’t delve into the AIDS crisis deep enough to evoke much of an emotional response in me. I appreciate that Freddie Mercury didn’t want his life to be a “cautionary tale.” I get that. But the tragedy of his death seemed really downplayed to me for some reason. I wasn’t expecting the emotional response you would get from a film like Philadelphia. But something close would have been nice. Maybe I’ve seen too many films that focus on tragedy and expected to be weeping by the end of the film. Or the beginning of the film, or at any point during the film. But I was left feeling hollow.
The crowd scene from Live Aid and the Live Aid performance rightfully stole what remained of this show. The looks on the faces of the crowd. The expanse of the crowd. The scene reflected what it must have felt like to be a performer or a fan in such a large venue. Malek was awesome in this scene and deserves his due. It might be what earns him the Oscar.
I hate to say it, but I liked Mark Wahlberg and Rock Star (2001) better than I liked this movie. I just felt they could have done a better job with it. It didn’t live up to the hype.
And now I’ve touched upon the real issue. I could never get enough of this band, or of Mercury, and DAMNIT. The experience they provided fans around the world was just gone too soon.
And I just don’t feel the movie did the band or Mercury’s life justice.
I spent my Saturday listening to music in my car, wondering what a septuagenarian Mercury would have thought of today’s saturated music market. I imagine he would have been like my late father, fascinated by both the popular and the underground.
Ok, NOW I’m crying.
But touch my tears, with your lips
Touch my world, with your fingertips.
And we can have forever
And we can love forever
Forever is our today…
Queen, “Who Wants to Live Forever,” It’s Kind of Magic, 1986
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Fantastic Beasts: Crimes of Grindelwald (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Lestranger than fiction.
I must be one of the last people to watch this in the cinema, thanks to an irritating bout of sickness and – well – frankly total bloody apathy! For me this is the franchise that nobody asked for and nobody wanted. (Well, “nobody” is probably overstating the case, since there is probably a bunch of Potterheads out there who are shouting at me right now). But judging from the opinion of my daughter-in-law, who could win “Mastermind” with her knowledge of the original Potter series as her specialist subject, I am certainly not alone in my lack of enthusiasm.
The Plot
I’d really love to tell you about the plot. I really would! But I would struggle to pull all the multitude of strands together from J.K. Rowling’s story and coherently explain them to anyone. If Rowling had put ten thousand monkeys (not a million – it’s no bloody Shakespeare) into a room with typewriters and locked the door I wouldn’t be surprised.
Let me try at a high level….. The arch-criminal wizard Grindelwald (Johnny Depp) is being tortured in ‘Trump Tower’, but manages to escape and flees to Paris in pursuit of a mysterious circus performer called Credence (Ezra Miller) and his bewitched companion Nagini (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) played fetchingly by Claudia Kim. Someone needs to stop him, and all eyes are on Albus Dumbledore (Jude Law). But he is unable to do so, since he and Grindelwald are “closer than brothers” (nudge, nudge, wink, wink). So a reluctant and UK-grounded Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) is smuggled into the danger zone… which suits him just fine since his love Tina (Katherine Waterston) is working for the ministry there, and the couple are currently estranged due to a (topical) bout of ‘Fake News’.
Throw in a potential love triangle between Newt, his brother Theseus (Callum Turner) and old Hogwart’s schoolmate Leta Lestrange (Zoë Kravitz) and about a half dozen other sub-plots and you have… well… a complete bugger’s muggle – – sorry – – muddle.
A plot that’s all at sea
Above all, I really can’t explain the crux of the plot. A venerable diarrhoea of exposition in a crypt, during an inexplicably quiet fifteen minutes (given ‘im-who-can-be-named is next door with about a thousand other people!) left me completely bewildered. A bizarre event at sea (no spoilers) would seem to make absolutely NO SENSE when considered with another reveal at the end of the film. I thought I must have clearly missed something… or I’d just not been intelligent enough to process the information…. or…. it was actually completely bonkers! Actually, I think it’s the latter: in desperation I went on a fan site that tried to explain the plot. While it was explained there, the explanation aligned with what I thought had happened: but it made no mention of the ridiculousness of the random coincidence involved!
The turns
The film’s a mess. Which is a shame since everyone involved tries really hard. Depp oozes evil very effectively (he proves that nicely on arriving in Paris, and doubles-down about 5 minutes later: #veryverydark). Redmayne replays his Newt-act effectively but once again (and I see I made the same comments in my “Fantastic Beasts” review) his character mumbles again so much that many of his lines are unintelligible.
I also complained last time that the excellent actress Katherine Waterston was criminally underused as the tentative love interest Tina. this trend unfortunately continues unabated in this film…. you’ll struggle afterwards to write down what she actually did in this film.
Jacob (Dan Fogler) and Queenie (Alison Sudol, looking for all the world in some scenes like Rachel Weisz) reprise their roles in a sub-plot that goes nowhere in particular.
Of the newcomers, Jude Law as Dumbledore is a class-act but has very little screen time: hopefully he will get more to do next time around. Zoë Kravitz impresses as Leta.
Wizards of the screen
As you would expect from a David Yates / David Heyman Potter collaboration, the product design, costume design and special effects are all excellent. Some scenes are truly impressive – an ‘explosion’ in a Parisian garret is particularly spectacular.
But special effects alone do not a great film make. Many reviews I’ve seen complain that this was a ‘filler’ film… a set-up film for the rest of the series. And I can understand that view. If you analyse the film overall, virtually NOTHING of importance actually happens: it’s like the “Order of the Phoenix” of the prequels.
Final Thoughts
I dragged myself along to see this one because “I thought I should”. The third in the series will really need to sparkle to make me want to see it. If J.K. Rowling were to take me advice (she won’t – she NEVER returns my calls!) then she would sculpt the story-arc but leave the screenwriting to someone better. The blame for this one, I’m afraid, lies at Rowling’s door alone.
The Plot
I’d really love to tell you about the plot. I really would! But I would struggle to pull all the multitude of strands together from J.K. Rowling’s story and coherently explain them to anyone. If Rowling had put ten thousand monkeys (not a million – it’s no bloody Shakespeare) into a room with typewriters and locked the door I wouldn’t be surprised.
Let me try at a high level….. The arch-criminal wizard Grindelwald (Johnny Depp) is being tortured in ‘Trump Tower’, but manages to escape and flees to Paris in pursuit of a mysterious circus performer called Credence (Ezra Miller) and his bewitched companion Nagini (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) played fetchingly by Claudia Kim. Someone needs to stop him, and all eyes are on Albus Dumbledore (Jude Law). But he is unable to do so, since he and Grindelwald are “closer than brothers” (nudge, nudge, wink, wink). So a reluctant and UK-grounded Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) is smuggled into the danger zone… which suits him just fine since his love Tina (Katherine Waterston) is working for the ministry there, and the couple are currently estranged due to a (topical) bout of ‘Fake News’.
Throw in a potential love triangle between Newt, his brother Theseus (Callum Turner) and old Hogwart’s schoolmate Leta Lestrange (Zoë Kravitz) and about a half dozen other sub-plots and you have… well… a complete bugger’s muggle – – sorry – – muddle.
A plot that’s all at sea
Above all, I really can’t explain the crux of the plot. A venerable diarrhoea of exposition in a crypt, during an inexplicably quiet fifteen minutes (given ‘im-who-can-be-named is next door with about a thousand other people!) left me completely bewildered. A bizarre event at sea (no spoilers) would seem to make absolutely NO SENSE when considered with another reveal at the end of the film. I thought I must have clearly missed something… or I’d just not been intelligent enough to process the information…. or…. it was actually completely bonkers! Actually, I think it’s the latter: in desperation I went on a fan site that tried to explain the plot. While it was explained there, the explanation aligned with what I thought had happened: but it made no mention of the ridiculousness of the random coincidence involved!
The turns
The film’s a mess. Which is a shame since everyone involved tries really hard. Depp oozes evil very effectively (he proves that nicely on arriving in Paris, and doubles-down about 5 minutes later: #veryverydark). Redmayne replays his Newt-act effectively but once again (and I see I made the same comments in my “Fantastic Beasts” review) his character mumbles again so much that many of his lines are unintelligible.
I also complained last time that the excellent actress Katherine Waterston was criminally underused as the tentative love interest Tina. this trend unfortunately continues unabated in this film…. you’ll struggle afterwards to write down what she actually did in this film.
Jacob (Dan Fogler) and Queenie (Alison Sudol, looking for all the world in some scenes like Rachel Weisz) reprise their roles in a sub-plot that goes nowhere in particular.
Of the newcomers, Jude Law as Dumbledore is a class-act but has very little screen time: hopefully he will get more to do next time around. Zoë Kravitz impresses as Leta.
Wizards of the screen
As you would expect from a David Yates / David Heyman Potter collaboration, the product design, costume design and special effects are all excellent. Some scenes are truly impressive – an ‘explosion’ in a Parisian garret is particularly spectacular.
But special effects alone do not a great film make. Many reviews I’ve seen complain that this was a ‘filler’ film… a set-up film for the rest of the series. And I can understand that view. If you analyse the film overall, virtually NOTHING of importance actually happens: it’s like the “Order of the Phoenix” of the prequels.
Final Thoughts
I dragged myself along to see this one because “I thought I should”. The third in the series will really need to sparkle to make me want to see it. If J.K. Rowling were to take me advice (she won’t – she NEVER returns my calls!) then she would sculpt the story-arc but leave the screenwriting to someone better. The blame for this one, I’m afraid, lies at Rowling’s door alone.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Batman Begins (2005) in Movies
Feb 19, 2019
Batman has always seemed to make great viewing and with the darker takes on him of the past to decades, great movies. This was a real treat though. It’s almost a rational take on an irrational super hero. Christopher Nolan has managed to give Batman a human face and the world he inhabits a sense of scale and realism. But that’s not to say that it is lacking in the sense of the theatrical.
Back in 2005, the hype for this film was building, with a new take on the old comic hero taking shape. Though I must admit that the design of the new Batmobile didn’t look cool to me, but I loved the concept of rooting him in a real world. The other questionable point was that lack of the big hitters in terms of the villains. The Joker, Penguin, Riddler and Catwomen were dumped in favour of The Scarecrow and Ra’s al Ghul, with only one that I, as the un-indoctrinated in comic book lore, that I had heard of being The Scarecrow.
But this was not to be a typical Batman film in any sense of the word. In June 2005, Batman was reborn and not only had the career of an independently styled filmmaker, Christopher Nolan blown into the big leagues but Blockbusters had just been redefined, an event not dis-similar in effect t those of Jaws and Star Wars in the 1970’s.
Batman, a Warner Bros. cash cow for decades, was about to cross all the main lines within the industry and a blockbuster with art house sensibilities and real intelligence was about to born. It’s not the first, but it opened the door for Nolan and his like to change the way we think about movies of this kind. It doesn’t seem to be that long ago that Marvel was dominating cinemas was some first-rate adaptations such as X-Men, Spider-man and the underrated Hulk, which in many ways may be classed as a prototype for this, with art house direction from Ang Lee.
The plot of Batman Begins isn’t really that important though that’s not to sell it short. It’s a highly developed and conceived story, packed from the opening frame to the 140th minute, but it’s simply the perfect blend of the evolution of Bruce Wayne into Batman, and the usual diabolical plans of the super-villain, only it doesn’t feel like that when you’re watching it. It feels like a well judged story about a traumatised young man, struggling to come terms with his parents murder, and his place in the world.
Luckily for him, his family are billionaires and his butler is Alfred, or more importantly, Michael Caine! There are of course a whole host of contrivances to explain how Batman’s image was forged, how the Batcave was created and where the Batmobile came from, but no-one’s suggesting that this a documentary. This is a more grounded and psychological approach to the story of a nutcase who dressed up like a bat and fights crime without a single superpower to his aid.
But it’s how Nolan brings all this together that works so well. He addresses things so subtly that you can end up missing them if you blink, or at least fail to see them coming. Wayne is turned into a flamboyant excentric to maintain a distance from his friends, if he even has any. The Batcave never ends up looking how we’d expect either, but it is full of bats if that helps and he does park his car there.
It is not until The Dark Knight that we see a Batcave of sorts and that isn’t even in the grounds of Wayne Manor. So, the direction, conception and writing are great, what about the casting? Christian Bale is Wayne/Batman for me, though the animatistic tone to his voice maybe a little overdone, but I do get it. Katie Holmes is the weakest link and am glad that she was recast for the sequel. The rest of the players are first-rate and this may well be on of the best casts ever assembled for a single film in my opinion.
Gary Oldman, so understated as Lt. Gordon, Caine as Alfred is perfect; Liam Neeson is on top form, which he isn’t always, let’s face it and Morgan Freeman, like Oldman and Caine can seemingly do no wrong. Then there’s Hans Zimmer‘s collaboration with James Newton Howard for the score which is one of Zimmer’s best. Howard is an able composer and he clearly provided many of the excellent emotional riffs, but it was Zimmer who brought this together with his dominant, strident style, colossal beats and pacing.
The look and sound of this film sets it apart from so many of its brethren. Batman Begins is a truly original, relentless and groundbreaking movie that is the best of the comic book movies by a mile, but not necessarily the best comic book adaptation. Spider-man or Watchmen for example, may qualify for the fact that they more literally reflect their respective sources but Nolan’s masterpiece is a blueprint as to how film should tackle such adaptations.
And yes, that’s right; Batman Begins is a masterpiece if ever there was one, though a slightly lesser one in comparison to its own sequel, The Dark Knight which may have completely rewritten the handbook.
Back in 2005, the hype for this film was building, with a new take on the old comic hero taking shape. Though I must admit that the design of the new Batmobile didn’t look cool to me, but I loved the concept of rooting him in a real world. The other questionable point was that lack of the big hitters in terms of the villains. The Joker, Penguin, Riddler and Catwomen were dumped in favour of The Scarecrow and Ra’s al Ghul, with only one that I, as the un-indoctrinated in comic book lore, that I had heard of being The Scarecrow.
But this was not to be a typical Batman film in any sense of the word. In June 2005, Batman was reborn and not only had the career of an independently styled filmmaker, Christopher Nolan blown into the big leagues but Blockbusters had just been redefined, an event not dis-similar in effect t those of Jaws and Star Wars in the 1970’s.
Batman, a Warner Bros. cash cow for decades, was about to cross all the main lines within the industry and a blockbuster with art house sensibilities and real intelligence was about to born. It’s not the first, but it opened the door for Nolan and his like to change the way we think about movies of this kind. It doesn’t seem to be that long ago that Marvel was dominating cinemas was some first-rate adaptations such as X-Men, Spider-man and the underrated Hulk, which in many ways may be classed as a prototype for this, with art house direction from Ang Lee.
The plot of Batman Begins isn’t really that important though that’s not to sell it short. It’s a highly developed and conceived story, packed from the opening frame to the 140th minute, but it’s simply the perfect blend of the evolution of Bruce Wayne into Batman, and the usual diabolical plans of the super-villain, only it doesn’t feel like that when you’re watching it. It feels like a well judged story about a traumatised young man, struggling to come terms with his parents murder, and his place in the world.
Luckily for him, his family are billionaires and his butler is Alfred, or more importantly, Michael Caine! There are of course a whole host of contrivances to explain how Batman’s image was forged, how the Batcave was created and where the Batmobile came from, but no-one’s suggesting that this a documentary. This is a more grounded and psychological approach to the story of a nutcase who dressed up like a bat and fights crime without a single superpower to his aid.
But it’s how Nolan brings all this together that works so well. He addresses things so subtly that you can end up missing them if you blink, or at least fail to see them coming. Wayne is turned into a flamboyant excentric to maintain a distance from his friends, if he even has any. The Batcave never ends up looking how we’d expect either, but it is full of bats if that helps and he does park his car there.
It is not until The Dark Knight that we see a Batcave of sorts and that isn’t even in the grounds of Wayne Manor. So, the direction, conception and writing are great, what about the casting? Christian Bale is Wayne/Batman for me, though the animatistic tone to his voice maybe a little overdone, but I do get it. Katie Holmes is the weakest link and am glad that she was recast for the sequel. The rest of the players are first-rate and this may well be on of the best casts ever assembled for a single film in my opinion.
Gary Oldman, so understated as Lt. Gordon, Caine as Alfred is perfect; Liam Neeson is on top form, which he isn’t always, let’s face it and Morgan Freeman, like Oldman and Caine can seemingly do no wrong. Then there’s Hans Zimmer‘s collaboration with James Newton Howard for the score which is one of Zimmer’s best. Howard is an able composer and he clearly provided many of the excellent emotional riffs, but it was Zimmer who brought this together with his dominant, strident style, colossal beats and pacing.
The look and sound of this film sets it apart from so many of its brethren. Batman Begins is a truly original, relentless and groundbreaking movie that is the best of the comic book movies by a mile, but not necessarily the best comic book adaptation. Spider-man or Watchmen for example, may qualify for the fact that they more literally reflect their respective sources but Nolan’s masterpiece is a blueprint as to how film should tackle such adaptations.
And yes, that’s right; Batman Begins is a masterpiece if ever there was one, though a slightly lesser one in comparison to its own sequel, The Dark Knight which may have completely rewritten the handbook.
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?