Search
Search results
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Moonlighting in TV
Aug 6, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
Another dip into the retro TV archive as part of that odd period in lockdown when all I could do for my watching fix was find old shows with full episodes on You Tube. My favourite show when I was a teenager happened to be one of those, with most of seasons 1 and 5 out there, and a small selection from the middle years.
If you were to make a time capsule to show aliens what the mid to late 80s looked like, look no further than this madcap rom-com drama that ran for 66 episodes between 1985 and 1989. The shoulder pads, the hairdos, the slip on shoes, the large chunks of cheesiness, it’s all there. Some of the coloured silks Maddie Hayes (Cybill Shepherd) wears have to be seen to be believed.
It was the first show to get free reign creatively from a network, with ABC trusting Glenn Gordon Carol, fresh from success with Remington Steele, to create something cool and hip. At the peak of its success it was costing $1.6m per episode, with Bruce Willis’ pay check becoming a big chunk of that, as his ego inflated and his star rose.
They auditioned close to 600 actors for the role of glib, fast talking sleuth David Addison, before taking a risk on an out of work nobody the producers had heard singing karaoke in an LA bar. The phenomenal buzz around Bruce Willis in 1985 is hard to imagine now, but he was literally the biggest star on TV, and once Die Hard came along in 1988, he gave the movie star thing a good go too.
Famous for its post-modern take on episode content, with overlapping dialogue, direct address to camera, in jokes and endless references to current events and the show itself, it was a knowingly self-conscious misfit. Nothing had ever been like this. Nothing, even close. It was funny, cool, had mass appeal and could seemingly do no wrong, breaking ratings records all over the place.
But all was not paradise on set. Shepherd and Willis were never pals, and at the worst actively despised one another, often refusing to film scenes if they thought the other one was too much the focus – which in Shepherd’s case was often a weird anachronistic soft focus, that attempted to make her look like a vintage movie star. They argued, fell out, made up and threw tantrums just like the characters they played. And scripts for the unusual hour long format were often so late, they filmed filler scenes whilst they were being finished on set!
This allowed for an unparalleled voice in American TV land. They got away with some very terse comments and innuendo bordering on smut, that slipped under the network radar, simply because the show was being edited minutes before it was shown. By season four it was really falling apart, as episodes got more surreal and used the breaking of the fourth wall more often, in a desperate attempt just to keep going.
Ostensibly, it was a detective show. But it was never about the cases. The sleuthing was only a background to the will they won’t they romance of Maddie and David, facilitated by the ever present Allyce Beasley as Agnes DiPesto, the rhyming receptionist, that was the only other cast member to appear in all 66 shows apart from the two stars. Early on the mystery plots and crimes to be solved were taken semi seriously; with a peak in season three where it actually approached proper drama. But by the end it was all about Willis goofing around, at the expense of any recognisable story.
Let’s face it, looking back on it now it has aged a whole bunch in a lot of bad ways. You aren’t really going to indulge in it for anything other than nostalgia reasons. But I was a huge, huge fan, and so for me it was a real trip to see it again. I never missed it as a kid, and would sulk if anything threatened to stop me watching it as it aired. I had every episode taped on VHS and could quote entire episodes, I had watched them so much.
It all ended too soon for me, but not soon enough for them. Shepherd got pregnant, Willis took the break to go and make some mid budget action film, and the rest is history. To this day, footage of them reminiscing about it is a fascinating but awkward watch, as they clearing still can’t agree on anything and thinly veil their contempt for each other. Willis’ ego does not come out of it well, but David Addison will always remain the one character that formed my personality via TV in those days, for better or worse.
If you were to make a time capsule to show aliens what the mid to late 80s looked like, look no further than this madcap rom-com drama that ran for 66 episodes between 1985 and 1989. The shoulder pads, the hairdos, the slip on shoes, the large chunks of cheesiness, it’s all there. Some of the coloured silks Maddie Hayes (Cybill Shepherd) wears have to be seen to be believed.
It was the first show to get free reign creatively from a network, with ABC trusting Glenn Gordon Carol, fresh from success with Remington Steele, to create something cool and hip. At the peak of its success it was costing $1.6m per episode, with Bruce Willis’ pay check becoming a big chunk of that, as his ego inflated and his star rose.
They auditioned close to 600 actors for the role of glib, fast talking sleuth David Addison, before taking a risk on an out of work nobody the producers had heard singing karaoke in an LA bar. The phenomenal buzz around Bruce Willis in 1985 is hard to imagine now, but he was literally the biggest star on TV, and once Die Hard came along in 1988, he gave the movie star thing a good go too.
Famous for its post-modern take on episode content, with overlapping dialogue, direct address to camera, in jokes and endless references to current events and the show itself, it was a knowingly self-conscious misfit. Nothing had ever been like this. Nothing, even close. It was funny, cool, had mass appeal and could seemingly do no wrong, breaking ratings records all over the place.
But all was not paradise on set. Shepherd and Willis were never pals, and at the worst actively despised one another, often refusing to film scenes if they thought the other one was too much the focus – which in Shepherd’s case was often a weird anachronistic soft focus, that attempted to make her look like a vintage movie star. They argued, fell out, made up and threw tantrums just like the characters they played. And scripts for the unusual hour long format were often so late, they filmed filler scenes whilst they were being finished on set!
This allowed for an unparalleled voice in American TV land. They got away with some very terse comments and innuendo bordering on smut, that slipped under the network radar, simply because the show was being edited minutes before it was shown. By season four it was really falling apart, as episodes got more surreal and used the breaking of the fourth wall more often, in a desperate attempt just to keep going.
Ostensibly, it was a detective show. But it was never about the cases. The sleuthing was only a background to the will they won’t they romance of Maddie and David, facilitated by the ever present Allyce Beasley as Agnes DiPesto, the rhyming receptionist, that was the only other cast member to appear in all 66 shows apart from the two stars. Early on the mystery plots and crimes to be solved were taken semi seriously; with a peak in season three where it actually approached proper drama. But by the end it was all about Willis goofing around, at the expense of any recognisable story.
Let’s face it, looking back on it now it has aged a whole bunch in a lot of bad ways. You aren’t really going to indulge in it for anything other than nostalgia reasons. But I was a huge, huge fan, and so for me it was a real trip to see it again. I never missed it as a kid, and would sulk if anything threatened to stop me watching it as it aired. I had every episode taped on VHS and could quote entire episodes, I had watched them so much.
It all ended too soon for me, but not soon enough for them. Shepherd got pregnant, Willis took the break to go and make some mid budget action film, and the rest is history. To this day, footage of them reminiscing about it is a fascinating but awkward watch, as they clearing still can’t agree on anything and thinly veil their contempt for each other. Willis’ ego does not come out of it well, but David Addison will always remain the one character that formed my personality via TV in those days, for better or worse.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 1 (2010) in Movies
Aug 8, 2019
With the slow, familiar strains of “Hedwig’s Theme”, the leitmotif that shepherds us into the world of Harry Potter, we’re once again immersed in the magic and adventure of the wizarding world. If for some reason you forgot where the story left off at the end of The Half-Blood Prince, the mournful dirge that plays as Harry Potter, Hermione Granger and Ron Weasley prepare to meet reminds you that their world has changed drastically.
Like returning to your childhood home, it all looks familiar, but everything feels different. Gone are the school preparations, the train ride to Hogwarts, uniformed students jostling about, the easygoing camaraderie between our favorite trio, all the whimsical elements we’ve come to expect in a Harry Potter movie. Instead we have unease, sorrow and anger taking turns in the form of Hermione, Harry and Ron.
The Deathly Hallows Part I is the first of a two-part adaptation of the final book of J.K. Rowling’s popular series. Just like the anticipation of getting the seventh and final book, my excitement at screening this movie was tempered with the dread of seeing the series end. I actually did not have high expectations for this installment as the first part of the book was slow-paced and, not unlike another movie about wizards and elves, had a lot of walking and searching. But instead of one elusive ring, Harry, Hermione and Ron are searching for three Horcruxes, objects in which Harry’s nemesis, Lord Voldemort has implanted a part of his soul in his quest to achieve immortality. While they seek clues to the remaining Horcruxes, they learn that Voldemort seeks one of three Deathly Hallows, three sacred objects, the stories of which are revealed in a beautifully mesmerizing shadow-puppet sequence.
Director David Yates balances dark action with solid storytelling and arresting cinematography. Daniel Radcliffe is in turn sympathetic and charming as the heavily burdened hero. Rupert Grint’s Ron Weasley brings most of the movie’s humor again, but he’s most impressive when he becomes believably tortured and resentful when the dark magic of Voldemort’s Horcrux takes over. Emma Watson gracefully infuses the normally astute and self-assured Hermione with weary resolve and poignant anguish. The most charged moments are of course when the trio share the screen with the dark wizards, the most notable played with relish by Ralph Fiennes as Voldemort and Helena Bonham Carter as his most ardent minion, Bellatrix.
Having waited what felt like an eternity for this installment, it seems almost cruel to be made to wait until next summer for the conclusion. But that’s the only real complaint I can make about this movie. Widely and wildly anticipated, Deathly Hallows Part I will not disappoint.
Like returning to your childhood home, it all looks familiar, but everything feels different. Gone are the school preparations, the train ride to Hogwarts, uniformed students jostling about, the easygoing camaraderie between our favorite trio, all the whimsical elements we’ve come to expect in a Harry Potter movie. Instead we have unease, sorrow and anger taking turns in the form of Hermione, Harry and Ron.
The Deathly Hallows Part I is the first of a two-part adaptation of the final book of J.K. Rowling’s popular series. Just like the anticipation of getting the seventh and final book, my excitement at screening this movie was tempered with the dread of seeing the series end. I actually did not have high expectations for this installment as the first part of the book was slow-paced and, not unlike another movie about wizards and elves, had a lot of walking and searching. But instead of one elusive ring, Harry, Hermione and Ron are searching for three Horcruxes, objects in which Harry’s nemesis, Lord Voldemort has implanted a part of his soul in his quest to achieve immortality. While they seek clues to the remaining Horcruxes, they learn that Voldemort seeks one of three Deathly Hallows, three sacred objects, the stories of which are revealed in a beautifully mesmerizing shadow-puppet sequence.
Director David Yates balances dark action with solid storytelling and arresting cinematography. Daniel Radcliffe is in turn sympathetic and charming as the heavily burdened hero. Rupert Grint’s Ron Weasley brings most of the movie’s humor again, but he’s most impressive when he becomes believably tortured and resentful when the dark magic of Voldemort’s Horcrux takes over. Emma Watson gracefully infuses the normally astute and self-assured Hermione with weary resolve and poignant anguish. The most charged moments are of course when the trio share the screen with the dark wizards, the most notable played with relish by Ralph Fiennes as Voldemort and Helena Bonham Carter as his most ardent minion, Bellatrix.
Having waited what felt like an eternity for this installment, it seems almost cruel to be made to wait until next summer for the conclusion. But that’s the only real complaint I can make about this movie. Widely and wildly anticipated, Deathly Hallows Part I will not disappoint.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Many Saints of Newark (2021) in Movies
Oct 5, 2021
Production design (1 more)
Great cast
Sopranos prequel that failed to hit the high note with this Sopranos virgin.
With Bond showing on virtually every screen of my local Cineworld, there were few other choices for movies to go see this week. So even though I've never seen "The Sopranos" TV series, I decided to give this movie prequel a shot.
Positives:
- Like any good mafia story, there's a nicely developed sense of place for the action. The film is set in the late 60's / early 70's, and the score and the production design nicely portray the period. The rise of black factions to challenge the white status quo, even in the crime world, make this a nice companion piece to "Judas and the Black Messiah" .
- Although he's been in films like "American Hustle" and "Selma", I wouldn't have been able to pick Alessandro Nivola out of a line-up. But he did a great job portraying the different sides of Dickie: both caring uncle and psychopathic gangster. And Odom Jnr is again impressive: I've not yet seen him deliver any role that's been sub-par.
- It's also impressive that they had Michael Gandolfini to play the younger self of his late father's role. Although I kept being distracted by how much he looks and acts like a young John Cusack!
Negatives:
- The story is told over many years and the script came across as quite uneven. There are regular cut-aways to Dickie visiting his uncle "Hollywood Dick" (Ray Liotta) in prison, which a lot of the time, to me, felt disconnected from the main plot.
- Whilst most of the ensemble cast do a good job, some of the portrayals felt like forced caricatures of "Goodfellas" characters.
- As a "Sopranos" virgin, I could tell that there were lots of Easter Eggs and in-jokes in the movie (e.g. The baby Christopher crying whenever Anthony talked to him). WIth "Sopranos" regulars Alan Taylor and David Chase in charge, that's not surprising. But I'm afraid all of these went right over my head.
Summary Thoughts on "The Many Saints of Newark": This wasn't a complete bust for me, which it might have been if it had been a sequel rather than a prequel. Indeed there are the occasional flashes of brilliance with certain scenes. But neither did I find it so engrossing that it's going to trouble my top 20 for the year.
I guess is that if you are a "Sopranos" fan, then you would get a lot more out of this than I did. But it's still an interesting way to spend a couple of hours.
(For the full graphical review, please check out #oemannsmovies on the web, Facebook or Tiktok. Thanks.)
Positives:
- Like any good mafia story, there's a nicely developed sense of place for the action. The film is set in the late 60's / early 70's, and the score and the production design nicely portray the period. The rise of black factions to challenge the white status quo, even in the crime world, make this a nice companion piece to "Judas and the Black Messiah" .
- Although he's been in films like "American Hustle" and "Selma", I wouldn't have been able to pick Alessandro Nivola out of a line-up. But he did a great job portraying the different sides of Dickie: both caring uncle and psychopathic gangster. And Odom Jnr is again impressive: I've not yet seen him deliver any role that's been sub-par.
- It's also impressive that they had Michael Gandolfini to play the younger self of his late father's role. Although I kept being distracted by how much he looks and acts like a young John Cusack!
Negatives:
- The story is told over many years and the script came across as quite uneven. There are regular cut-aways to Dickie visiting his uncle "Hollywood Dick" (Ray Liotta) in prison, which a lot of the time, to me, felt disconnected from the main plot.
- Whilst most of the ensemble cast do a good job, some of the portrayals felt like forced caricatures of "Goodfellas" characters.
- As a "Sopranos" virgin, I could tell that there were lots of Easter Eggs and in-jokes in the movie (e.g. The baby Christopher crying whenever Anthony talked to him). WIth "Sopranos" regulars Alan Taylor and David Chase in charge, that's not surprising. But I'm afraid all of these went right over my head.
Summary Thoughts on "The Many Saints of Newark": This wasn't a complete bust for me, which it might have been if it had been a sequel rather than a prequel. Indeed there are the occasional flashes of brilliance with certain scenes. But neither did I find it so engrossing that it's going to trouble my top 20 for the year.
I guess is that if you are a "Sopranos" fan, then you would get a lot more out of this than I did. But it's still an interesting way to spend a couple of hours.
(For the full graphical review, please check out #oemannsmovies on the web, Facebook or Tiktok. Thanks.)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Gemini Man (2019) in Movies
Oct 17, 2019
The Effects Just Aren't Good Enough
Ang Lee is a visionary Director that loves to push the envelope of advances in movie-making technology, so the plot contrivance of GEMINI MAN (a Government Assassin is being chased by his much younger clone) was right up his alley - and he makes good (enough) work of the technology that "de-ages" Will Smith and puts the older and younger version of himself on screen at the same time. This was also his 2nd film (after BILLY FLYNN'S LONG HALFTIME WALK) that Lee shot in 4K 3D at 120 frames per second (the "normal" shooting speed is 24 FPS).
He should have spent more of his time on the script..
Based on a long gestating screenplay written in the 1990's by David Lemke (and re-written in the 2010's by Billy Ray - THE HUNGER GAMES - and Mr. GAME OF THRONES himself, David Benioff), GEMINI MAN follows a Government Contract Killer, Henry Brogan (Will Smtih) who does "one last job" and is looking forward to retirement. His agency (under the leadership of Clive Owen) decides to "take him out" and sends "Gemini" after him. Brogan tries to escape but his every move is anticipated by the Gemini - a younger clone of himself (this is not a spoiler, it's in the trailer and ON THE POSTER). He is joined by a pair of "buddies" (Mary Elizabeth Winsted and Benedict Wong) in plotting how to outsmart himself.
This film had all the markings of a bad "B" film, but under the watchful eye of Lee and the charismatic performances of Winsted, Wong - and most especially - Smith, this film is actually quite watchable.
What doesn't work - the plot. To say it is contrived is to do a disservice to the word "contrived". It really doesn't give us anything new, it just gives us a bridge from action scene to action. Also, the reasoning of the Government to get rid of Brogan doesn't really work and Clive Owen - as the head of the Gemini program - and the main "suit" that is chasing Smith looks like he is sleepwalking his way through this film.
What works - the interplay and "fun" of Smith, Winsted and Wong as the 3 "professionals" on the run - and outsmarting - "the Agency". These 3 work really well off each other and I would love to have seen a "Mission Impossible" style film of these 3 doing some sort of impossible mission. Special note needs to be made of Smith's performance - as the older Brogan. He is world weary and heavy, but still has the twinkle in his eye and the physical acumen to be a top assassin. This is the type of role that Smith - especially at his age and experience - is ideal for. His charisma shines and he holds his own in the physical/fight scenes. Also, Ang Lee knows how to shoot an action sequence. True, there is nothing "new", revolutionary or evolutionary in any of the fight/chase scenes, but they are put together in a competent, professional manner and did a good enough job.
And then there is the younger Brogan - "Junior" - played by a CGI "de-aged" Will Smith.
We've seen the CGI "de-aging" effect before - most notably in some Marvel Movies like CAPTAIN MARVEL - and while it works well enough, I just don't think it is quite there yet. You can tell that something is just a little off - not enough for it to really bother you, but enough to know that something isn't quite right - especially when Junior spends most of this film on screen with his older self. You see the "real" Will Smith up against the "copy" and the "copy" looks like...a copy. Also, the "de-aging" of the voice didn't really work for me. It sounded "off" and at times it sounded like bad ADR.
I was able to shrug off these slight technical anomalies and enjoy this film for what it is - a breezy action-er that certainly entertains for 2 hours. But it is no masterpiece and no "major" technological breakthrough. That will have to wait for another movie.
Letter Grade: B (mostly for the fun interplay between older Smith, Winsted and Wong)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
He should have spent more of his time on the script..
Based on a long gestating screenplay written in the 1990's by David Lemke (and re-written in the 2010's by Billy Ray - THE HUNGER GAMES - and Mr. GAME OF THRONES himself, David Benioff), GEMINI MAN follows a Government Contract Killer, Henry Brogan (Will Smtih) who does "one last job" and is looking forward to retirement. His agency (under the leadership of Clive Owen) decides to "take him out" and sends "Gemini" after him. Brogan tries to escape but his every move is anticipated by the Gemini - a younger clone of himself (this is not a spoiler, it's in the trailer and ON THE POSTER). He is joined by a pair of "buddies" (Mary Elizabeth Winsted and Benedict Wong) in plotting how to outsmart himself.
This film had all the markings of a bad "B" film, but under the watchful eye of Lee and the charismatic performances of Winsted, Wong - and most especially - Smith, this film is actually quite watchable.
What doesn't work - the plot. To say it is contrived is to do a disservice to the word "contrived". It really doesn't give us anything new, it just gives us a bridge from action scene to action. Also, the reasoning of the Government to get rid of Brogan doesn't really work and Clive Owen - as the head of the Gemini program - and the main "suit" that is chasing Smith looks like he is sleepwalking his way through this film.
What works - the interplay and "fun" of Smith, Winsted and Wong as the 3 "professionals" on the run - and outsmarting - "the Agency". These 3 work really well off each other and I would love to have seen a "Mission Impossible" style film of these 3 doing some sort of impossible mission. Special note needs to be made of Smith's performance - as the older Brogan. He is world weary and heavy, but still has the twinkle in his eye and the physical acumen to be a top assassin. This is the type of role that Smith - especially at his age and experience - is ideal for. His charisma shines and he holds his own in the physical/fight scenes. Also, Ang Lee knows how to shoot an action sequence. True, there is nothing "new", revolutionary or evolutionary in any of the fight/chase scenes, but they are put together in a competent, professional manner and did a good enough job.
And then there is the younger Brogan - "Junior" - played by a CGI "de-aged" Will Smith.
We've seen the CGI "de-aging" effect before - most notably in some Marvel Movies like CAPTAIN MARVEL - and while it works well enough, I just don't think it is quite there yet. You can tell that something is just a little off - not enough for it to really bother you, but enough to know that something isn't quite right - especially when Junior spends most of this film on screen with his older self. You see the "real" Will Smith up against the "copy" and the "copy" looks like...a copy. Also, the "de-aging" of the voice didn't really work for me. It sounded "off" and at times it sounded like bad ADR.
I was able to shrug off these slight technical anomalies and enjoy this film for what it is - a breezy action-er that certainly entertains for 2 hours. But it is no masterpiece and no "major" technological breakthrough. That will have to wait for another movie.
Letter Grade: B (mostly for the fun interplay between older Smith, Winsted and Wong)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Equalizer (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
I’m not going to waste ANY time getting started with this one. No, you’re not daydreaming. Denzel Washington has teamed-up again with director Antoine Fuqua and once again, they’ve created another outstanding masterpiece of a movie. In fact, the film has seen such postive reviews so far that there’s already talk of a sequal and even a possible franchise. After seeing the film myself, I would not be surprised in the least if
these rumors were true. A sequel would certainly be one worth the wait.
Based on the T.V. show of the same name which ran from 1985 to 1989 and starred Edward Woodward, the movie adaption of “The Equalizer” stars Denzel Washington, Chloe Grace
Moretz, Marton Csokas, David Harbour, Haley Bennett, Melissa Leo, and Bill Pullman.
Directed by Antoine Fuqua (Training Day, The Replacement Killers), “The Equalizer” premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival on September 6th and is set for it’s
U.S. premiere on Friday the 26th.
Denzel Washington portrays McCall, a man who has recently settled down to begin a new life quietly putting his mysterious past behind him. By day, he manages a large hardware store.
His nights are spent in quiet solitude with the exception of his visits to the 24-hour diner for tea down the street from his home where he befriends Teri (Moretz), an aspiring singer forced to work as a callgirl for a group of violent Russian mobsters based in Boston.
One night Teri goes missing and McCall learns that she was severly beaten by her pimp. Unable to sit by and watch the life of his friend ruined and perhaps ended, McCall emerges from his self-imposed retirement and armed with his ‘deadly skillset’ sets out to seek revenge anyone who preys upon the weak and finds his desire for justice reawakened.
“Are The Odds Against You? Need Help? Call The Equalizer”
I’m going to call this one right now: 4 out of 5 stars. Honestly, I really couldn’t find anything about the film I DIDN’T like. Sometimes the film slowed down, then it was like a switch was hit and it speed right back up but it was always good.
When the film did move to a slow pace, it was only to give ‘insight’ into the mindset of the McCall character. Particularly in the beginning when you’re learning about him.
It’s almost immediately inferred that he’s trying put his mysterious past behind him and settle into his new, quiet life. When McCall’s friend Teri is placed in jeopordy though, it’s like listening to the engine of a race car being started and primed. You know trouble is about to go down and McCall is going to be the one who ‘deals’ with that trouble.
The film is violent. Definitely too violent for the kids. It does deliver though. A “do unto others” film, if you will. Denzel depicts the ultimate interpretation of the phrase ‘What goes around, comes around” and does it with style.
these rumors were true. A sequel would certainly be one worth the wait.
Based on the T.V. show of the same name which ran from 1985 to 1989 and starred Edward Woodward, the movie adaption of “The Equalizer” stars Denzel Washington, Chloe Grace
Moretz, Marton Csokas, David Harbour, Haley Bennett, Melissa Leo, and Bill Pullman.
Directed by Antoine Fuqua (Training Day, The Replacement Killers), “The Equalizer” premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival on September 6th and is set for it’s
U.S. premiere on Friday the 26th.
Denzel Washington portrays McCall, a man who has recently settled down to begin a new life quietly putting his mysterious past behind him. By day, he manages a large hardware store.
His nights are spent in quiet solitude with the exception of his visits to the 24-hour diner for tea down the street from his home where he befriends Teri (Moretz), an aspiring singer forced to work as a callgirl for a group of violent Russian mobsters based in Boston.
One night Teri goes missing and McCall learns that she was severly beaten by her pimp. Unable to sit by and watch the life of his friend ruined and perhaps ended, McCall emerges from his self-imposed retirement and armed with his ‘deadly skillset’ sets out to seek revenge anyone who preys upon the weak and finds his desire for justice reawakened.
“Are The Odds Against You? Need Help? Call The Equalizer”
I’m going to call this one right now: 4 out of 5 stars. Honestly, I really couldn’t find anything about the film I DIDN’T like. Sometimes the film slowed down, then it was like a switch was hit and it speed right back up but it was always good.
When the film did move to a slow pace, it was only to give ‘insight’ into the mindset of the McCall character. Particularly in the beginning when you’re learning about him.
It’s almost immediately inferred that he’s trying put his mysterious past behind him and settle into his new, quiet life. When McCall’s friend Teri is placed in jeopordy though, it’s like listening to the engine of a race car being started and primed. You know trouble is about to go down and McCall is going to be the one who ‘deals’ with that trouble.
The film is violent. Definitely too violent for the kids. It does deliver though. A “do unto others” film, if you will. Denzel depicts the ultimate interpretation of the phrase ‘What goes around, comes around” and does it with style.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Suicide Squad (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Yet another missfire
It’s hard to remember such a lacklustre summer blockbuster season. From unnecessary sequels to underwhelming novel adaptations, it’s been one disappointment after another.
After the criticism of spring’s Batman v Superman, DC Comics and Warner Bros. really needed a hit on their hands if they were to compete with the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Suicide Squad is their answer, but after an exhaustive marketing campaign, is the final product any good?
To be frank, not really. Director David Ayer has one of the best ensemble casts in years, but wastes them in a film as loud as any Transformers movie, and about as clever as one too.
Figuring they’re all expendable, a U.S. intelligence officer (Viola Davis) decides to assemble a team of dangerous, incarcerated supervillains for a top-secret mission. Now armed with government weapons, Deadshot (Will Smith), Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie), Captain Boomerang (Jai Courtney), Killer Croc and other despicable inmates must learn to work together. Dubbed Task Force X, the criminals unite to battle a mysterious and powerful entity, while the diabolical Joker (Jared Leto) launches an evil agenda of his own.
From the outset, you can tell Suicide Squad isn’t going to waste time with lengthy introductions to its main characters, and this is a breath of fresh air. It gets around this stumbling block in stylish ease as each villain is given his or her own 3 minute backstory, with nifty graphics completing the sequences.
It’s a pleasing start to a film that promised so much in its trailers, but things really start to go downhill from there as our characters are forced to muscle their way through countless faceless enemies, culminating in a derivative battle against, you guessed it, more dull enemies. It’s almost like watching a third-person video game taking place on a massive screen.
Nevertheless, the cast does well with the material they’re given. Will Smith is his ever-likeable self and channels Deadshot from the source material with flair. However, the film really belongs to Margot Robbie and Jared Leto. Their performances are spot on, with Robbie in particular being the film’s ray of sunshine. Leto’s Joker is unfortunately not given anywhere near enough screen time despite the film’s two hour length.
The soundtrack is fantastic. Boasting Eminem, Grace and Panic at the Disco, it’s a pleasant distraction from the at times incomprehensible mayhem taking place on screen.
Special effects wise, Suicide Squad is fine, if a little uninspiring. The editing and cinematography are very clever indeed but the CGI goes from great to poor in a heartbeat. Considering the film’s $175million budget, this is completely unacceptable.
Overall, Suicide Squad promised us so much and has delivered relatively little. Drawing from the exceptional DC Universe, audiences could’ve had a film completely different from the slew of superhero films we are constantly blighted with these days. Instead, we’ve been given one of the most generic yet and it continues 2016’s trend as one of the worst summer blockbuster seasons in recent memory.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/08/08/yet-another-misfire-suicide-squad-review/
After the criticism of spring’s Batman v Superman, DC Comics and Warner Bros. really needed a hit on their hands if they were to compete with the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Suicide Squad is their answer, but after an exhaustive marketing campaign, is the final product any good?
To be frank, not really. Director David Ayer has one of the best ensemble casts in years, but wastes them in a film as loud as any Transformers movie, and about as clever as one too.
Figuring they’re all expendable, a U.S. intelligence officer (Viola Davis) decides to assemble a team of dangerous, incarcerated supervillains for a top-secret mission. Now armed with government weapons, Deadshot (Will Smith), Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie), Captain Boomerang (Jai Courtney), Killer Croc and other despicable inmates must learn to work together. Dubbed Task Force X, the criminals unite to battle a mysterious and powerful entity, while the diabolical Joker (Jared Leto) launches an evil agenda of his own.
From the outset, you can tell Suicide Squad isn’t going to waste time with lengthy introductions to its main characters, and this is a breath of fresh air. It gets around this stumbling block in stylish ease as each villain is given his or her own 3 minute backstory, with nifty graphics completing the sequences.
It’s a pleasing start to a film that promised so much in its trailers, but things really start to go downhill from there as our characters are forced to muscle their way through countless faceless enemies, culminating in a derivative battle against, you guessed it, more dull enemies. It’s almost like watching a third-person video game taking place on a massive screen.
Nevertheless, the cast does well with the material they’re given. Will Smith is his ever-likeable self and channels Deadshot from the source material with flair. However, the film really belongs to Margot Robbie and Jared Leto. Their performances are spot on, with Robbie in particular being the film’s ray of sunshine. Leto’s Joker is unfortunately not given anywhere near enough screen time despite the film’s two hour length.
The soundtrack is fantastic. Boasting Eminem, Grace and Panic at the Disco, it’s a pleasant distraction from the at times incomprehensible mayhem taking place on screen.
Special effects wise, Suicide Squad is fine, if a little uninspiring. The editing and cinematography are very clever indeed but the CGI goes from great to poor in a heartbeat. Considering the film’s $175million budget, this is completely unacceptable.
Overall, Suicide Squad promised us so much and has delivered relatively little. Drawing from the exceptional DC Universe, audiences could’ve had a film completely different from the slew of superhero films we are constantly blighted with these days. Instead, we’ve been given one of the most generic yet and it continues 2016’s trend as one of the worst summer blockbuster seasons in recent memory.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/08/08/yet-another-misfire-suicide-squad-review/
Debbiereadsbook (1095 KP) rated Bondage Rescue (Kiss of Leather #3) in Books
Apr 24, 2018
Reluctant Dom meets bratty sub!
Independent review for Archaeolibrarian, I was gifted my copy of this book.
Book 3 in the Kiss of Leather series, and I again STRONGLY recommend you read book one, Building Bonds, and two, Safe Limits first. There are things that happen in those books that you need to know about for this one to make sense.
Reluctant Dom meets bratty sub!
Marshall is Kyle's best friend and had disappeared. Calling on Master Josh for help was a last ditch to get the help he needs. Help that comes in the form of the private detective Kiss of Leather's law firm recommends to find the Dom who hurt Corey. Stone hasn't been in any sort of D/s lifestyle for 5 years, since the death of a sub that he was accused of. But meeting Marshall, seeing that young man all haggard looking and far too thin, releases something in Master Stone and he steps up to teach Marshall that true submission really is a beautiful thing.
If you follow you reviews (and I thank you if you do!) you'll know I'm all about the sexy time. I do love my books on the more explicit side, and I make no bones nor apologies for that. What I particularly LOVED about this one, was that Master Stone and Marshall do not get their sexy time til the last TEN MINUTES of their story! I LOVED being made to wait.
Oh, don't get me wrong, Master Stone knows just how to teach Marshall about self worth and he teaches him that punishment does not mean pain, although Marshall a pain-slut. Master Stone rather enjoys teaching the bratty subs, the brattier the better and Marshall just happens to be the most brattiest, stubborn, mouthy sub he has ever come across. And Master Stone, very quickly, makes its very clear that Marshall will have to wait, and wait PATIENTLY to have sex with him. And I LOVED IT!!!
The hunt for Corey's abuser continues, takes a shocking turn. I'm not telling you what though! Cos, you know, SPOILERS and all that! But I will tell you, when all this goes down, Master Stone has the exact same reaction as Master Derek does, and they go after THEIR boys.
Sometimes, in a series, especially when the main couples are very similar (here, big bad Dom and younger smaller guy) they get a little same old/same old. I'm NOT finding that here though. Yes all three Doms are older, and bigger, and yes, all three subs are younger and smaller, but their STORIES are so different! The on-going story arc helps a great deal, and the fact that the guys from the previous books continue to play a HUGE part in future books, too, but it's the SUBS who have the greatest differences and I LOVE that they are all friends.
Up next, are Master Josh and David. While already in a committed relationship, I can't wait to get their story. Because it's the Grand Opening of Kiss of Leather and I have a feeling it is not going to be as plain sailing as it has been and I look forward to being introduced to new characters.
Some reference to drug and alcohol abuse, but not described in any detail.
Loving these!
5 full stars
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
Book 3 in the Kiss of Leather series, and I again STRONGLY recommend you read book one, Building Bonds, and two, Safe Limits first. There are things that happen in those books that you need to know about for this one to make sense.
Reluctant Dom meets bratty sub!
Marshall is Kyle's best friend and had disappeared. Calling on Master Josh for help was a last ditch to get the help he needs. Help that comes in the form of the private detective Kiss of Leather's law firm recommends to find the Dom who hurt Corey. Stone hasn't been in any sort of D/s lifestyle for 5 years, since the death of a sub that he was accused of. But meeting Marshall, seeing that young man all haggard looking and far too thin, releases something in Master Stone and he steps up to teach Marshall that true submission really is a beautiful thing.
If you follow you reviews (and I thank you if you do!) you'll know I'm all about the sexy time. I do love my books on the more explicit side, and I make no bones nor apologies for that. What I particularly LOVED about this one, was that Master Stone and Marshall do not get their sexy time til the last TEN MINUTES of their story! I LOVED being made to wait.
Oh, don't get me wrong, Master Stone knows just how to teach Marshall about self worth and he teaches him that punishment does not mean pain, although Marshall a pain-slut. Master Stone rather enjoys teaching the bratty subs, the brattier the better and Marshall just happens to be the most brattiest, stubborn, mouthy sub he has ever come across. And Master Stone, very quickly, makes its very clear that Marshall will have to wait, and wait PATIENTLY to have sex with him. And I LOVED IT!!!
The hunt for Corey's abuser continues, takes a shocking turn. I'm not telling you what though! Cos, you know, SPOILERS and all that! But I will tell you, when all this goes down, Master Stone has the exact same reaction as Master Derek does, and they go after THEIR boys.
Sometimes, in a series, especially when the main couples are very similar (here, big bad Dom and younger smaller guy) they get a little same old/same old. I'm NOT finding that here though. Yes all three Doms are older, and bigger, and yes, all three subs are younger and smaller, but their STORIES are so different! The on-going story arc helps a great deal, and the fact that the guys from the previous books continue to play a HUGE part in future books, too, but it's the SUBS who have the greatest differences and I LOVE that they are all friends.
Up next, are Master Josh and David. While already in a committed relationship, I can't wait to get their story. Because it's the Grand Opening of Kiss of Leather and I have a feeling it is not going to be as plain sailing as it has been and I look forward to being introduced to new characters.
Some reference to drug and alcohol abuse, but not described in any detail.
Loving these!
5 full stars
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Scream 4 (2011) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Horror films have been in a steady decline for the past few years with countless remakes and sequels to some of the most loved horror franchises. After an 8 year hiatus, Wes Craven resurrects the seemingly dead Scream series with some fantastic results. Scream 4 does for horror what the original did way back in 1996; it carves out a new direction for what has been a lifeless genre.
Scre4m sees Neve Campbell return as Sidney Prescott alongside the much loved Courtney Cox and David Arquette as Gale Riley (previously Weathers) and Dewey Riley respectively. This time, the story focuses on Sidney Prescott returning to her hometown of Woodsboro promoting a book about her life. Of course, this is Scream; so it’s not all plain sailing and her arrival beckons the return of ‘Ghostface’ and his (or her) grisly murders.
The first Scream was well-known for poking fun at the genre and the latest instalment is no exception. It wraps a sublime mix of comedy and self-awareness with the sharp horror which made the first trilogy such a hit. The success in this film is that it never takes itself too seriously, and neither do the cast who look like they’re having a bloody good time. 8 years on and they don’t look like they’re too long in the tooth for this kind of madness, which is an unusual thing. By far the standout performance is from Courtney Cox who slips seamlessly back into the role of Gale and shows the audience why she was the perfect choice for her part.
However, it isn’t all about the veteran stars, some new talent joins the ranks and what better place to start than in a film which has the opportunity of revitalising a tarnished and battered genre. Nico Torterella joins the franchise as Trevor Sheldon, playing a similar part to that of Skeet Ulrich as Billy Loomis in the original. Torterella, with his limited characterisation does very well and steps into the shoes of the creepy ex-boyfriend role exceptionally. But who is he the ex-boyfriend of I hear you cry? Well, Emma Roberts comes to the series for the first time as Jill Roberts, Sidney Prescott’s cousin. Emma plays the part well and in fact provides some of the standout lines throughout the entire film.
Anna Paquin also gets a short cameo in the introduction of the film; much like Drew Barrymore did in the first.
Scream 4 is much like the first with its comedic timing and as such is one of the better instalments in the series, stopping short of being the best. It has been directed very well but is slightly too long and the constant guessing game of who is to blame for the murders can wear thin if you’re not in the mood for Cluedo. The fantastic characters, portrayed brilliantly by their real-life counterparts and the excellent story really are the highlights of a film which has succeeded in what it set out to achieve. Here, 8 years on from Scream 3 and 15 years; yes 15 years on from the original, Scream 4 revitalises the horror genre and is in every respect, brilliant.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2011/04/30/scream-4-2011/
Scre4m sees Neve Campbell return as Sidney Prescott alongside the much loved Courtney Cox and David Arquette as Gale Riley (previously Weathers) and Dewey Riley respectively. This time, the story focuses on Sidney Prescott returning to her hometown of Woodsboro promoting a book about her life. Of course, this is Scream; so it’s not all plain sailing and her arrival beckons the return of ‘Ghostface’ and his (or her) grisly murders.
The first Scream was well-known for poking fun at the genre and the latest instalment is no exception. It wraps a sublime mix of comedy and self-awareness with the sharp horror which made the first trilogy such a hit. The success in this film is that it never takes itself too seriously, and neither do the cast who look like they’re having a bloody good time. 8 years on and they don’t look like they’re too long in the tooth for this kind of madness, which is an unusual thing. By far the standout performance is from Courtney Cox who slips seamlessly back into the role of Gale and shows the audience why she was the perfect choice for her part.
However, it isn’t all about the veteran stars, some new talent joins the ranks and what better place to start than in a film which has the opportunity of revitalising a tarnished and battered genre. Nico Torterella joins the franchise as Trevor Sheldon, playing a similar part to that of Skeet Ulrich as Billy Loomis in the original. Torterella, with his limited characterisation does very well and steps into the shoes of the creepy ex-boyfriend role exceptionally. But who is he the ex-boyfriend of I hear you cry? Well, Emma Roberts comes to the series for the first time as Jill Roberts, Sidney Prescott’s cousin. Emma plays the part well and in fact provides some of the standout lines throughout the entire film.
Anna Paquin also gets a short cameo in the introduction of the film; much like Drew Barrymore did in the first.
Scream 4 is much like the first with its comedic timing and as such is one of the better instalments in the series, stopping short of being the best. It has been directed very well but is slightly too long and the constant guessing game of who is to blame for the murders can wear thin if you’re not in the mood for Cluedo. The fantastic characters, portrayed brilliantly by their real-life counterparts and the excellent story really are the highlights of a film which has succeeded in what it set out to achieve. Here, 8 years on from Scream 3 and 15 years; yes 15 years on from the original, Scream 4 revitalises the horror genre and is in every respect, brilliant.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2011/04/30/scream-4-2011/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Devil Wears Prada (2006) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
I was watching The Devil Wears Prada the other day on ITV2 and forgot just how brilliant a film it is, it really did exceed expectations back then in 2006 and even now in 2011. Here’s the review I wrote all those years ago. Enjoy!
David Frankel, a rather unknown television director makes his debut on the silver screen in this stunning adaptation of Lauren Weisberger’s not so stunning novel, The Devil Wears Prada.
Anne Hathaway and Meryl Streep join a mesmerising cast in this surprisingly brilliant rom-com. The premise is simple and kept that way to ensure all detail is carried across in depth without missing any major points from the novel. Weisberger should be astounded that Frankel managed to turn her rather lacklustre book into a first-rate movie.
Anne Hathaway plays ‘Andy Sax’, an unknown journalist with no eye for fashion who wants to get her foot on the bottom ladder of the media industry. Her character simply leaps off the screen, from her dopey, lovable personality to her cheap, second rate clothing; she is truly a joy to watch. Emily Blunt plays the fashion conscious assistant who would do anything and everything to get as high as possible in the clothing industry; again, her character is played with a love/hate finesse that few actresses of 2006 can match.
However, by far the best performance is given by Meryl Streep as ‘Miranda Priestly’, editor and chief of ‘Runway’ magazine. Sly, career obsessed with a dash of emotionality added in, she is exceptional in her role and should be seriously considered for an Oscar at this years awards. Her dialogue is spoken with a heartless brilliance that no other actress could even hold a candle to, she is perfectly cast in this role.
Stanley Tucci plays a somewhat flat member of the team, possibly due to his little screen time, but he is by no means dull, with personality abound.
The soundtrack is genius, and perfectly matched to the film, from the outset right up until the closing credits, each song is flawlessly integrated into the feature. Camera-work is also on par with the best of this year and really helps the characters stand out in their roles.
Where most rom-coms use cheap gags to gain laughs from the audience, Prada expects you to think a little more about what you’re laughing at, a deep message about ones self discovery is incorporated, but well hidden in the film. Of course there are a few laughs of the cheap kind, but unusually, they are actually funny. Comedy really doesn’t get much better than right here.
Some scenes in the film have been directed so well, that the more emotional among us may be reaching for the tissues. The transition from comedy to seriousness is exceptionally watertight, you’ll be laughing one minute and on the edge of your seat the next.
The ending of the film is perhaps of a slight anti-climax, but it portrays a wonderfully deep message about inner emotion, leaving a huge smile on your face as the credits role.
To put it simply, The Devil Wears Prada is a practically faultless movie which should appeal to a huge and diverse range of people. The acting, direction and soundtrack are all absolutely perfect and I think we may have a found a future classic character in ‘Miranda Priestly.’ It’s a joy to watch. Be a devil and go see it.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2011/01/19/a-blast-from-the-past-the-devil-wears-prada-2006/
David Frankel, a rather unknown television director makes his debut on the silver screen in this stunning adaptation of Lauren Weisberger’s not so stunning novel, The Devil Wears Prada.
Anne Hathaway and Meryl Streep join a mesmerising cast in this surprisingly brilliant rom-com. The premise is simple and kept that way to ensure all detail is carried across in depth without missing any major points from the novel. Weisberger should be astounded that Frankel managed to turn her rather lacklustre book into a first-rate movie.
Anne Hathaway plays ‘Andy Sax’, an unknown journalist with no eye for fashion who wants to get her foot on the bottom ladder of the media industry. Her character simply leaps off the screen, from her dopey, lovable personality to her cheap, second rate clothing; she is truly a joy to watch. Emily Blunt plays the fashion conscious assistant who would do anything and everything to get as high as possible in the clothing industry; again, her character is played with a love/hate finesse that few actresses of 2006 can match.
However, by far the best performance is given by Meryl Streep as ‘Miranda Priestly’, editor and chief of ‘Runway’ magazine. Sly, career obsessed with a dash of emotionality added in, she is exceptional in her role and should be seriously considered for an Oscar at this years awards. Her dialogue is spoken with a heartless brilliance that no other actress could even hold a candle to, she is perfectly cast in this role.
Stanley Tucci plays a somewhat flat member of the team, possibly due to his little screen time, but he is by no means dull, with personality abound.
The soundtrack is genius, and perfectly matched to the film, from the outset right up until the closing credits, each song is flawlessly integrated into the feature. Camera-work is also on par with the best of this year and really helps the characters stand out in their roles.
Where most rom-coms use cheap gags to gain laughs from the audience, Prada expects you to think a little more about what you’re laughing at, a deep message about ones self discovery is incorporated, but well hidden in the film. Of course there are a few laughs of the cheap kind, but unusually, they are actually funny. Comedy really doesn’t get much better than right here.
Some scenes in the film have been directed so well, that the more emotional among us may be reaching for the tissues. The transition from comedy to seriousness is exceptionally watertight, you’ll be laughing one minute and on the edge of your seat the next.
The ending of the film is perhaps of a slight anti-climax, but it portrays a wonderfully deep message about inner emotion, leaving a huge smile on your face as the credits role.
To put it simply, The Devil Wears Prada is a practically faultless movie which should appeal to a huge and diverse range of people. The acting, direction and soundtrack are all absolutely perfect and I think we may have a found a future classic character in ‘Miranda Priestly.’ It’s a joy to watch. Be a devil and go see it.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2011/01/19/a-blast-from-the-past-the-devil-wears-prada-2006/
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Mad To Be Normal (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Mental Health in the 60s
I’ll admit, whenever I see David Tennant’s name on a cast list I get excited. As a long time fan, I’ve watched him play a variety of roles brilliantly. So when I was given the opportunity to review Mad To Be Normal and I learned what the plot was, how could I refuse? Set in the 60s, the film follows Scottish psychiatrist R.D. Laing and his unconventional approach to mental health treatment, causing controversy within the psychiatry field.
Although I don’t know much about Laing, Tennant really shone in the central role and delivered a truly captivating character who was riddled with his own underlying issues. He’s a tricky one because sometimes you really sympathise and agree with him, but other times he’s so utterly frustrating. The film showed us many different sides to him, and created a well-rounded exploration of the man in question. He’s compassionate but also terribly naive, and that’s a dangerous combination indeed. Tennant is joined by Elisabeth Moss, Michael Gambon and Gabriel Byrne which is an excellent line up.
One of the best things about this film is the characters, because everyone does such an amazing job of portraying complex characters with equally as complex relationships. Moss plays student Angie who quickly becomes a love interest of Laing’s, and joins him in his work. Much like Laing, she is also well-rounded and has good traits and bad ones, the latter resulting in rather turbulent moments throughout the film.
I especially enjoyed the way mental health was portrayed by characters, as you could tell they were struggling and trying so hard to deal with their illnesses. It was dealt with respectfully and honestly, whilst still showing the risks of untreated mental health conditions. Gabriel Byrne in particular stands out in his portrayal of Jim, going from someone friendly and sentimental to someone violent and dangerous very quickly. It would have been good to learn more about each character and their individual backgrounds for context’s sake, replacing the unnecessary scenes with this. Nevertheless, the insight into mental health in this era was fascinating, particularly scenes involving the inhumane treatment known as electroshock therapy. It shows we have come a long way since then, but we still have a long way to go.
The stellar performances are accompanied with some great set design, which I imagine would provide some welcome nostalgia for those familiar with the era. I loved Laing’s quirky style both in his interior design, behaviour and clothing choices, making him stand out even more. He’s flamboyant in every sense of the word, but not always for the right reasons. For his time, Laing was clearly very open minded, caring and in favour of self-expression, further conflicting with the beliefs of wider society. Although open mindedness is a good thing, his goes too far which ultimately would lead to his eventual downfall.
Robert Mullan has done a great job bringing this important figure to life on screen, putting together a cast that perfectly delivered this story. Whilst I would have liked more context around both the patients and Laing himself, the film still delivered a powerful message in its 1 hour 45 minute run time. It’s definitely worth a watch.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/08/04/mental-health-in-the-60s-mad-to-be-normal-review/
Although I don’t know much about Laing, Tennant really shone in the central role and delivered a truly captivating character who was riddled with his own underlying issues. He’s a tricky one because sometimes you really sympathise and agree with him, but other times he’s so utterly frustrating. The film showed us many different sides to him, and created a well-rounded exploration of the man in question. He’s compassionate but also terribly naive, and that’s a dangerous combination indeed. Tennant is joined by Elisabeth Moss, Michael Gambon and Gabriel Byrne which is an excellent line up.
One of the best things about this film is the characters, because everyone does such an amazing job of portraying complex characters with equally as complex relationships. Moss plays student Angie who quickly becomes a love interest of Laing’s, and joins him in his work. Much like Laing, she is also well-rounded and has good traits and bad ones, the latter resulting in rather turbulent moments throughout the film.
I especially enjoyed the way mental health was portrayed by characters, as you could tell they were struggling and trying so hard to deal with their illnesses. It was dealt with respectfully and honestly, whilst still showing the risks of untreated mental health conditions. Gabriel Byrne in particular stands out in his portrayal of Jim, going from someone friendly and sentimental to someone violent and dangerous very quickly. It would have been good to learn more about each character and their individual backgrounds for context’s sake, replacing the unnecessary scenes with this. Nevertheless, the insight into mental health in this era was fascinating, particularly scenes involving the inhumane treatment known as electroshock therapy. It shows we have come a long way since then, but we still have a long way to go.
The stellar performances are accompanied with some great set design, which I imagine would provide some welcome nostalgia for those familiar with the era. I loved Laing’s quirky style both in his interior design, behaviour and clothing choices, making him stand out even more. He’s flamboyant in every sense of the word, but not always for the right reasons. For his time, Laing was clearly very open minded, caring and in favour of self-expression, further conflicting with the beliefs of wider society. Although open mindedness is a good thing, his goes too far which ultimately would lead to his eventual downfall.
Robert Mullan has done a great job bringing this important figure to life on screen, putting together a cast that perfectly delivered this story. Whilst I would have liked more context around both the patients and Laing himself, the film still delivered a powerful message in its 1 hour 45 minute run time. It’s definitely worth a watch.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/08/04/mental-health-in-the-60s-mad-to-be-normal-review/