Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Mercy (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“With shroud, and mast, and pennon fair”.
It’s 1968. Donald Crowhurst (Colin Firth, “Kingsman: The Golden Circle“; “Magic in the Moonlight“), an amateur sailor and entrepreneur based in Teignmouth, Devon, is inspired by listening to single-handed round-the-world yachtsman Sir Francis Chichester and does a a crazy thing. He puts his business, his family’s house and his own life on the line by entering the Sunday Times single-handed round-the-world yacht race. It’s not even as if he has a boat built yet!
Lending him the money, under onerous terms, are local businessman Mr Best (Ken Stott, “The Hobbit“) and local newspaper editor Rodney Hallworth (David Thewlis, “Wonder Woman“, “The Theory of Everything“). With the race deadline upon him, Crowhurst is pressed into sailing away from his beloved wife Clare (Rachel Weisz, “Denial“, “The Lobster“) and young family in a trimaran that is well below par.
But what happens next is so ludicrous that it makes a mockery of whoever wrote this ridiculous work of fiction. Ah… but wait a minute… it’s a true story!
It is in fact such an astonishing story that this is a film that is easy to spoil in a review, a fact that seems to have passed many newspaper reviewers by (Arrrggghhh!!). So I will leave much comment to a “spoiler section” that follows the trailer (which is also best avoided). This is honestly a film worth seeing cold. What can I say that is spoiler-free then?
Firth and Weisz make a well-matched couple, and the rest of the cast is peppered with well-known faces from British film and (particularly) TV: Andrew Buchan and Jonathan Bailey (from “Broadchurch”); Mark Gatiss (“Sherlock”, “Out Kind of Traitor“); Adrian Schiller (“Victoria”; “Beauty and the Beast“).
The first part of the film is well executed and excellent value for older viewers. 60’s Devon is warm, bucolic and nostalgic. In fact, the film beautifully creates the late 60’s of my childhood, from the boxy hardwood furniture of the Crowhurst’s house to the Meccano set opened at Christmas time.
Once afloat though, the film is less successful at getting its sea-legs. The story is riveting, but quite a number of the scenes raise more questions than they answer. As stress takes hold it is perhaps not surprising that there are a few fantastical flights of movie fancy. But some specific elements in Scott Burns’ script don’t quite gel: a brass clock overboard is a case in point. What? Why?
And it seems to be light on the fallout from the race: there is a weighty scene in the trailer between Best and Hallworth that (unless I dozed off!) I don’t think appeared in the final cut, and I think was needed.
All in all, I was left feeling mildly dissatisfied: a potentially good film by “Theory of Everything” director James Marsh that rather goes off the rails in the final stretch.
This was a time where morality and honour were often rigidly adhered to – British “stiff upper lip” and all that – and seemed to carry a lot more weight than they do today. So some of the decisions in the film might mystify younger viewers. But for the packed older audience in my showing (Cineworld: this needs to be put on in a bigger screen!) then it was a gripping, stressful, but far from flawless watch.
I’d also like to take this opportunity to pay my respects to the film’s composer Jóhann Jóhannsson, who shockingly died last week at the ridiculously young age of 48. His strange and atmospheric music for films including “The Theory of Everything“, “Sicario” and (particularly) “Arrival” set him on the path to be a film composing great of the future. Like James Horner, another awful and untimely loss to the film music industry.
Lending him the money, under onerous terms, are local businessman Mr Best (Ken Stott, “The Hobbit“) and local newspaper editor Rodney Hallworth (David Thewlis, “Wonder Woman“, “The Theory of Everything“). With the race deadline upon him, Crowhurst is pressed into sailing away from his beloved wife Clare (Rachel Weisz, “Denial“, “The Lobster“) and young family in a trimaran that is well below par.
But what happens next is so ludicrous that it makes a mockery of whoever wrote this ridiculous work of fiction. Ah… but wait a minute… it’s a true story!
It is in fact such an astonishing story that this is a film that is easy to spoil in a review, a fact that seems to have passed many newspaper reviewers by (Arrrggghhh!!). So I will leave much comment to a “spoiler section” that follows the trailer (which is also best avoided). This is honestly a film worth seeing cold. What can I say that is spoiler-free then?
Firth and Weisz make a well-matched couple, and the rest of the cast is peppered with well-known faces from British film and (particularly) TV: Andrew Buchan and Jonathan Bailey (from “Broadchurch”); Mark Gatiss (“Sherlock”, “Out Kind of Traitor“); Adrian Schiller (“Victoria”; “Beauty and the Beast“).
The first part of the film is well executed and excellent value for older viewers. 60’s Devon is warm, bucolic and nostalgic. In fact, the film beautifully creates the late 60’s of my childhood, from the boxy hardwood furniture of the Crowhurst’s house to the Meccano set opened at Christmas time.
Once afloat though, the film is less successful at getting its sea-legs. The story is riveting, but quite a number of the scenes raise more questions than they answer. As stress takes hold it is perhaps not surprising that there are a few fantastical flights of movie fancy. But some specific elements in Scott Burns’ script don’t quite gel: a brass clock overboard is a case in point. What? Why?
And it seems to be light on the fallout from the race: there is a weighty scene in the trailer between Best and Hallworth that (unless I dozed off!) I don’t think appeared in the final cut, and I think was needed.
All in all, I was left feeling mildly dissatisfied: a potentially good film by “Theory of Everything” director James Marsh that rather goes off the rails in the final stretch.
This was a time where morality and honour were often rigidly adhered to – British “stiff upper lip” and all that – and seemed to carry a lot more weight than they do today. So some of the decisions in the film might mystify younger viewers. But for the packed older audience in my showing (Cineworld: this needs to be put on in a bigger screen!) then it was a gripping, stressful, but far from flawless watch.
I’d also like to take this opportunity to pay my respects to the film’s composer Jóhann Jóhannsson, who shockingly died last week at the ridiculously young age of 48. His strange and atmospheric music for films including “The Theory of Everything“, “Sicario” and (particularly) “Arrival” set him on the path to be a film composing great of the future. Like James Horner, another awful and untimely loss to the film music industry.
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Captain America: Civil War (2016) in Movies
May 11, 2019
Chris Evans as Steve Rogers/ Captain America
RDJ as Tony Stark/Iron man
Sebastian Stan as Bucky Barnes
Tom Holland as Peter Parker/Spider-man
Chadwick Boseman as Black panther/Tchalla (1 more)
The Airport fight scene
The climatic three-way battle
Zemo is a fantastic villian brilliantly played by Daniel Bruhl
Feels like a Captain America movie
Giant-Man is awesome,so is Paul Rudd
Mission Report, December 16, 1991
"Captain America: Civil War" is not only the best "Captain America" movie yet, but it may just be at the very top of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, due to it's emotionally satisfying themes. That may seem like extremely high praise, so I will explain why I believe that to be true, as well as why I think this is the most mature Marvel film to this point. Loosely following the events of both "Captain America: The Winter Solider" and "Avengers: Age of Ultron," while still harking back to previous films from this universe, this 13th installment in the ever growing Marvel Cinematic Universe, follows the team on different paths as they are once again pulled together.
Opening the film in the past, audiences will be given a look into the life of the Winter Soldier, as his character will later have the biggest impact on the story at hand. Flash forward to the Avengers. The team is realizing that the events from the past have killed many innocent lives in the process and they must decide whether or not they want to sign the "Sokovia Accords" and be restrained by the government, and only released when called upon. This divides the team stronger than ever before, creating friction as to what the right move truly is. Then arrives the Winter Soldier. Still brainwashed, Bucky causes Steve to go after him (a fugitive), thus sparking the war of family and friendship within the team. This is just the basis. There are many levels to this picture, including the addition of Zemo as the side villain.
This character served a very pivotal role in my opinion and definitely does not deserve the flack he is receiving. Daniel Bruhl is terrific in everything he is in and he only justified that more with this character. Without giving anything away, his character is involved with the heart of the story and is the reason for many actions/motivations. This review has been very dour so far and that is due to the fact that the entire first act of this film is extremely sad, but enjoyably so. Unlike certain unnamed films, this has a very light tone which elevates enough of the somber moments, making for a very balanced film throughout.
The central dynamic/conflict of Steve Rodgers (Captain America), Bucky Barnes (Winter Soldier) and Tony Stark ( Iron man) is what elevates the film for me. These are my three favourite characters and you follow their stories as they weave together and by the end you don't know who's side you are on as they beat each other down in what i'd call the most brutal fight in the mcu. Chris Evans and Robert Downey Jr are fantastic in this film both of them once again improve their performances over the other films but Sebastian Stan steals the movie for me, Bucky Barnes is a tragic character and sebastian sells you on that tragedy and also makes Bucky likeable again whilst not being the winter soldier persona but also not the same Bucky from the first avenger. You sympathize with him even after all of the bad things he did, he was amazing and his arc was my favourite in the movie.
Speaking of the light tone, the addition of "Ant-Man" and "Spider-Man" was absolutely fantastic and needed for this depressing story. It is hard to watch the character having to fight each other, especially when you have come to love them over the last eight years, so it was necessary to include some fun. Paul Rudd is great once again, "fanboying" out just like audiences, and his action sequences are nothing short of crowd-pleasing. That being said, "Spider-Man" is still the standout here. Tom Holland get's a very solid introduction as to who he is, where he has been, and how he got his spider abilities. The chemistry between Peter and Tony was masterful and I could not get enough of it. "Spider-Man" nearly steals the show with his contribution.
Within two scenes of meeting "Black Panther," they are able to establish his past, why he is present, and what his motives are, as far as siding with "Iron Man" goes. No, he does not have a clear side, but that is for specifics that can not be discussed here. Chadwick Boseman is great and his action sequences are terrific. It may seem like this review is overly character-driven, but that is exactly what this film is all about. Developing character in characters you thought you had already known from front to back. The excessive amount of layers in this film work in many more ways than one.
Joe and Anthony Russo have proven why they are the best thing that could have ever been added to this universe, directing this film with ease. Bringing on the directors of "John Wick" (Chad Stahelski and David Leitch) was an incredible idea, as the action sequences throughout this entire film are some of the best you will ever lay eyes on in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. If for some reason you walked out of this film disappointed, I can confidently say that you are crazy to not have been blown away by the action throughout this picture, especially the incredible airport sequence.
"Captain America: Civil War" is first and foremost a Captain America sequel, while simultaneously being a great Avengers sequel. Directed brilliantly, terrifically performed all around, with jaw-dropping action set pieces and a very raw emotional core. "Captain America: Civil War" is a triumph in every sense of the word. Absolutely amazing.
Opening the film in the past, audiences will be given a look into the life of the Winter Soldier, as his character will later have the biggest impact on the story at hand. Flash forward to the Avengers. The team is realizing that the events from the past have killed many innocent lives in the process and they must decide whether or not they want to sign the "Sokovia Accords" and be restrained by the government, and only released when called upon. This divides the team stronger than ever before, creating friction as to what the right move truly is. Then arrives the Winter Soldier. Still brainwashed, Bucky causes Steve to go after him (a fugitive), thus sparking the war of family and friendship within the team. This is just the basis. There are many levels to this picture, including the addition of Zemo as the side villain.
This character served a very pivotal role in my opinion and definitely does not deserve the flack he is receiving. Daniel Bruhl is terrific in everything he is in and he only justified that more with this character. Without giving anything away, his character is involved with the heart of the story and is the reason for many actions/motivations. This review has been very dour so far and that is due to the fact that the entire first act of this film is extremely sad, but enjoyably so. Unlike certain unnamed films, this has a very light tone which elevates enough of the somber moments, making for a very balanced film throughout.
The central dynamic/conflict of Steve Rodgers (Captain America), Bucky Barnes (Winter Soldier) and Tony Stark ( Iron man) is what elevates the film for me. These are my three favourite characters and you follow their stories as they weave together and by the end you don't know who's side you are on as they beat each other down in what i'd call the most brutal fight in the mcu. Chris Evans and Robert Downey Jr are fantastic in this film both of them once again improve their performances over the other films but Sebastian Stan steals the movie for me, Bucky Barnes is a tragic character and sebastian sells you on that tragedy and also makes Bucky likeable again whilst not being the winter soldier persona but also not the same Bucky from the first avenger. You sympathize with him even after all of the bad things he did, he was amazing and his arc was my favourite in the movie.
Speaking of the light tone, the addition of "Ant-Man" and "Spider-Man" was absolutely fantastic and needed for this depressing story. It is hard to watch the character having to fight each other, especially when you have come to love them over the last eight years, so it was necessary to include some fun. Paul Rudd is great once again, "fanboying" out just like audiences, and his action sequences are nothing short of crowd-pleasing. That being said, "Spider-Man" is still the standout here. Tom Holland get's a very solid introduction as to who he is, where he has been, and how he got his spider abilities. The chemistry between Peter and Tony was masterful and I could not get enough of it. "Spider-Man" nearly steals the show with his contribution.
Within two scenes of meeting "Black Panther," they are able to establish his past, why he is present, and what his motives are, as far as siding with "Iron Man" goes. No, he does not have a clear side, but that is for specifics that can not be discussed here. Chadwick Boseman is great and his action sequences are terrific. It may seem like this review is overly character-driven, but that is exactly what this film is all about. Developing character in characters you thought you had already known from front to back. The excessive amount of layers in this film work in many more ways than one.
Joe and Anthony Russo have proven why they are the best thing that could have ever been added to this universe, directing this film with ease. Bringing on the directors of "John Wick" (Chad Stahelski and David Leitch) was an incredible idea, as the action sequences throughout this entire film are some of the best you will ever lay eyes on in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. If for some reason you walked out of this film disappointed, I can confidently say that you are crazy to not have been blown away by the action throughout this picture, especially the incredible airport sequence.
"Captain America: Civil War" is first and foremost a Captain America sequel, while simultaneously being a great Avengers sequel. Directed brilliantly, terrifically performed all around, with jaw-dropping action set pieces and a very raw emotional core. "Captain America: Civil War" is a triumph in every sense of the word. Absolutely amazing.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Finding your feet (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Foot tapping and Tear Jerking.
There are some films whose trailers really don’t properly represent their contents. The trailer for the new ‘grey-pound’ film “Finding Your Feet” promised a light hearted and witty foray into an elderly dance-club. And, yes, you get some laughs. But it’s very much a bitter sweet comedy, and the bitterness is ladled on by the bucketload leading to more tears than smiles through the majority of the running time.
Sandra (Imelda Staunton, “Pride“) – now Lady Sandra, after her husband’s latest knighthood – is in a predictable, sex-free but reasonably happy marriage to legal beagle Mike (John Sessions, “Denial“, “Florence Foster Jenkins“) when her world is shaken to its core on discovering that Mike has been having a five-year affair with her best friend Pamela (Josie Lawrence). Moving in with her Bohemian sister Bif (Celia Imrie, “Bridget Jones Baby“), she struggles to integrate into her decidedly lower class lifestyle and find common ground with Bif’s dance club friends Charlie (Timothy Spall, “Denial“, “Mr Turner”), Ted (David Hayman) and Jackie (Joanna Lumley, “The Wolf of Wall Street“).
Can Sandra turn her downward spiral around and find love and happiness again? Well, the posters scream “The Feel Good Film of the Year” so you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to know the answer to that! But it’s a bumpy journey for sure.
Getting all the acting honours is Timothy Spall, who is far too good to be buried away in this small British rom com. To watch him do “ordinary bloke doing ordinary things” is an absolute delight. He adds class and distinction to every scene he’s in, especially for those concerned with his truly tragic and upsetting back-story. Running a close second is Celia Imrie who has a wicked smile off to perfection and adds a lot of emotional depth to her performance: and she needs the range, since she too is on a pretty emotional journey through the second half of the film.
John Sessions and Josie Lawrence – old compatriots of course from the original version of TV’s “Whose Line Is It Anyway” – also deliver marvellous cameo performances, as does Phoebe Nicholls (“The Elephant Man”, “Downton Abbey”) as the tennis playing friend Janet.
Less convincing for me was Imelda Staunton, particularly in the first half of the film: for me she never quite pulls off the icy cold emotional wreck of Sandra, but is much better once the thaw has set in.
The film is written by Meg Leonard (in a debut script) and Nick Moorcroft (who did the “St Trinians” scripts). And there are some funny lines in there, although it has to be said that there are not enough of them. The majority of the best ones in fact are in the trailer, never bettered by Joanna Lumley’s zinger…. “My last marriage ended for religious reasons…. he thought he was God and I didn’t”! There’s not much more room for comic lines, since the rest of the script is stuffed with the dramatic outcomes from various flavours of old-age malady. Fortunately I was one of the younger members of the generally grey-haired audience, but for those further up the scale it must have been like staring into the void!
The film will win no awards for choreography, since the dance scenes are gloriously inept and out of sync. But this all rather adds to the charm of the piece.
Directed by Richard Loncraine, director of the equally forgettable Brit-flick “Wimbledon” and the rather more memorable “Brimstone and Treacle”, this is as Douglas Adams would have said “Mostly Harmless”: a film that most over-50’s will find a pleasant way to spend two hours. But go in expecting a drama with comic moments, rather than the hilarious comedy predicted by the trailer, and you will be better prepared.
(I should comment that the rating below is my view: my illustrious wife declared it a triumphant chick-flick and gave it FFFFf).
Sandra (Imelda Staunton, “Pride“) – now Lady Sandra, after her husband’s latest knighthood – is in a predictable, sex-free but reasonably happy marriage to legal beagle Mike (John Sessions, “Denial“, “Florence Foster Jenkins“) when her world is shaken to its core on discovering that Mike has been having a five-year affair with her best friend Pamela (Josie Lawrence). Moving in with her Bohemian sister Bif (Celia Imrie, “Bridget Jones Baby“), she struggles to integrate into her decidedly lower class lifestyle and find common ground with Bif’s dance club friends Charlie (Timothy Spall, “Denial“, “Mr Turner”), Ted (David Hayman) and Jackie (Joanna Lumley, “The Wolf of Wall Street“).
Can Sandra turn her downward spiral around and find love and happiness again? Well, the posters scream “The Feel Good Film of the Year” so you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to know the answer to that! But it’s a bumpy journey for sure.
Getting all the acting honours is Timothy Spall, who is far too good to be buried away in this small British rom com. To watch him do “ordinary bloke doing ordinary things” is an absolute delight. He adds class and distinction to every scene he’s in, especially for those concerned with his truly tragic and upsetting back-story. Running a close second is Celia Imrie who has a wicked smile off to perfection and adds a lot of emotional depth to her performance: and she needs the range, since she too is on a pretty emotional journey through the second half of the film.
John Sessions and Josie Lawrence – old compatriots of course from the original version of TV’s “Whose Line Is It Anyway” – also deliver marvellous cameo performances, as does Phoebe Nicholls (“The Elephant Man”, “Downton Abbey”) as the tennis playing friend Janet.
Less convincing for me was Imelda Staunton, particularly in the first half of the film: for me she never quite pulls off the icy cold emotional wreck of Sandra, but is much better once the thaw has set in.
The film is written by Meg Leonard (in a debut script) and Nick Moorcroft (who did the “St Trinians” scripts). And there are some funny lines in there, although it has to be said that there are not enough of them. The majority of the best ones in fact are in the trailer, never bettered by Joanna Lumley’s zinger…. “My last marriage ended for religious reasons…. he thought he was God and I didn’t”! There’s not much more room for comic lines, since the rest of the script is stuffed with the dramatic outcomes from various flavours of old-age malady. Fortunately I was one of the younger members of the generally grey-haired audience, but for those further up the scale it must have been like staring into the void!
The film will win no awards for choreography, since the dance scenes are gloriously inept and out of sync. But this all rather adds to the charm of the piece.
Directed by Richard Loncraine, director of the equally forgettable Brit-flick “Wimbledon” and the rather more memorable “Brimstone and Treacle”, this is as Douglas Adams would have said “Mostly Harmless”: a film that most over-50’s will find a pleasant way to spend two hours. But go in expecting a drama with comic moments, rather than the hilarious comedy predicted by the trailer, and you will be better prepared.
(I should comment that the rating below is my view: my illustrious wife declared it a triumphant chick-flick and gave it FFFFf).
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Glass (2019) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
An ambitious but flawed finale
M. Night Shyamalan is back behind the camera! Quick, run! Joking aside, Shyamalan’s career is as convoluted as his signature third-act twists. Starting off with the fabulous The Sixth Sense and then almost derailing his career with catastrophic failures like The Happening, After Earth and dare I mention it, The Last Airbender, it appeared we had all but lost that once promising directorial flair.
Thankfully in 2016’s Split, Shyamalan returned to form somewhat with a nicely paced, tense thriller starring James McAvoy as Kevin, a guy with multiple personality disorder. Of course, the infamous twist, possibly Shyamalan’s best, that this film was set in the same universe as the fabulous Unbreakable was almost too much to handle.
Fast-forward three years and Glass is the film that rounds out the surprise trilogy, bringing together McAvoy, Bruce Willis and Samuel L Jackson for the mother of all showdowns. Or that’s what the trailers would have you believe. But what’s the finished product like?
Three weeks after the conclusion of Split, Glass finds Bruce Willis’ David Dunn pursuing James McAvoy’s superhuman figure of The Beast in a series of escalating encounters, while the shadowy presence of Elijah Price (Samuel L Jackson) emerges as an orchestrator who holds secrets critical to both men. Sandwiched in between this is Sarah Paulson’s Dr Ellie Staple who desperately wants to prove that these men simply hold delusions of grandeur.
As a rule, trilogy closers generally tend to the weakest of the three films with Spider-Man 3, Return of the Jedi and X-Men: Apocalypse cementing my point and Glass unfortunately follows a similar pattern. While by no means a bad film, Shyamalan desperately tries to add too many plot threads into the mix at the end resulting in a messy climax that trips all over itself.
Thankfully, the first act, and the majority of the second live up to expectations. James McAvoy is absolutely exceptional as Kevin and his multiple personalities. Switching between them at the flash of a light, he is staggering to watch and is the highlight in a film that for the most part, gets the best out of its stars. Samuel L Jackson and Sarah Paulson are great with the former looking like he’s having an absolute blast reprising a role that’s been dormant for 19 years.
The less said about Bruce Willis the better. He seems to be sleepwalking through the entire film, so it’s probably for the best that he appears fleetingly every now and then as this is very much McAvoy’s film.
Glass is a film that is both longer and weaker than its two predecessors but can still get by on its own merits thanks to a stunning performance by James McAvoy
The script is typical Shyamalan. It’s clunky, filled with overly expositional dialogue and sometimes downright jarring, but the intriguing premise allows you to overlook this more often than not. There are some nice touches as Sarah Paulson’s character tries to explain away the powers of the main trio, making them and us as the audience doubt their superhuman abilities.
Those expecting a film packed with action will be disappointed. Glass is very much a character piece. The action that is there is well-filmed and realistic considering the film’s incredibly small budget, but it’s limited to the beginning and end of the movie, though the finale is such a mess that it’s really not worth mentioning.
Much of Glass takes place within the Raven Hill Memorial Hospital and follows Paulson’s daily studies of the trio and while this does dampen the pacing somewhat, it’s a refreshing change to the action-packed blockbusters that we have become accustomed to in the genre.
When it comes to cinematography, again, it’s typical Shyamalan. Long-tracking shots, super close-ups and peculiar camera angles are all present and correct. In Split, the impact of his unusual camerawork wasn’t too grating, but here it creates quite the distraction. There’s also another Shyamalan staple: the director’s cameo. The one in Glass is overly long and completely unnecessary, but it’s something we’ve come to expect over the last couple of decades.
Overall, Glass is a film that is both longer and weaker than its two predecessors but can still get by on its own merits thanks to a stunning performance by James McAvoy, the class brought by Samuel L Jackson and Sarah Paulson and a great sense of ambition. Unfortunately, budgetary restraints have resulted in a film that is subtle to the point of being dull and while praise should be given for effort, Glass proves to be just a little underwhelming.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/01/19/glass-review-an-ambitious-but-flawed-finale/
Thankfully in 2016’s Split, Shyamalan returned to form somewhat with a nicely paced, tense thriller starring James McAvoy as Kevin, a guy with multiple personality disorder. Of course, the infamous twist, possibly Shyamalan’s best, that this film was set in the same universe as the fabulous Unbreakable was almost too much to handle.
Fast-forward three years and Glass is the film that rounds out the surprise trilogy, bringing together McAvoy, Bruce Willis and Samuel L Jackson for the mother of all showdowns. Or that’s what the trailers would have you believe. But what’s the finished product like?
Three weeks after the conclusion of Split, Glass finds Bruce Willis’ David Dunn pursuing James McAvoy’s superhuman figure of The Beast in a series of escalating encounters, while the shadowy presence of Elijah Price (Samuel L Jackson) emerges as an orchestrator who holds secrets critical to both men. Sandwiched in between this is Sarah Paulson’s Dr Ellie Staple who desperately wants to prove that these men simply hold delusions of grandeur.
As a rule, trilogy closers generally tend to the weakest of the three films with Spider-Man 3, Return of the Jedi and X-Men: Apocalypse cementing my point and Glass unfortunately follows a similar pattern. While by no means a bad film, Shyamalan desperately tries to add too many plot threads into the mix at the end resulting in a messy climax that trips all over itself.
Thankfully, the first act, and the majority of the second live up to expectations. James McAvoy is absolutely exceptional as Kevin and his multiple personalities. Switching between them at the flash of a light, he is staggering to watch and is the highlight in a film that for the most part, gets the best out of its stars. Samuel L Jackson and Sarah Paulson are great with the former looking like he’s having an absolute blast reprising a role that’s been dormant for 19 years.
The less said about Bruce Willis the better. He seems to be sleepwalking through the entire film, so it’s probably for the best that he appears fleetingly every now and then as this is very much McAvoy’s film.
Glass is a film that is both longer and weaker than its two predecessors but can still get by on its own merits thanks to a stunning performance by James McAvoy
The script is typical Shyamalan. It’s clunky, filled with overly expositional dialogue and sometimes downright jarring, but the intriguing premise allows you to overlook this more often than not. There are some nice touches as Sarah Paulson’s character tries to explain away the powers of the main trio, making them and us as the audience doubt their superhuman abilities.
Those expecting a film packed with action will be disappointed. Glass is very much a character piece. The action that is there is well-filmed and realistic considering the film’s incredibly small budget, but it’s limited to the beginning and end of the movie, though the finale is such a mess that it’s really not worth mentioning.
Much of Glass takes place within the Raven Hill Memorial Hospital and follows Paulson’s daily studies of the trio and while this does dampen the pacing somewhat, it’s a refreshing change to the action-packed blockbusters that we have become accustomed to in the genre.
When it comes to cinematography, again, it’s typical Shyamalan. Long-tracking shots, super close-ups and peculiar camera angles are all present and correct. In Split, the impact of his unusual camerawork wasn’t too grating, but here it creates quite the distraction. There’s also another Shyamalan staple: the director’s cameo. The one in Glass is overly long and completely unnecessary, but it’s something we’ve come to expect over the last couple of decades.
Overall, Glass is a film that is both longer and weaker than its two predecessors but can still get by on its own merits thanks to a stunning performance by James McAvoy, the class brought by Samuel L Jackson and Sarah Paulson and a great sense of ambition. Unfortunately, budgetary restraints have resulted in a film that is subtle to the point of being dull and while praise should be given for effort, Glass proves to be just a little underwhelming.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/01/19/glass-review-an-ambitious-but-flawed-finale/
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated The Social Network (2010) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
It’s hard to find anyone who doesn’t know about Facebook. On any given day, at least 250 million active users log on to Facebook and spend over 700 billion minutes per month updating their status, posting pictures or playing casual games. So dominant is this social network, the name itself is both a brand and a verb. Who would have thought that sharing inanities about what we’re currently thinking, eating, reading, watching with our friends would garner such interest? In the new movie The Social Network, director David Fincher sets out to show how, from the very humblest beginnings, Facebook became the juggernaut that it is today.
In 2003, after a debate and breakup with his girlfriend, fueled by his frustration at his exclusion from the social elite, Harvard undergrad and computer programming genius, Mark Zuckerberg, sits at his computer one night and changes the face of the internet. In just a few hours Zuckerberg, deftly played by Jesse Eisenberg, circumvents the firewalls and security of Harvard and creates a website that allows visitors to rate the ladies of the campus. Within a few hours, the thousands of hits crash the vaunted computer network of the university.
While Harvard staff was not impressed with his efforts, it certainly caught the attention of his fellow students, most notably the Winklevoss brothers, who seek out Zuckerberg with the intention of creating an exclusive website for Harvard students. While seemingly mulling over the proposal of the new site, Zuckerberg rapidly, and obsessively, develops his own. The early version of what would eventually become Facebook soon becomes a campus sensation, much to the dismay of the Winklevoss brothers.
Andrew Garfield plays Zuckerberg’s friend Eduardo Severin who funds Zuckerberg’s efforts. Facebook rapidly became the height of social hipness as its exclusivity widened to more colleges and universities. College students across the country created profiles and quickly spread news of the site simply by word of mouth. Or rather word of email. The success of Facebook soon gains the attention of Sean Parker, played by Justin Timberlake. Parker had risen to prominence as the creator of the popular file sharing site Napster and was eager to become involved with the growing success of Facebook. While Mark is fascinated and inspired by Sean’s slick style, Eduardo isn’t impressed and is highly suspicious of Sean’s motives as well as his shady reputation. As the trailers and posters have touted, you can’t get to 500 million friends without making a few enemies. Jealousy feeds insecurities that feed accusations that eventually lead to lawsuits.
Eisenberg is fantastic as the egotistical, neurotic, and highly intelligent Mark Zuckerberg, but the true breakout performance of the film has to be that of Andrew Garfield, who has been cast to play Spiderman in the next trilogy of the very popular film series. The British actor who was born and raised in Los Angeles has an understated charisma and appears very capable of becoming a leading man. He infuses Eduardo with class and humanism as he tries to be the friend Zuckerberg doesn’t think he needs.
The film is told largely through flashbacks during a deposition hearing between the parties involved in the lawsuits. Director Fincher skillfully allows his characters to drive the film, letting the story unfold in telling scenes, giving the characters ample room to shine without becoming preachy or resorting to grandstanding.
The characters, despite their flaws, do come across as very believable and sympathetic, even though it’s difficult to imagine going from students to inventors of a pop culture phenomenon, to billionaires in just a few short years. Very few corporations that become dominant in their industry do so without critics, challengers, and those that claim they were responsible for whatever success a company gained.
While The Social Network does not overtly place blame, the light it shines on Zuckerberg isn’t altogether flattering. Surprisingly, the film does not go to the extreme with tech talk. It instead focuses on the relationship between the characters and how they handled the drastic and sudden changes in their lives brought on by a simple program called Face Mash, which became the basis for Facebook.
Strong supporting work in the film combined with the great performances of the lead characters makes The Social Network”a very solid and entertaining film that, for my money, is one of the better films of the year.
While it would be easy to jump to judgment and brand many in the film as egotistical rich people who should be grateful for what they have, I remembered that absolute power corrupts absolutely and I wondered just how well any of us in the audience would react if we were ever faced with a similar situation.
In 2003, after a debate and breakup with his girlfriend, fueled by his frustration at his exclusion from the social elite, Harvard undergrad and computer programming genius, Mark Zuckerberg, sits at his computer one night and changes the face of the internet. In just a few hours Zuckerberg, deftly played by Jesse Eisenberg, circumvents the firewalls and security of Harvard and creates a website that allows visitors to rate the ladies of the campus. Within a few hours, the thousands of hits crash the vaunted computer network of the university.
While Harvard staff was not impressed with his efforts, it certainly caught the attention of his fellow students, most notably the Winklevoss brothers, who seek out Zuckerberg with the intention of creating an exclusive website for Harvard students. While seemingly mulling over the proposal of the new site, Zuckerberg rapidly, and obsessively, develops his own. The early version of what would eventually become Facebook soon becomes a campus sensation, much to the dismay of the Winklevoss brothers.
Andrew Garfield plays Zuckerberg’s friend Eduardo Severin who funds Zuckerberg’s efforts. Facebook rapidly became the height of social hipness as its exclusivity widened to more colleges and universities. College students across the country created profiles and quickly spread news of the site simply by word of mouth. Or rather word of email. The success of Facebook soon gains the attention of Sean Parker, played by Justin Timberlake. Parker had risen to prominence as the creator of the popular file sharing site Napster and was eager to become involved with the growing success of Facebook. While Mark is fascinated and inspired by Sean’s slick style, Eduardo isn’t impressed and is highly suspicious of Sean’s motives as well as his shady reputation. As the trailers and posters have touted, you can’t get to 500 million friends without making a few enemies. Jealousy feeds insecurities that feed accusations that eventually lead to lawsuits.
Eisenberg is fantastic as the egotistical, neurotic, and highly intelligent Mark Zuckerberg, but the true breakout performance of the film has to be that of Andrew Garfield, who has been cast to play Spiderman in the next trilogy of the very popular film series. The British actor who was born and raised in Los Angeles has an understated charisma and appears very capable of becoming a leading man. He infuses Eduardo with class and humanism as he tries to be the friend Zuckerberg doesn’t think he needs.
The film is told largely through flashbacks during a deposition hearing between the parties involved in the lawsuits. Director Fincher skillfully allows his characters to drive the film, letting the story unfold in telling scenes, giving the characters ample room to shine without becoming preachy or resorting to grandstanding.
The characters, despite their flaws, do come across as very believable and sympathetic, even though it’s difficult to imagine going from students to inventors of a pop culture phenomenon, to billionaires in just a few short years. Very few corporations that become dominant in their industry do so without critics, challengers, and those that claim they were responsible for whatever success a company gained.
While The Social Network does not overtly place blame, the light it shines on Zuckerberg isn’t altogether flattering. Surprisingly, the film does not go to the extreme with tech talk. It instead focuses on the relationship between the characters and how they handled the drastic and sudden changes in their lives brought on by a simple program called Face Mash, which became the basis for Facebook.
Strong supporting work in the film combined with the great performances of the lead characters makes The Social Network”a very solid and entertaining film that, for my money, is one of the better films of the year.
While it would be easy to jump to judgment and brand many in the film as egotistical rich people who should be grateful for what they have, I remembered that absolute power corrupts absolutely and I wondered just how well any of us in the audience would react if we were ever faced with a similar situation.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Last Looks (2022) in Movies
Feb 5, 2022
Charlie Hunnam (1 more)
Mel Gibson
Interesting side characters that don't pay off (1 more)
Ultimately a boring mystery
"Last Looks" (2022) Review: A Bland, Overstuffed Mystery
In Last Looks, Charlie Waldo (Charlie Hunnam) is a retired cop and former LAPD officer. He ghosted everyone he knew, parked a trailer on the top of a mountain, got rid of nearly everything he owned, and now lives a life of solitude off the grid. Waldo seems genuinely happy surrounded by nothing but nature and his chickens until his new simplistic life is interrupted by his on again and off again ex-girlfriend Lorena (Morena Baccarin) asks for Waldo’s help on a new case.
Alistair Pinch (Mel Gibson) is a talented and accomplished actor whose drinking pushes him to erratic behavior. Pinch is the prime suspect when his wife is murdered. It’s up to Waldo to come out of retirement to prove Pinch’s innocence despite his reluctance to take the case.
Based on the 2018 crime, mystery novel of the same name, Last Looks is written by Howard Michael Gould (who wrote the book and the screenplay) and directed by Tim Kirkby (Action Point). The film attempts to be quirky and funny while offering its audience something intriguing and entertaining; something along the lines of Rian Johnson’s Brick, Shane Black’s Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, or David Robert Mitchell’s Under the Silver Lake.
The biggest draw is that Waldo literally just gets his ass kicked the entire film. It’s repeatedly mentioned that Waldo is rusty in all aspects of investigating, so that likely plays a part of it. But he is knocked down and knocked out more times than you can count throughout the film. One of the only interesting aspects of the film is that Waldo is consistently given signs that he shouldn’t take this case. He’s threatened by gangsters, Pinch is arrested almost immediately after Waldo shows up in Los Angeles, and Lorena disappears without a trace. It may be as simple as Waldo still having a thing for Lorena, but you like to think that it’s also because she’d only ask him for help with a case that deserves his attention.
Last Looks is an odd film. The performances from Charlie Hunnam and Mel Gibson are relatively solid, but it’s as if they’re wasting all of their talent being trapped within the walls of a trampled and soggy paper bag. Waldo encounters all of these eccentric characters as you follow his investigation from his perspective, but it feels like it goes nowhere once it’s all said and done. In the grand scheme of things, Last Looks is boring. There’s no real humor here. The entire film can be summed up as watching Charlie Hunnam stand around and talk and get punched in the face consistently over the course of two hours.
There are some peculiar cameos in Last Looks. Method Man mostly appears in internet videos watched on a mobile phone while Dominic Monaghan shows up as a vape smoking lawyer only to never be seen again after one brief bike rack encounter. Jacob Scipio has a great introductory sequence as a gangster named Don Q who is troubled by deciding whether to get a Kindle or a Nook and then his character kind of fizzles out after that despite being featured prominently in the supporting cast. Don Q has a connection to Lorena that starts off as intriguing with a disappointing payoff.
Jayne White (Lucy Fry) is Gaby Pinch’s, Alistair’s daughter, preschool teacher and her inclusion in the story is a complete mess. White flirts with Waldo from the start, so you know where that’s going but her connection to Alistair and what that branches off into seems overly complicated for the grand scheme of things.
Last Looks is a mysterious stew that experiments with flavorful ingredients throughout its two hour duration. The film ultimately collapses under its own potential resulting in a bland and flavorless concoction. Every side character is just interesting enough to pique your interest and the film is written in a way where it seems like everyone is a suspect, but every potentially exciting aspect fizzles out before it has a chance to light up the sky; like a really expensive firecracker that turns out to be a dud. The film may be worth a look for Mel Gibson’s flashy, boisterous, and drunkenly absurd performance. The mystery in Last Looks is essentially comparable trying to discover the expiration date on a can of mystery meat that has lost its label; it may be life threatening but is otherwise a bore to experience by others.
Alistair Pinch (Mel Gibson) is a talented and accomplished actor whose drinking pushes him to erratic behavior. Pinch is the prime suspect when his wife is murdered. It’s up to Waldo to come out of retirement to prove Pinch’s innocence despite his reluctance to take the case.
Based on the 2018 crime, mystery novel of the same name, Last Looks is written by Howard Michael Gould (who wrote the book and the screenplay) and directed by Tim Kirkby (Action Point). The film attempts to be quirky and funny while offering its audience something intriguing and entertaining; something along the lines of Rian Johnson’s Brick, Shane Black’s Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, or David Robert Mitchell’s Under the Silver Lake.
The biggest draw is that Waldo literally just gets his ass kicked the entire film. It’s repeatedly mentioned that Waldo is rusty in all aspects of investigating, so that likely plays a part of it. But he is knocked down and knocked out more times than you can count throughout the film. One of the only interesting aspects of the film is that Waldo is consistently given signs that he shouldn’t take this case. He’s threatened by gangsters, Pinch is arrested almost immediately after Waldo shows up in Los Angeles, and Lorena disappears without a trace. It may be as simple as Waldo still having a thing for Lorena, but you like to think that it’s also because she’d only ask him for help with a case that deserves his attention.
Last Looks is an odd film. The performances from Charlie Hunnam and Mel Gibson are relatively solid, but it’s as if they’re wasting all of their talent being trapped within the walls of a trampled and soggy paper bag. Waldo encounters all of these eccentric characters as you follow his investigation from his perspective, but it feels like it goes nowhere once it’s all said and done. In the grand scheme of things, Last Looks is boring. There’s no real humor here. The entire film can be summed up as watching Charlie Hunnam stand around and talk and get punched in the face consistently over the course of two hours.
There are some peculiar cameos in Last Looks. Method Man mostly appears in internet videos watched on a mobile phone while Dominic Monaghan shows up as a vape smoking lawyer only to never be seen again after one brief bike rack encounter. Jacob Scipio has a great introductory sequence as a gangster named Don Q who is troubled by deciding whether to get a Kindle or a Nook and then his character kind of fizzles out after that despite being featured prominently in the supporting cast. Don Q has a connection to Lorena that starts off as intriguing with a disappointing payoff.
Jayne White (Lucy Fry) is Gaby Pinch’s, Alistair’s daughter, preschool teacher and her inclusion in the story is a complete mess. White flirts with Waldo from the start, so you know where that’s going but her connection to Alistair and what that branches off into seems overly complicated for the grand scheme of things.
Last Looks is a mysterious stew that experiments with flavorful ingredients throughout its two hour duration. The film ultimately collapses under its own potential resulting in a bland and flavorless concoction. Every side character is just interesting enough to pique your interest and the film is written in a way where it seems like everyone is a suspect, but every potentially exciting aspect fizzles out before it has a chance to light up the sky; like a really expensive firecracker that turns out to be a dud. The film may be worth a look for Mel Gibson’s flashy, boisterous, and drunkenly absurd performance. The mystery in Last Looks is essentially comparable trying to discover the expiration date on a can of mystery meat that has lost its label; it may be life threatening but is otherwise a bore to experience by others.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Mary Poppins Returns (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Disney knocks it out of the park
It was 1964 when the world was introduced to a practically-perfect British nanny in Walt Disney’s Mary Poppins. Back then, Julie Andrews starred as the eponymous character alongside Dick van Dyke and David Tomlinson. It was an instant hit and became one of Disney’s most-loved feature films.
That is, by everyone apart from the author of Mary Poppins, PL Travers. So incensed by what she felt was Disney’s misunderstanding of her source material, she banned all future work with the studio.
So, 54 years later and with Travers’ estate finally agreeing to a sequel (I wonder how much Disney executives had to pay for that), we get a sequel that no-one was really asking for. Mary Poppins Returns brings the titular character back into the hearts of newcomers and fans alike, but is the film as practically-perfect in every way like its lead? Or is it a bit of a dud?
Now an adult with three children, bank teller Michael Banks (Ben Whishaw) learns that his house will be repossessed in five days unless he can pay back a loan. His only hope is to find a missing certificate that shows proof of valuable shares that his father left him years earlier. Just as all seems lost, Michael and his sister Jane (Emily Mortimer) receive the surprise of a lifetime when Mary Poppins (Emily Blunt), the beloved nanny from their childhood, arrives to save the day and take the Banks family on a magical, fun-filled adventure.
Emily Blunt as Mary Poppins? You’re right to be sceptical. After all, how can an American actress bring to life a character so quintessentially British? Remarkably, she does it, with a cracking British accent to match. Blunt is, as she is in all her films, picture-perfect and oozing charisma. In fact, the entire cast is fabulous with the likes of Colin Firth and Meryl Streep joining the party as a sneaky bank manager and Mary Poppins’ cousin respectively. We’ve also got Julie Walters popping up every now and then as Ellen the housekeeper.
The new Banks children are absolutely wonderful. Pixie Davies, Nathanael Saleh and Joel Dawson show a range of emotions that would make seasoned actors blush, but here they thrive and look like they were having a blast. And that’s a trait clearly shared by the entire cast. Lin-Manuel Miranda’s plucky lamp-lighter, Jack, is obviously having the time of his life and this makes the whimsical nature of Mary Poppins Returns even more apparent.
In its hey-day, Mary Poppins was a technical revolution. Mixing live-action with colourful animation made the screen burst alive with imagination. Of course, special effects have moved on in the 50+ years that Mary has been away from our screens, but you’ll be pleased to know that each sequence feels just as magical.
From under the sea adventures to topsy-turvy houses, the ‘action’ scenes are beautifully filmed by director Rob Marshall. One scene in particular, involving hundreds of lamp-lighters is absolutely astounding and exquisitely choreographed.
The finale is typical sickly-sweet Disney, but in a movie populated by cartoon penguins, Irish dogs and the meaning of childhood, why shouldn’t it be?
The setting of Depression-era London lives and breathes before your very eyes. The CGI and practical effects used to create the capital in 1935 is astonishing, and testament to the teams behind the film. That £130million budget was clearly very well spent.
Then there are the songs. We all know the masterpieces from the original, but will there be any here that children will still be singing along to when they grow older? That’s debatable, but there are three or four that have the potential to be future classics. Look out for Trip the Light Fantastic, which makes up part of the film’s best scenes.
The finale is typical sickly-sweet Disney, but in a movie populated by cartoon penguins, Irish dogs and the meaning of childhood, why shouldn’t it be? The world is filled with such atrocities, it’s nice to sit back, relax with the family and enjoy a film that allows you to escape into your own imagination.
Any downsides? Well, while the pacing is nearly spot on, there’s no denying that Mary Poppins Returns is a long film by family film standards. At 130 minutes, it feels like this sequel is perhaps more for fans of the original than the children that the older film was clearly made for.
But these are small gripes in a sequel that pleasantly surprises on each and every turn. While lacking in the typical Disney poignancy, the film’s message is read loud and clear. There’s no doubt that Mary Poppins Returns is yet another hit for the studio and you’re sure to leave the cinema with a huge smile on your face. Mary is back and she means business.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/12/23/mary-poppins-returns-review-disney-knocks-it-out-of-the-park/
That is, by everyone apart from the author of Mary Poppins, PL Travers. So incensed by what she felt was Disney’s misunderstanding of her source material, she banned all future work with the studio.
So, 54 years later and with Travers’ estate finally agreeing to a sequel (I wonder how much Disney executives had to pay for that), we get a sequel that no-one was really asking for. Mary Poppins Returns brings the titular character back into the hearts of newcomers and fans alike, but is the film as practically-perfect in every way like its lead? Or is it a bit of a dud?
Now an adult with three children, bank teller Michael Banks (Ben Whishaw) learns that his house will be repossessed in five days unless he can pay back a loan. His only hope is to find a missing certificate that shows proof of valuable shares that his father left him years earlier. Just as all seems lost, Michael and his sister Jane (Emily Mortimer) receive the surprise of a lifetime when Mary Poppins (Emily Blunt), the beloved nanny from their childhood, arrives to save the day and take the Banks family on a magical, fun-filled adventure.
Emily Blunt as Mary Poppins? You’re right to be sceptical. After all, how can an American actress bring to life a character so quintessentially British? Remarkably, she does it, with a cracking British accent to match. Blunt is, as she is in all her films, picture-perfect and oozing charisma. In fact, the entire cast is fabulous with the likes of Colin Firth and Meryl Streep joining the party as a sneaky bank manager and Mary Poppins’ cousin respectively. We’ve also got Julie Walters popping up every now and then as Ellen the housekeeper.
The new Banks children are absolutely wonderful. Pixie Davies, Nathanael Saleh and Joel Dawson show a range of emotions that would make seasoned actors blush, but here they thrive and look like they were having a blast. And that’s a trait clearly shared by the entire cast. Lin-Manuel Miranda’s plucky lamp-lighter, Jack, is obviously having the time of his life and this makes the whimsical nature of Mary Poppins Returns even more apparent.
In its hey-day, Mary Poppins was a technical revolution. Mixing live-action with colourful animation made the screen burst alive with imagination. Of course, special effects have moved on in the 50+ years that Mary has been away from our screens, but you’ll be pleased to know that each sequence feels just as magical.
From under the sea adventures to topsy-turvy houses, the ‘action’ scenes are beautifully filmed by director Rob Marshall. One scene in particular, involving hundreds of lamp-lighters is absolutely astounding and exquisitely choreographed.
The finale is typical sickly-sweet Disney, but in a movie populated by cartoon penguins, Irish dogs and the meaning of childhood, why shouldn’t it be?
The setting of Depression-era London lives and breathes before your very eyes. The CGI and practical effects used to create the capital in 1935 is astonishing, and testament to the teams behind the film. That £130million budget was clearly very well spent.
Then there are the songs. We all know the masterpieces from the original, but will there be any here that children will still be singing along to when they grow older? That’s debatable, but there are three or four that have the potential to be future classics. Look out for Trip the Light Fantastic, which makes up part of the film’s best scenes.
The finale is typical sickly-sweet Disney, but in a movie populated by cartoon penguins, Irish dogs and the meaning of childhood, why shouldn’t it be? The world is filled with such atrocities, it’s nice to sit back, relax with the family and enjoy a film that allows you to escape into your own imagination.
Any downsides? Well, while the pacing is nearly spot on, there’s no denying that Mary Poppins Returns is a long film by family film standards. At 130 minutes, it feels like this sequel is perhaps more for fans of the original than the children that the older film was clearly made for.
But these are small gripes in a sequel that pleasantly surprises on each and every turn. While lacking in the typical Disney poignancy, the film’s message is read loud and clear. There’s no doubt that Mary Poppins Returns is yet another hit for the studio and you’re sure to leave the cinema with a huge smile on your face. Mary is back and she means business.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/12/23/mary-poppins-returns-review-disney-knocks-it-out-of-the-park/
Cody Cook (8 KP) rated Everlasting Dominion: A Theology of the Old Testament in Books
Jun 29, 2018
In Everlasting Dominion: A Theology of the Old Testament (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2006), Eugene H. Merrill sets out to provide a theology of the Old Testament which represents the O.T. as a consistent whole that has God as its ultimate source. As such, he supports a high view of biblical inspiration as verbal: “The word of God to the prophets was verbal; and what they spoke and wrote, therefore, was also verbal. The means by which the verbalizing was effected is never disclosed, nor is it necessary to know. The point is that the prophetic word, the highest form of divine revelation, was recognized at the time to be the words of God, a view maintained by virtually unanimous consensus in Jewish and Christian tradition until the inroads of modern criticism.”
Insofar as Merrill is a Christian writing about the Old Testament's theology, this creates a dilemma in regard to the role the New Testament is allowed to play in his interpretation. Merrill acknowledges this from the get go:
“Old Testament theology is the study of biblical theology that employs the methods of that discipline to the Old Testament alone while being aware of the limitations inherent in not addressing the New Testament witness in any comprehensive way. This delimitation can be justified on the grounds that the Old Testament speaks its own message, one that is legitimate and authoritative in every sense of the term even if, from the Christian viewpoint, its message is not ultimately complete.”
As such, his work attempts to focus on what the Old Testament says on its own, though he occasionally appeals to New Testament ideas as a means of providing an additional witness to his interpretation.
Merrill tends to provide basic level interpretation in the canonical order of the Old Testament books. As such, little of his exegesis is particularly creative. However, he does have one unique idea which comes up throughout the book and indeed inspired the title-- the idea that man was made by God as an intermediary for God's dominion over the world:
“The crowning work of creation was the appearance of mankind on the sixth day (Gen. 1:26–28). He is said to be in the image and likeness of God, but the grammar permits and theology favors the idea that he was created as his image and likeness, that is, as God's representative on earth... [This passage] is also the clearest expression of the divine purpose in creation. After all things else had been made and put into their several positions of function and interrelationship, the Lord said, 'Let Us make man [as] Our image, according to Our likeness. They will rule' (Gen. 1:26). The significance of this for communicating a (if not the) major theme of Old Testament theology cannot be overstated, and the fact that it is the first divinely articulated expression of the reason for man's existence makes it doubly significant. What is lacking apparently after the whole cosmos has been spoken into existence is its management, a caretaker as it were who will govern it all according to the will of the Creator. He could have done it himself without mediation, but for reasons never revealed in the sacred record, God elected to reign through a subordinate, a surrogate king responsible only to him.”
Merrill explains what had been lost in this divine intention after the Fall: “No longer did man have dominion over all things; instead, he abdicated his role as sovereign and worshipped what he should have ruled.” However, he still highlights partial fulfillments of the divine plan even after the Fall, such as in the Israelite monarchy:
“The creation mandate that mankind should 'be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it' and 'rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, and every creature that crawls on the earth' (Gen. 1:28) finds tangible expression even if only in a highly preliminary and anticipatory manner. David and his dynastic successors never exhibited this kind of universal dominion, of course, but the limited success they did enjoy, especially under Solomon (cf. 1 Kings 4:20–34), was a foretaste of the splendor, glory, and power of his descendants yet to come at the end of human history.”
Of course, this idea of human dominion as a vice-regent of God would only find its final fulfillment in Christ, the second Adam and the second David:
“If paradise was lost at the fall, it will be regained at the re-creation, not least in the restoration of man's glory as the vice-regent of the King of kings.”
The book seems to go out of its way to contrast the wild speculation of liberal theology, resulting in a work which is so straight-forward as to be dull. This is by no means always the case with Merrill's writings, as his Historical Survey of the Old Testament was one of the most interesting books I read as a new Christian. In Everlasting Dominion, however, where skeptical scholarship always assumes that the text is hiding something, Merrill takes it at face value. The result is a theology of the Old Testament which is more grounded, but that also often fails to soar to the heights that the text might allow for. Instead of elucidation and theologizing, Merrill tends to resort to extended (and I do mean extended) summary of the Hebrew canon.
The one major exception to this tendency is in Merrill's discussion of dominion, which we discussed above in detail. However, more work could certainly have been done on this topic, particularly in regard to how Jesus brings the idea to its fulfillment. Since it is Merrill's goal to explain the Old Testament with as little light from the New as possible, it is difficult to fault him for this. But it's also hard to fault the reader for wanting more when he reads tantalizing sections like this:
“What we propose in the following comments is done with a great deal of tentativeness since, as far as we can determine, we are virtually alone in making the case that Jesus, in his earthly ministry, frequently performed miraculous works to demonstrate not just his full deity but also his role as Urmensch, the second Adam who came to display in character and life what God had intended as the ideal for the whole human race. Without pursuing the biblical arguments for a full-blown Christology that is sensitive to both his divine and human natures, let it be said that there is universal consensus that the New Testament presents Jesus not only as God but also as perfect man.”
That being said, it does seem like an exaggeration to claim that Genesis 1:26 is the key text to understanding Old Testament theology. That it is a major theme, particularly in relation to its underemphasis by most biblical commentators, does not by any means strain credulity. It also seems to be in the back of the mind of many New Testament authors who emphasize restoration of the Kingdom of God involving our reigning with Christ and inheriting the eternal life and dominion over the world which was originally connected with our Edenic charge.
In the final analysis, Everlasting Dominion provides a good straight-forward overview of the Old Testament, but simply doesn't provide enough insight to warrant its nearly 700 pages.
Insofar as Merrill is a Christian writing about the Old Testament's theology, this creates a dilemma in regard to the role the New Testament is allowed to play in his interpretation. Merrill acknowledges this from the get go:
“Old Testament theology is the study of biblical theology that employs the methods of that discipline to the Old Testament alone while being aware of the limitations inherent in not addressing the New Testament witness in any comprehensive way. This delimitation can be justified on the grounds that the Old Testament speaks its own message, one that is legitimate and authoritative in every sense of the term even if, from the Christian viewpoint, its message is not ultimately complete.”
As such, his work attempts to focus on what the Old Testament says on its own, though he occasionally appeals to New Testament ideas as a means of providing an additional witness to his interpretation.
Merrill tends to provide basic level interpretation in the canonical order of the Old Testament books. As such, little of his exegesis is particularly creative. However, he does have one unique idea which comes up throughout the book and indeed inspired the title-- the idea that man was made by God as an intermediary for God's dominion over the world:
“The crowning work of creation was the appearance of mankind on the sixth day (Gen. 1:26–28). He is said to be in the image and likeness of God, but the grammar permits and theology favors the idea that he was created as his image and likeness, that is, as God's representative on earth... [This passage] is also the clearest expression of the divine purpose in creation. After all things else had been made and put into their several positions of function and interrelationship, the Lord said, 'Let Us make man [as] Our image, according to Our likeness. They will rule' (Gen. 1:26). The significance of this for communicating a (if not the) major theme of Old Testament theology cannot be overstated, and the fact that it is the first divinely articulated expression of the reason for man's existence makes it doubly significant. What is lacking apparently after the whole cosmos has been spoken into existence is its management, a caretaker as it were who will govern it all according to the will of the Creator. He could have done it himself without mediation, but for reasons never revealed in the sacred record, God elected to reign through a subordinate, a surrogate king responsible only to him.”
Merrill explains what had been lost in this divine intention after the Fall: “No longer did man have dominion over all things; instead, he abdicated his role as sovereign and worshipped what he should have ruled.” However, he still highlights partial fulfillments of the divine plan even after the Fall, such as in the Israelite monarchy:
“The creation mandate that mankind should 'be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it' and 'rule the fish of the sea, the birds of the sky, and every creature that crawls on the earth' (Gen. 1:28) finds tangible expression even if only in a highly preliminary and anticipatory manner. David and his dynastic successors never exhibited this kind of universal dominion, of course, but the limited success they did enjoy, especially under Solomon (cf. 1 Kings 4:20–34), was a foretaste of the splendor, glory, and power of his descendants yet to come at the end of human history.”
Of course, this idea of human dominion as a vice-regent of God would only find its final fulfillment in Christ, the second Adam and the second David:
“If paradise was lost at the fall, it will be regained at the re-creation, not least in the restoration of man's glory as the vice-regent of the King of kings.”
The book seems to go out of its way to contrast the wild speculation of liberal theology, resulting in a work which is so straight-forward as to be dull. This is by no means always the case with Merrill's writings, as his Historical Survey of the Old Testament was one of the most interesting books I read as a new Christian. In Everlasting Dominion, however, where skeptical scholarship always assumes that the text is hiding something, Merrill takes it at face value. The result is a theology of the Old Testament which is more grounded, but that also often fails to soar to the heights that the text might allow for. Instead of elucidation and theologizing, Merrill tends to resort to extended (and I do mean extended) summary of the Hebrew canon.
The one major exception to this tendency is in Merrill's discussion of dominion, which we discussed above in detail. However, more work could certainly have been done on this topic, particularly in regard to how Jesus brings the idea to its fulfillment. Since it is Merrill's goal to explain the Old Testament with as little light from the New as possible, it is difficult to fault him for this. But it's also hard to fault the reader for wanting more when he reads tantalizing sections like this:
“What we propose in the following comments is done with a great deal of tentativeness since, as far as we can determine, we are virtually alone in making the case that Jesus, in his earthly ministry, frequently performed miraculous works to demonstrate not just his full deity but also his role as Urmensch, the second Adam who came to display in character and life what God had intended as the ideal for the whole human race. Without pursuing the biblical arguments for a full-blown Christology that is sensitive to both his divine and human natures, let it be said that there is universal consensus that the New Testament presents Jesus not only as God but also as perfect man.”
That being said, it does seem like an exaggeration to claim that Genesis 1:26 is the key text to understanding Old Testament theology. That it is a major theme, particularly in relation to its underemphasis by most biblical commentators, does not by any means strain credulity. It also seems to be in the back of the mind of many New Testament authors who emphasize restoration of the Kingdom of God involving our reigning with Christ and inheriting the eternal life and dominion over the world which was originally connected with our Edenic charge.
In the final analysis, Everlasting Dominion provides a good straight-forward overview of the Old Testament, but simply doesn't provide enough insight to warrant its nearly 700 pages.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated A League of Their Own (1992) in Movies
May 26, 2020
My Favorite Baseball Movie of All Time
I am a big fan of movies. I am a big fan of baseball. So, inevitably, I get asked what my favorite baseball movie is - and my answer surprises many. Beyond a doubt, my favorite baseball movie is the 1992 comedy A LEAGUE OF THEIR OWN, directed by Penny Marshall and starring Geena Davis and Tom Hanks.
I just rewatched this film (for the umpteenth time) and it still works very, very well.
Set during WWII, A LEAGUE OF THEIR OWN tells the story of the All American Girls Professional Baseball League - set up by owners of Major League baseball as many, many of the male professional baseball players were overseas fighting in the war.
Set up as a sibling rivalry story between star player Dottie Henson (Geena Davis) and her kid sister Kit (Lori Petty) who is always in Dottie's shadow, ALOTO shows the start-up of the league, the initial reluctance of the general public to embrace it and the eventual winning over of those that mocked it by actually playing good, hard-nosed ball.
This indifference (turned to acceptance) of this league is shown through the eyes of alcoholic, former Major League star Jimmy Dugan (a pre-Oscars Tom Hanks). After a strong 1980's in film, the first part of the 1990's was not kind to Hanks (JOE vs. THE VOLCANO tanked and the less that can be said about BONFIRE OF THE VANITIES the better). This film was considered a bit of a "comeback" film for him and he came back very, very well. His Jimmy Dugan is irascible, vulgar and angry but has a good heart that shines through. It was this role that would catapult Hanks into SuperStardom later in this decade (with films like PHILADELPHIA, FOREST GUMP, SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, SLEEPLESS IN SEATTLE, APOLLO 13 and THE GREEN MILE). So, remember, without Jimmy Duggan, their probably would not be a Woody from TOY STORY (at least not a Woody voiced by Hanks).
Geena Davis is strong in the lead role of Dottie. Davis is a natural athlete and a very intelligent individual (she was a semi-finalist for the U.S. Olympic Archery team and is a member of MENSA) and both attributes shine through in her portrayal of Dottie. She is strong, graceful and sure-headed in her approach to her goal - to be the best at what she is currently doing. The pairing of Davis and Hanks is interesting for you see great chemistry between these two characters - 2 characters that are compatriots and, perhaps, friends, but...which is unusual in a film such as this...NOT love interests for each other.
Faring less well in this film is Lori Petty as kid sister Kit who just wants a chance to get out from under her sister's shadow. I don't blame Petty's performance - she does the best she can with the material she is given, but her character is "whiny, pouty and shouty" throughout the film and was just not someone I cared about.
That cannot be said for the strong list of actresses that were cast as members of the Rockford Peaches - the team that Dottie and Kit play for (and that Jimmy Dugan manages). Director Penny Marshall insisted that all of the women cast actually be able to play baseball, so cut many, many good actresses that just couldn't be believed as baseball players. Madonna (of all people) shows a passable ability to play ball - as well as a winning personality as "All the Way" Mae, the team's centerfielder. In her first film role, Rosie O'Donnell almost steals the film as loud Long Island 3b Doris Murphy. Megan Cavanagh (2b Marla Hooch), Tracy Reiner (LF/P Betty "Spaghetti" Horn), Bitty Schram (RF Evelyn Gardner who was the cryer in the "there's no crying in baseball" scene), Ann Cusack (illiterate OF Shirley Baker), Anne Ramsey (1B Helen Haley) and Freddie Simpson (SS/P Ellen Sue Gotlander) all make a believably passable group of ballplayers that you want to spend time with.
Special notice needs to be made to the always dependable David Strathairn (as Ira Lowenstein - the guiding light to this league) and Jon Lovitz (who is the star of the first 1/4 of this film as Scout Ernie Capadino). They both bring needed life to moments of the film when it need it the most.
All of these elements are brought together wonderfully by the smart, thoughtful and emotionally rich direction of Penny Marshall. She was on a bit of a roll in this part of her career, having helmed BIG (1988) and AWAKENINGS (1990 - with Robin Williams and Robert DeNiro) previously. She went "3 for 3" as a Director with this one. She keeps the film moving along smartly, pausing just long enough at times to bring in some emotion and then follows it right up with some gut-busting laughs.
While I am not thrilled by the events of the final game (I think it is a little contrived and one of the principal characters gets a reward they don't deserve) but that is a "nit" on this film, for it is the journey - with characters that are fun to spend some time with - that makes this film works.
Oh...and Marshall also puts in some of the real players from the league in a finale that serves as a well-deserved salute to these womeon
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
I just rewatched this film (for the umpteenth time) and it still works very, very well.
Set during WWII, A LEAGUE OF THEIR OWN tells the story of the All American Girls Professional Baseball League - set up by owners of Major League baseball as many, many of the male professional baseball players were overseas fighting in the war.
Set up as a sibling rivalry story between star player Dottie Henson (Geena Davis) and her kid sister Kit (Lori Petty) who is always in Dottie's shadow, ALOTO shows the start-up of the league, the initial reluctance of the general public to embrace it and the eventual winning over of those that mocked it by actually playing good, hard-nosed ball.
This indifference (turned to acceptance) of this league is shown through the eyes of alcoholic, former Major League star Jimmy Dugan (a pre-Oscars Tom Hanks). After a strong 1980's in film, the first part of the 1990's was not kind to Hanks (JOE vs. THE VOLCANO tanked and the less that can be said about BONFIRE OF THE VANITIES the better). This film was considered a bit of a "comeback" film for him and he came back very, very well. His Jimmy Dugan is irascible, vulgar and angry but has a good heart that shines through. It was this role that would catapult Hanks into SuperStardom later in this decade (with films like PHILADELPHIA, FOREST GUMP, SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, SLEEPLESS IN SEATTLE, APOLLO 13 and THE GREEN MILE). So, remember, without Jimmy Duggan, their probably would not be a Woody from TOY STORY (at least not a Woody voiced by Hanks).
Geena Davis is strong in the lead role of Dottie. Davis is a natural athlete and a very intelligent individual (she was a semi-finalist for the U.S. Olympic Archery team and is a member of MENSA) and both attributes shine through in her portrayal of Dottie. She is strong, graceful and sure-headed in her approach to her goal - to be the best at what she is currently doing. The pairing of Davis and Hanks is interesting for you see great chemistry between these two characters - 2 characters that are compatriots and, perhaps, friends, but...which is unusual in a film such as this...NOT love interests for each other.
Faring less well in this film is Lori Petty as kid sister Kit who just wants a chance to get out from under her sister's shadow. I don't blame Petty's performance - she does the best she can with the material she is given, but her character is "whiny, pouty and shouty" throughout the film and was just not someone I cared about.
That cannot be said for the strong list of actresses that were cast as members of the Rockford Peaches - the team that Dottie and Kit play for (and that Jimmy Dugan manages). Director Penny Marshall insisted that all of the women cast actually be able to play baseball, so cut many, many good actresses that just couldn't be believed as baseball players. Madonna (of all people) shows a passable ability to play ball - as well as a winning personality as "All the Way" Mae, the team's centerfielder. In her first film role, Rosie O'Donnell almost steals the film as loud Long Island 3b Doris Murphy. Megan Cavanagh (2b Marla Hooch), Tracy Reiner (LF/P Betty "Spaghetti" Horn), Bitty Schram (RF Evelyn Gardner who was the cryer in the "there's no crying in baseball" scene), Ann Cusack (illiterate OF Shirley Baker), Anne Ramsey (1B Helen Haley) and Freddie Simpson (SS/P Ellen Sue Gotlander) all make a believably passable group of ballplayers that you want to spend time with.
Special notice needs to be made to the always dependable David Strathairn (as Ira Lowenstein - the guiding light to this league) and Jon Lovitz (who is the star of the first 1/4 of this film as Scout Ernie Capadino). They both bring needed life to moments of the film when it need it the most.
All of these elements are brought together wonderfully by the smart, thoughtful and emotionally rich direction of Penny Marshall. She was on a bit of a roll in this part of her career, having helmed BIG (1988) and AWAKENINGS (1990 - with Robin Williams and Robert DeNiro) previously. She went "3 for 3" as a Director with this one. She keeps the film moving along smartly, pausing just long enough at times to bring in some emotion and then follows it right up with some gut-busting laughs.
While I am not thrilled by the events of the final game (I think it is a little contrived and one of the principal characters gets a reward they don't deserve) but that is a "nit" on this film, for it is the journey - with characters that are fun to spend some time with - that makes this film works.
Oh...and Marshall also puts in some of the real players from the league in a finale that serves as a well-deserved salute to these womeon
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) rated The Company of Wolves (1984) in Movies
Apr 19, 2017
Very Different from most films (3 more)
Transformation Sequences
Great Cast
Brilliant lore
May seem confusing (1 more)
Rosaleen younger than originally planned
Of Wolves and Men
Where do I begin when reviewing a film as obscure and brilliant as, The Company of Wolves. Well for starters I should probably introduce it as it's not a film a lot of people are aware of.
The Company of Wolves is a British Gothic Horror movie adapted from an Anthology of short stories called The Curious Room, written by Angela Carter, and the short story that the film was adapted from was in fact of the same name, The Company of Wolves.
Angela Carter worked with Neil Jordan to write the screenplay and whilst it has some differences (I've not yet read the original story so I couldn't tell you the differences....just google it) the movie is still pretty close to the source material from what I have heard.
One thing I can tell you about this film is that it is brilliant and unlike anything you will ever watch (at least its unlike anything I have seen as of writing this). When I first watched this film, my initial thought was "What on earth did I just watch?" and after viewing it several more times I understood more and more and each viewing was like a new experience.
It's cast add to the creepy dark tone of the film whilst still feeling like a light fantasy film, but with gore and death. The soundtrack is certainly the creepiest element of the film, and it creates an eerily uncomfortable atmosphere. To add to this atmosphere we have a cast that includes the likes of famous names such as Angela Lansbury (Bedknobs and Broomsticks, Beauty and the Beast, Murder She Wrote etc.), Stephen Rea (V for Vendetta, The Crying Game, Underworld: Awakening etc.), David Warner (Titanic, Tron, The Omen etc.) and Brian Glover (An American Werewolf in London, Alien 3, KES etc.) just to name a few, but we also have brilliant talent from lesser known actors\actresses such as Micha Bergese (Interview With A Vampire) and the lead role of young Rosaleen, portrayed by Sarah Patterson who only ever starred in 3 more films after The Company of Wolves.
So why do I love this movie? I have a love for werewolf lore and the subtle messages about reality the legends may be formed from and this film explores some of that. With Angela Lansbury as Granny telling young Rosaleen stories about how she shouldn't trust men who's eyebrows meet, and how she shouldn't stray from the path when walking through the forest. Tradition superstition that were actual beliefs many years ago. The Company of Wolves is a combination of stories, but with an overall plot similar in many ways to that of Little Red Riding Hood, including Granny knitting Rosaleen a red shoal, and being challenged by a huntsman to a race to Granny's house, which concludes with SPOILERS!!!!
Granny is murdered, and the huntsman is discovered by Rosaleen who them puts the pieces of the puzzle together and comes to the truthful conclusion that the huntsman is in fact a werewolf.
However, my only issue with the film is not being able to explore the story properly, as the casting of Rosaleen was actually too young for the original script. The film is a somewhat coming of age movie for Rosaleen and a young boy who is infatuated with her (known only in the credits as Amerous Boy, portrayed by Shane Johnstone. Never heard of him? That's because this was his only movie). The original script was essentially going to explore more of the sexuality between a young girl and the handsome stranger known as The Huntsman. However, during casting, Sarah Patterson shined above the other young performers and was chosen for the role, but due to her being so young (only 12/13 years old) they had to change the script and so their interaction was reduced to nothing more than a bet which would lead to a kiss, but the kiss is then a simple peck on the lips as the Rosaleen jumps back with the line "My what big teeth you have!".
Here's a tip when you watch this movie. Look around Rosaleens room at the beginning and pay attention to her dolls etc. Some of the props will help the film make more sense because one thing I should have mentioned at the start is that this story takes place in a young girls dream (Also portrayed by Sarah Patterson) and the finale is spectacular.
The wolves for the majority of their appearances are easily noticeable as being nothing more than domestic German Shepherds, but that makes sense when you think about this being a girl's dream, and this girl in fact owns a pet German Shepherd.
The best part and the most horrific part of this movie, is the transformations of two of the characters. Stephen Rea's character is a young groom in one of Granny's stories that she tells to Rosaleen, and his transformation into wolf form is one of the most graphic transformations I have ever seen in a film, and despite the use of an animatronic dog, which in part takes away some of the magic, you have to remember this was 1984 and these kinds of films were not going to have the amazing technology we have today and you have to give so much credit and respect to Neil Jordan for using practical effects.
The Huntsmans transformation is less gory but definitely not any less creepier, as we see an extended tongue, and a lot of physical body transformation before a wolf snout comes bursting out of his mouth and fur rips through his skin. Both of these portrayals of the transformation were a representation of the running theme that men have beasts inside of them, that only appear when they are angry or upset.
I highly recommend this film, but I have warned you beforehand. If you do watch this film, feel free to discuss it with me because as I said it is one of my favourites and is lesser known to many audiences.
The Company of Wolves is a British Gothic Horror movie adapted from an Anthology of short stories called The Curious Room, written by Angela Carter, and the short story that the film was adapted from was in fact of the same name, The Company of Wolves.
Angela Carter worked with Neil Jordan to write the screenplay and whilst it has some differences (I've not yet read the original story so I couldn't tell you the differences....just google it) the movie is still pretty close to the source material from what I have heard.
One thing I can tell you about this film is that it is brilliant and unlike anything you will ever watch (at least its unlike anything I have seen as of writing this). When I first watched this film, my initial thought was "What on earth did I just watch?" and after viewing it several more times I understood more and more and each viewing was like a new experience.
It's cast add to the creepy dark tone of the film whilst still feeling like a light fantasy film, but with gore and death. The soundtrack is certainly the creepiest element of the film, and it creates an eerily uncomfortable atmosphere. To add to this atmosphere we have a cast that includes the likes of famous names such as Angela Lansbury (Bedknobs and Broomsticks, Beauty and the Beast, Murder She Wrote etc.), Stephen Rea (V for Vendetta, The Crying Game, Underworld: Awakening etc.), David Warner (Titanic, Tron, The Omen etc.) and Brian Glover (An American Werewolf in London, Alien 3, KES etc.) just to name a few, but we also have brilliant talent from lesser known actors\actresses such as Micha Bergese (Interview With A Vampire) and the lead role of young Rosaleen, portrayed by Sarah Patterson who only ever starred in 3 more films after The Company of Wolves.
So why do I love this movie? I have a love for werewolf lore and the subtle messages about reality the legends may be formed from and this film explores some of that. With Angela Lansbury as Granny telling young Rosaleen stories about how she shouldn't trust men who's eyebrows meet, and how she shouldn't stray from the path when walking through the forest. Tradition superstition that were actual beliefs many years ago. The Company of Wolves is a combination of stories, but with an overall plot similar in many ways to that of Little Red Riding Hood, including Granny knitting Rosaleen a red shoal, and being challenged by a huntsman to a race to Granny's house, which concludes with SPOILERS!!!!
Granny is murdered, and the huntsman is discovered by Rosaleen who them puts the pieces of the puzzle together and comes to the truthful conclusion that the huntsman is in fact a werewolf.
However, my only issue with the film is not being able to explore the story properly, as the casting of Rosaleen was actually too young for the original script. The film is a somewhat coming of age movie for Rosaleen and a young boy who is infatuated with her (known only in the credits as Amerous Boy, portrayed by Shane Johnstone. Never heard of him? That's because this was his only movie). The original script was essentially going to explore more of the sexuality between a young girl and the handsome stranger known as The Huntsman. However, during casting, Sarah Patterson shined above the other young performers and was chosen for the role, but due to her being so young (only 12/13 years old) they had to change the script and so their interaction was reduced to nothing more than a bet which would lead to a kiss, but the kiss is then a simple peck on the lips as the Rosaleen jumps back with the line "My what big teeth you have!".
Here's a tip when you watch this movie. Look around Rosaleens room at the beginning and pay attention to her dolls etc. Some of the props will help the film make more sense because one thing I should have mentioned at the start is that this story takes place in a young girls dream (Also portrayed by Sarah Patterson) and the finale is spectacular.
The wolves for the majority of their appearances are easily noticeable as being nothing more than domestic German Shepherds, but that makes sense when you think about this being a girl's dream, and this girl in fact owns a pet German Shepherd.
The best part and the most horrific part of this movie, is the transformations of two of the characters. Stephen Rea's character is a young groom in one of Granny's stories that she tells to Rosaleen, and his transformation into wolf form is one of the most graphic transformations I have ever seen in a film, and despite the use of an animatronic dog, which in part takes away some of the magic, you have to remember this was 1984 and these kinds of films were not going to have the amazing technology we have today and you have to give so much credit and respect to Neil Jordan for using practical effects.
The Huntsmans transformation is less gory but definitely not any less creepier, as we see an extended tongue, and a lot of physical body transformation before a wolf snout comes bursting out of his mouth and fur rips through his skin. Both of these portrayals of the transformation were a representation of the running theme that men have beasts inside of them, that only appear when they are angry or upset.
I highly recommend this film, but I have warned you beforehand. If you do watch this film, feel free to discuss it with me because as I said it is one of my favourites and is lesser known to many audiences.