Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated David Brent: Life on the Road (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A squirm-athon from beginning to end.
“Life on the Road” is a mockumentary sequel to the classic British version of the TV comedy “The Office” (obviously later remade for the US market and featuring Steve Carell). Ricky Gervais played the ego-centric David Brent, a monster of a character who exercised what little control he had in his managerial role at a Slough paper company.
Here in “Life on the Road” we join Brent 15 years later where he has taken a rung or two down the career ladder and is working as a sales rep for Lavachem, a sanitary goods manufacturer, also based in Slough.
But Brent still harbours a dream of making it big in the rock world with his middle-of-the-road band called ‘Foregone Conclusion (2)’. Gathering around him his ethnic rapper ‘friend’ Dom Johnson (Doc Brown) and a band of session musicians (who can’t stand him), Brent cashes in “several pensions” to fund a tour of the venues of Berkshire… or at least, those that will give stage time over to a “shite band”. As the tour delivers predictably diminishing returns, and no record-company interest (at least, not in him) Brent is forced to face his inner demons and some uncomfortable truths.
Bringing TV comedy characters to screen is fraught with difficulty, and few have successfully done it. Even legends like Morecambe and Wise struggled with a series of lacklustre films. Perhaps in recent times Steve Coogan’s Alan Partridge has come closest with “Alan Partridge – Alpha Papa” and indeed there are a lot of similarities visible between Partridge and Brent: both have extreme ego issues and self-centredness. But there are significant differences as well, for while Partridge is just an irritatingly loud and obnoxious minor-celebrity Brent – as this film makes much clearer – has real mental illness.
Brent - the sun shines out of his earhole.
Brent – the sun shines out of his earhole.
Is this therefore a comedy at all? Well, yes, but in a very black way. There are certainly moments of excellent humour, with the tattooing scene being a high-point. But the result of watching Brent’s progressive decline, with his nervous laugh as a constant ‘fingernails on chalk board’ reminder of his insecurity, results in a level of audience squirming that is palpable. Everything he does is perverse, from describing in excruciating detail every song before singing it, to spending his money on multiple hotel rooms when every gig is within the County of Berkshire.
As a black comedy its important that it doesn’t outstay its welcome, and at 96 minutes it doesn’t. However, the film lacks the courage of its own dark convictions, and unnecessarily switches tack in the last reel to provide a degree of redemption for Brent. Whilst ‘sweet’, it is also implausible given what’s happened before and I would have suspected the interference of the director in lightening the mood of the writer’s original intent. However, as Gervais is both writer and director, there is no such excuse. That’s a shame.
So, in summary, an uncomfortable watch that aligns appropriately with the high squirm factor of the original TV show. Prepare to laugh, but feel a bit guilty in doing so.
Here in “Life on the Road” we join Brent 15 years later where he has taken a rung or two down the career ladder and is working as a sales rep for Lavachem, a sanitary goods manufacturer, also based in Slough.
But Brent still harbours a dream of making it big in the rock world with his middle-of-the-road band called ‘Foregone Conclusion (2)’. Gathering around him his ethnic rapper ‘friend’ Dom Johnson (Doc Brown) and a band of session musicians (who can’t stand him), Brent cashes in “several pensions” to fund a tour of the venues of Berkshire… or at least, those that will give stage time over to a “shite band”. As the tour delivers predictably diminishing returns, and no record-company interest (at least, not in him) Brent is forced to face his inner demons and some uncomfortable truths.
Bringing TV comedy characters to screen is fraught with difficulty, and few have successfully done it. Even legends like Morecambe and Wise struggled with a series of lacklustre films. Perhaps in recent times Steve Coogan’s Alan Partridge has come closest with “Alan Partridge – Alpha Papa” and indeed there are a lot of similarities visible between Partridge and Brent: both have extreme ego issues and self-centredness. But there are significant differences as well, for while Partridge is just an irritatingly loud and obnoxious minor-celebrity Brent – as this film makes much clearer – has real mental illness.
Brent - the sun shines out of his earhole.
Brent – the sun shines out of his earhole.
Is this therefore a comedy at all? Well, yes, but in a very black way. There are certainly moments of excellent humour, with the tattooing scene being a high-point. But the result of watching Brent’s progressive decline, with his nervous laugh as a constant ‘fingernails on chalk board’ reminder of his insecurity, results in a level of audience squirming that is palpable. Everything he does is perverse, from describing in excruciating detail every song before singing it, to spending his money on multiple hotel rooms when every gig is within the County of Berkshire.
As a black comedy its important that it doesn’t outstay its welcome, and at 96 minutes it doesn’t. However, the film lacks the courage of its own dark convictions, and unnecessarily switches tack in the last reel to provide a degree of redemption for Brent. Whilst ‘sweet’, it is also implausible given what’s happened before and I would have suspected the interference of the director in lightening the mood of the writer’s original intent. However, as Gervais is both writer and director, there is no such excuse. That’s a shame.
So, in summary, an uncomfortable watch that aligns appropriately with the high squirm factor of the original TV show. Prepare to laugh, but feel a bit guilty in doing so.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Respect (2021) in Movies
Oct 14, 2021
Re, re, re, re, ‘spect… Just a little bit.
What with holidays and Bond, it’s taken me a few weeks to get to see this Aretha Franklin biopic. But I finally caught it this week.
Plot Summary:
‘Re’ is a 10-year old growing up in relative middle-class affluence in Birmingham, Alabama with her high-profile preacher father C.L. Franklin (Forest Whitaker). She is blessed with a wonderful singing voice. We follow her career, as Aretha Franklin (Jennifer Hudson), through her struggles with controlling men and alcohol. This is against the backdrop of supporting the civil rights movement led by Martin Luther King (Gilbert Glenn Brown).
“Respect” Review: Positives:
Jennifer Hudson gives a tremendous performance as Franklin, delivering both the vocals and the acting admirably. (Apparently, the lady herself, before she died in August 2018, named Hudson as the best person to play her.)
Coming out of this movie, you have to admire Aretha Franklin’s legacy. Although there are moments when her ‘demons’ got the better of her (and the movie is unafraid to paint her in a negative light for these) she led a tumultuous life and yet was still a strong force for both feminism and equality. I think the movie highlights that admirably. “Have you lost your mind?” her father (Forest Whitaker) asks. “Maybe…. maybe I’ve found it.” she replies.
I loved the clip during the end titles (at a Carole King concert and in front of the Obamas) of Franklin well into her 70’s belting out “Natural Woman”. Classy stuff.
Negatives:
It’s long. Very long. Approaching Bond long.
There’s a curious ‘cookie-cutter-ness’ to these biopics of classic female singers (controlling and abusive men; alcohol/drug abuse; prejudice through sex/race; etc). (Would they even have emanated the same level of soul without all the grief? Perhaps not.) The similarities lead you to naturally compare this movie with “The US vs Billie Holiday“. The Billie Holiday story felt like it had a lot more grit and angst in it, making it, for me at least, more memorable. The script for “Respect” – although still rather episodic – flows better. Whilst still great, Hudson’s performance (an Oscar nomination perhaps?) doesn’t come close to the Oscar-nominated stellar job done by Andra Day.
I didn’t like how the script introduced us to its characters. For example, Ted White (Marlon Wayans) is introduced at a church barbeque. He’s painted as a disreputable character, but why? And you have no idea if he is supposed to be a famous singer, a songwriter, a promoter, or a producer (as in fact he is). As another example, Kelvin Hair plays Sam Cooke in the movie, but – unless I missed it – this doesn’t seem to be highlighted in the script.
Summary Thoughts on “Respect”
“Respect” is the feature debut for female director Liesl Tommy. And it’s certainly an ambitious target for a first-timer to shoot at, so ‘Respect’ for that! And it comes across as a solid and enjoyable biopic, not least to remind yourself of some of the classic tunes that Aretha Franklin belted out. At 145 minutes though, it takes its time telling its story, and I think a tighter, shorter film would have worked better.
Did I enjoy it though? Yes, I did. But it’s worth pointing out that the illustrious Mrs Movie Man – who normally begrudges every minute over 90 minutes in a movie – really loved this one.
Plot Summary:
‘Re’ is a 10-year old growing up in relative middle-class affluence in Birmingham, Alabama with her high-profile preacher father C.L. Franklin (Forest Whitaker). She is blessed with a wonderful singing voice. We follow her career, as Aretha Franklin (Jennifer Hudson), through her struggles with controlling men and alcohol. This is against the backdrop of supporting the civil rights movement led by Martin Luther King (Gilbert Glenn Brown).
“Respect” Review: Positives:
Jennifer Hudson gives a tremendous performance as Franklin, delivering both the vocals and the acting admirably. (Apparently, the lady herself, before she died in August 2018, named Hudson as the best person to play her.)
Coming out of this movie, you have to admire Aretha Franklin’s legacy. Although there are moments when her ‘demons’ got the better of her (and the movie is unafraid to paint her in a negative light for these) she led a tumultuous life and yet was still a strong force for both feminism and equality. I think the movie highlights that admirably. “Have you lost your mind?” her father (Forest Whitaker) asks. “Maybe…. maybe I’ve found it.” she replies.
I loved the clip during the end titles (at a Carole King concert and in front of the Obamas) of Franklin well into her 70’s belting out “Natural Woman”. Classy stuff.
Negatives:
It’s long. Very long. Approaching Bond long.
There’s a curious ‘cookie-cutter-ness’ to these biopics of classic female singers (controlling and abusive men; alcohol/drug abuse; prejudice through sex/race; etc). (Would they even have emanated the same level of soul without all the grief? Perhaps not.) The similarities lead you to naturally compare this movie with “The US vs Billie Holiday“. The Billie Holiday story felt like it had a lot more grit and angst in it, making it, for me at least, more memorable. The script for “Respect” – although still rather episodic – flows better. Whilst still great, Hudson’s performance (an Oscar nomination perhaps?) doesn’t come close to the Oscar-nominated stellar job done by Andra Day.
I didn’t like how the script introduced us to its characters. For example, Ted White (Marlon Wayans) is introduced at a church barbeque. He’s painted as a disreputable character, but why? And you have no idea if he is supposed to be a famous singer, a songwriter, a promoter, or a producer (as in fact he is). As another example, Kelvin Hair plays Sam Cooke in the movie, but – unless I missed it – this doesn’t seem to be highlighted in the script.
Summary Thoughts on “Respect”
“Respect” is the feature debut for female director Liesl Tommy. And it’s certainly an ambitious target for a first-timer to shoot at, so ‘Respect’ for that! And it comes across as a solid and enjoyable biopic, not least to remind yourself of some of the classic tunes that Aretha Franklin belted out. At 145 minutes though, it takes its time telling its story, and I think a tighter, shorter film would have worked better.
Did I enjoy it though? Yes, I did. But it’s worth pointing out that the illustrious Mrs Movie Man – who normally begrudges every minute over 90 minutes in a movie – really loved this one.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated 1922 (2017) in Movies
Oct 24, 2017 (Updated Oct 24, 2017)
Solid Performances (1 more)
Believable Set Design
Sometimes Your Own Demons Are The Hardest To Escape
1922 is the second Stephen King story adapted for Netflix in the last two months and it is very different to the adaption of Gerald's Game we saw back in September. The movie is set up nicely, showing an older, shaken man writing out his confession in hopes of appeasing the guilt that has plagued him since he murdered his wife Arlette. We then see a younger version of the man, Wilfred and we learn that he is very protective of the three things that he feels, 'belong,' to him; his son, his wife and his land.
Arlette professes a desire to sell the farm and move to the city, an idea that he outright refuses to go along with. The land that the farm is on belonged to Arlette's father and so it is now in her name, meaning she has the final say officially on selling the land. Wlifred tries to bargain with her, saying that he will buy the land off of her in installments, but Arlette knows that she can get a better price elsewhere and won’t have to wait years to receive the payment. This leads Wilfred to start planning his wife’s murder. Wilfred knows that his son wants to stay on the farm as well and so he manipulates him into helping him carry out and cover up the murder.
From this point on we have our ghost story. I’m actually rather hesitant to call it a ghost story, even though strictly speaking, it is one. This is more a tale of how guilt haunts a man beyond carrying out the heinous deed and how no bad deed goes unpunished. I don’t want to spoil too much here for those who haven’t yet seen the film, but what follows is a relentless and depressing tale of regret and loss.
The cast in this film are great, Thomas Jane does a great job in the lead role of a man willing to go to any morbid lengths, in order to retain what he believes belongs to him. Molly Parker and Dylan Schmid also do well in their roles as Arlette and Henry, respectively. The supporting cast is also solid. The other stand out thing in the movie for me was the set design. I found the farmhouses and barns to be extremely believable and the sets really added to the overall tone that the movie was going for and sold the era effectively as well.
My main complaint of the movie is the lack of any significant scares. The movie sets up a fairly creepy atmosphere at times, but never capitalizes on it. A Stephen King ghost story released the week before Halloween should be way scarier than this. I thought I was getting a truly chilling movie to sink my teeth into and instead I got a movie showing a desperate man’s fractured psyche and the guilt he has to deal with in the aftermath of a despicable deed, which is an interesting idea, it’s just not what I wanted out of this movie.
Overall this is a well made movie and for what it is it’s great, it just didn’t meet the expectations that I had for it and maybe that’s my own fault more than the movie’s. As with any Stephen King story, it makes for an interesting adaption and takes you on a dark journey and leaves you wondering about you own moral decisions in life. The film is no doubt successful in what it sets out to do; I just wish that it had scared me a bit more.
Arlette professes a desire to sell the farm and move to the city, an idea that he outright refuses to go along with. The land that the farm is on belonged to Arlette's father and so it is now in her name, meaning she has the final say officially on selling the land. Wlifred tries to bargain with her, saying that he will buy the land off of her in installments, but Arlette knows that she can get a better price elsewhere and won’t have to wait years to receive the payment. This leads Wilfred to start planning his wife’s murder. Wilfred knows that his son wants to stay on the farm as well and so he manipulates him into helping him carry out and cover up the murder.
From this point on we have our ghost story. I’m actually rather hesitant to call it a ghost story, even though strictly speaking, it is one. This is more a tale of how guilt haunts a man beyond carrying out the heinous deed and how no bad deed goes unpunished. I don’t want to spoil too much here for those who haven’t yet seen the film, but what follows is a relentless and depressing tale of regret and loss.
The cast in this film are great, Thomas Jane does a great job in the lead role of a man willing to go to any morbid lengths, in order to retain what he believes belongs to him. Molly Parker and Dylan Schmid also do well in their roles as Arlette and Henry, respectively. The supporting cast is also solid. The other stand out thing in the movie for me was the set design. I found the farmhouses and barns to be extremely believable and the sets really added to the overall tone that the movie was going for and sold the era effectively as well.
My main complaint of the movie is the lack of any significant scares. The movie sets up a fairly creepy atmosphere at times, but never capitalizes on it. A Stephen King ghost story released the week before Halloween should be way scarier than this. I thought I was getting a truly chilling movie to sink my teeth into and instead I got a movie showing a desperate man’s fractured psyche and the guilt he has to deal with in the aftermath of a despicable deed, which is an interesting idea, it’s just not what I wanted out of this movie.
Overall this is a well made movie and for what it is it’s great, it just didn’t meet the expectations that I had for it and maybe that’s my own fault more than the movie’s. As with any Stephen King story, it makes for an interesting adaption and takes you on a dark journey and leaves you wondering about you own moral decisions in life. The film is no doubt successful in what it sets out to do; I just wish that it had scared me a bit more.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Sons of Anarchy - Season 1 in TV
Jul 21, 2017
The Sins of The Father Are Visited On The Sons…
When this show initially premiered I dismissed it entirely. I instantly assumed that it was just some manly, cheesy rubbish that wasn’t worth my time. How small minded of me. It was only after the caretaker in my work recommended that I give it a go that I went back to it. For the first few episodes, it seemed as though I was right. A bunch of leather clad manly bikers shooting up rival gangs and blowing stuff up, but stick with this show and you will see just how deep the rabbit hole really goes. The writing here is phenomenal, the show was created and co-written by Kurt Sutter, who also plays Otto in the show. He is clearly a literary genius, as he also penned The Shield, as well as the recent, brilliantly written Jake Gyllenhall boxing movie, Southpaw. The show follows a gang of bikers called SAMCRO, (the Sons of Anarchy Motorcycle Club Redwood Original,) loosely based on the real life biker gang, The Hell’s Angels, (a few of which’s members actually have cameo roles in the show,) our protagonist is a young man named Jackson Teller, he is the son of John Teller, the original founder of the biker gang. Soon after Jax was born, his father was killed in a traffic collision, although it is suspected that there is more to his death than just that. Since then his mother Gemma has remarried to the current President of the gang, a man called Clay Morrow, who was also John Teller’s best friend and who co-founded the gang along with JT. When the show begins Jax is Clay’s Vice president, or VP and when Clay begins to lead the club on what Jax sees as a more violent, destructive path, he opposes him and he seeks a way to maintain the club, without having to kill anyone or take part in any shady business. Clay sees Jax as an idealist and tells him so, but Jax is persistent in his ideals, as he believes that this is the way that his Father would have wanted the club to be ran. The supporting cast of characters also add a lot to the overarching plot and each have their own respective back stories. There is Tara, Jax’s ex girlfriend, whom he falls back in love with, Gemma, who is Jax’s mother and the matriarch of the club, then there is Tig, Clay’s triggerman initially, but as the show goes on we see that he has a softer side, then there is Opie, Jax’s best friend from a young age who initially wants to leave the biker life behind, but after certain events in the first season of the show unfold, circumstances force him to stay by Jax’s side. There is also Chibs, the Scotsman who doesn’t mess about when it comes to dealing with a problem, there is also Happy, an emotional psychopath who is also played brilliantly by a real life ex Hell’s Angel member. Then there is Juice, a young Latino man who struggles with his personal demons throughout the show and lastly there is Bobby Elvis, another older member of the group who may be a big softie on the cover, but can also handle himself if anyone tries to cross him. From after the first season, the plot begins to twist and turn as we witness several double crosses and multiple agendas come into play and one of my favourite things about this show is that even though Jax is clearly the protagonist, he isn’t always the good guy and he makes some questionable decisions when he is put under pressure. I don’t want to say much else as I’m worried that I will spoil the show, but it definitely is worth your time and I would definitely recommend this show to anyone who is interested in a good crime saga.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Non-Stop (2014) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
Bill Marks (Liam Neeson) is a man with demons. After his daughter fell seriously ill, the former New York police officer began a long descent into alcoholism and emotional distress. His fall was so great; Bill ended up losing his job and fortunately was able to find work as an Air Marshall providing in flight security for commercial routes.
In the new film Non-Stop, Bill is about to take a trans-Atlantic flight to London, and despite his dislike of flying and desire not to have a three day layover in London, reports for duty.
To say Bill is on edge would be an understatement as not only does he top off his coffee with a shot of spirits, he disables the airline smoke alarms so he can sneak a smoke to help calm himself and gather his thoughts.
Despite his issues, Bill is committed to his job and reports for duty and finds himself seated next to a charismatic lady named Jen (Julianne Moore), after she swaps seats with a passenger. Jen is a frequent traveler and noting that Bill seems on edge during takeoff, does her best to help calm him which Bill says will happen once they are airborne as he dislikes take offs.
True to his word, Bill is alert and ready to do his job once the plane is leveled off and en route to London. When a mysterious text arrives telling Bill that unless he deposits 150 million into an account, a passenger will be killed every twenty minutes, Bill swings into action and is determined to get to the bottom of the threat.
The flight crew is eager to put it off as a hoax as they state that a person cannot kill people on a crowded flight without being seen and it is likely just an elaborate hoax. Not convinced, Bill begins to investigate and asks for the passenger manifest to be rechecked and wants the account number he was given traced.
With the first deadline approaching Bill believes he has eliminated the threat when he uncovers a traitor in the midst in the guise of a fellow Air Marshall.
However text messages continue to arrive with instructions and Bill learns from his superiors that the account number given is in Bill’s name. Convinced that there is a viable threat Bill must fight to save the day when the crew, his bosses, and passengers believe he is deranged and actually hijacking the plane himself via an elaborate ruse.
While the film at times stretches credibility, it is for the most part a very tight and suspenseful and enjoyable film. My only issues were the final act at times seemed a bit to Hollywood and conventional for me but thanks to Neeson the film works.
The premise was engaging as was the cast and I was kept guessing as to the true nature of the threat as the film was good at casting suspicions then redirecting them throughout.
Like with the “Taken” films, Neeson is able to take a film that could be a mess in the hands of another actor but through his charisma and strong presence is able to give a character that although flawed is one that an audience can support.
French director Jaume Collet-Serra knows suspense from his part work with films such as “Orphan” and “Mindscape” and he wisely lets the film be a character driven story with action rather than an action film that happens to have characters.
As I said earlier, the final act was what kept the film from being a classic for me, but as it is, there is still plenty of good stuff to make this a film worth catching.
http://sknr.net/2014/02/28/non-stop/
In the new film Non-Stop, Bill is about to take a trans-Atlantic flight to London, and despite his dislike of flying and desire not to have a three day layover in London, reports for duty.
To say Bill is on edge would be an understatement as not only does he top off his coffee with a shot of spirits, he disables the airline smoke alarms so he can sneak a smoke to help calm himself and gather his thoughts.
Despite his issues, Bill is committed to his job and reports for duty and finds himself seated next to a charismatic lady named Jen (Julianne Moore), after she swaps seats with a passenger. Jen is a frequent traveler and noting that Bill seems on edge during takeoff, does her best to help calm him which Bill says will happen once they are airborne as he dislikes take offs.
True to his word, Bill is alert and ready to do his job once the plane is leveled off and en route to London. When a mysterious text arrives telling Bill that unless he deposits 150 million into an account, a passenger will be killed every twenty minutes, Bill swings into action and is determined to get to the bottom of the threat.
The flight crew is eager to put it off as a hoax as they state that a person cannot kill people on a crowded flight without being seen and it is likely just an elaborate hoax. Not convinced, Bill begins to investigate and asks for the passenger manifest to be rechecked and wants the account number he was given traced.
With the first deadline approaching Bill believes he has eliminated the threat when he uncovers a traitor in the midst in the guise of a fellow Air Marshall.
However text messages continue to arrive with instructions and Bill learns from his superiors that the account number given is in Bill’s name. Convinced that there is a viable threat Bill must fight to save the day when the crew, his bosses, and passengers believe he is deranged and actually hijacking the plane himself via an elaborate ruse.
While the film at times stretches credibility, it is for the most part a very tight and suspenseful and enjoyable film. My only issues were the final act at times seemed a bit to Hollywood and conventional for me but thanks to Neeson the film works.
The premise was engaging as was the cast and I was kept guessing as to the true nature of the threat as the film was good at casting suspicions then redirecting them throughout.
Like with the “Taken” films, Neeson is able to take a film that could be a mess in the hands of another actor but through his charisma and strong presence is able to give a character that although flawed is one that an audience can support.
French director Jaume Collet-Serra knows suspense from his part work with films such as “Orphan” and “Mindscape” and he wisely lets the film be a character driven story with action rather than an action film that happens to have characters.
As I said earlier, the final act was what kept the film from being a classic for me, but as it is, there is still plenty of good stuff to make this a film worth catching.
http://sknr.net/2014/02/28/non-stop/
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Rocketman (2019) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
A dazzling, brutally honest biopic
Biopics are always challenging. Trying to condense the life of a public figure into a couple of hours is never easy, which is why it can go wrong. It must be even more intimidating when your subject is still alive, and in this case, Elton John is very much alive and kicking at the age of 72.
Rocketman was a project that was closely followed by a number of fans and media outlets, all of them keen to see how they brought his story to life on-screen. With Dexter Fletcher at the helm and a star-studded cast, the film certainly had potential. And boy did it deliver.
Something that took me by surprise was the fact the film was more of a musical, rather than a straight-up biopic. I must admit I’m not the biggest fan of musicals most of the time, but I was instantly charmed by the musical numbers in Rocketman. It felt appropriate to present someone so passionate about music in this way. The film is choreographed to perfection, with the key moments in Elton’s life brought to life through song and dance.
In the leading role, Taron Egerton absolutely shone as Elton. The fact he actually sang so many of his iconic songs, and did them well, is something that should be celebrated for years to come. But even beyond the music, the way he showcased Elton’s pain throughout his years brought me to tears several times, and I’d be as bold to say his performance was award worthy. I couldn’t take my eyes off him.
It was also refreshing to see the brutal honesty in the film. Elton John himself said he ‘hadn’t lived a PG-13 life’, so the inclusion of sex, drugs and depression was absolutely necessary. Elton suffered from a lot of addictions, which are unapologetically presented on screen. There were so many tragedies I was not aware of, and it was so awful to see how he’d been treated by those close to him.
His parents in particular, Sheila (Bryce Dallas Howard) and Stanley (Steven Mackintosh), weren’t accepting of him and created a toxic home environment for Elton. I wasn’t aware of these strained relationships so it was interesting to observe, and the performances felt incredibly raw and devastating.
Naturally, the film also explored Elton’s first relationship with music manager John Reid (Richard Madden). This was heartbreaking to witness, as there was a lot of abuse and manipulation from Reid throughout their relationship. I thought Madden was exceptional in this role; villainous yet charismatic, and he delivered some truly cutting lines that, again, made me cry.
The one constant good relationship in Elton’s life was, and still is, Bernie Taupin (Jamie Bell). The two worked closely over the years to write the lyrics we know and love, and have endured lots together. As a key figure in his life, it was essential he was played well, and I couldn’t be happier with Bell’s performance. The energy between him and Egerton was a powerful thing.
These great performances are set against a beautiful backdrop of glitz and glamour, with some seriously impressive live shows where Egerton gets the opportunity to really shine. The gorgeous set design, costume design and cinematography only broke my heart further, when it became apparent a lot of it was a lie, and deep down Elton was battling with many demons. Fame does not always equal happiness, and this film is the epitome of that message.
Whilst it’s not an easy film to watch at times, it’s a beautiful celebration of Elton’s life that I can’t wait to experience again. He has came such a long way, and the film does everything in its power to show both the lows and highs, and remind fans where he came from. My advice would be to bring tissues, you’re going to need them.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2019/05/27/rocketman-dazzling-brutally-honest-biopic/
Rocketman was a project that was closely followed by a number of fans and media outlets, all of them keen to see how they brought his story to life on-screen. With Dexter Fletcher at the helm and a star-studded cast, the film certainly had potential. And boy did it deliver.
Something that took me by surprise was the fact the film was more of a musical, rather than a straight-up biopic. I must admit I’m not the biggest fan of musicals most of the time, but I was instantly charmed by the musical numbers in Rocketman. It felt appropriate to present someone so passionate about music in this way. The film is choreographed to perfection, with the key moments in Elton’s life brought to life through song and dance.
In the leading role, Taron Egerton absolutely shone as Elton. The fact he actually sang so many of his iconic songs, and did them well, is something that should be celebrated for years to come. But even beyond the music, the way he showcased Elton’s pain throughout his years brought me to tears several times, and I’d be as bold to say his performance was award worthy. I couldn’t take my eyes off him.
It was also refreshing to see the brutal honesty in the film. Elton John himself said he ‘hadn’t lived a PG-13 life’, so the inclusion of sex, drugs and depression was absolutely necessary. Elton suffered from a lot of addictions, which are unapologetically presented on screen. There were so many tragedies I was not aware of, and it was so awful to see how he’d been treated by those close to him.
His parents in particular, Sheila (Bryce Dallas Howard) and Stanley (Steven Mackintosh), weren’t accepting of him and created a toxic home environment for Elton. I wasn’t aware of these strained relationships so it was interesting to observe, and the performances felt incredibly raw and devastating.
Naturally, the film also explored Elton’s first relationship with music manager John Reid (Richard Madden). This was heartbreaking to witness, as there was a lot of abuse and manipulation from Reid throughout their relationship. I thought Madden was exceptional in this role; villainous yet charismatic, and he delivered some truly cutting lines that, again, made me cry.
The one constant good relationship in Elton’s life was, and still is, Bernie Taupin (Jamie Bell). The two worked closely over the years to write the lyrics we know and love, and have endured lots together. As a key figure in his life, it was essential he was played well, and I couldn’t be happier with Bell’s performance. The energy between him and Egerton was a powerful thing.
These great performances are set against a beautiful backdrop of glitz and glamour, with some seriously impressive live shows where Egerton gets the opportunity to really shine. The gorgeous set design, costume design and cinematography only broke my heart further, when it became apparent a lot of it was a lie, and deep down Elton was battling with many demons. Fame does not always equal happiness, and this film is the epitome of that message.
Whilst it’s not an easy film to watch at times, it’s a beautiful celebration of Elton’s life that I can’t wait to experience again. He has came such a long way, and the film does everything in its power to show both the lows and highs, and remind fans where he came from. My advice would be to bring tissues, you’re going to need them.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2019/05/27/rocketman-dazzling-brutally-honest-biopic/
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Constantine (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
The battle between Heaven and Hell has been chronicled numerous times on film. Ranging from the “Omen” and “Exorcist” series to the recent “Hellboy” and “End of Days”, Hollywood has never shied away from the struggle between good and evil and audiences have usually responded by attending in droves.
The latest entry into the genre is Constantine, which chronicles the exploits of supernatural detective John Constantine (Keanu Reeves), who is tasked to walk the line between good and evil to make sure that balance is maintained. John is a very troubled individual and his transactions with angels and demons have warped his views on life, humanity, and the afterlife.
Due to things in his past, John is trying to right his wrongs so he can gain a place in heaven, toward that end, the forces of Hell are trying there best to ensure that John is unable to gain redemption so they will be able to collect his soul, and repay him for all of their minions that he has vanquished over the years.
As if this was not bad enough, the rules between Heaven and Hell seem to be blurring as there is a growing demon presence on Earth which does not bode well for the future of humanity. It is learned that there is an agreement in place that there can be no direct contact, only influence to humans giving them the freedom to pick between good and evil and thus the fate of ones soul.
When a local detective named Angela (Rachael Weisz), contacts John, she is desperate to learn the truth behind her twin sister’s apparent suicide. Although skeptical at first, John soon learns that he and Angela have become players in a much larger game with the very fate of humanity dependant upon their actions.
Before long, John and Angela are facing off against legions of Hell’s minions as they attempt to save the soul of Angela’s sister and save humanity.
The film will be different things to many viewers as on one hand; some many take exception to the story and the bland tone and mannerisms of Reeves, as well as some of the films theological stances.
That being said, the film works, the action is good without being in your face as the computer generated effects enhance the film, complimenting the story and actors rather than upstaging them. The film has a murky look to it which sets the tone perfectly as this is not a happy movie filled with lovable people, instead it is a tail of people trying to do what is right and staying true to their beliefs though surrounded by temptations and numerous chances to stray.
Reeves plays Constantine as a man who is dedicated to what he does, but also shows us that he is unhappy with his life and past choices as they have forever haunted him. John is forced to do things he would rather not do as it is the only chance he has left at redemption and this has seen him deteriorate as he feels he is a tool that is being used with no end in sight.
Weisz does a good job with a very limited role as she is able to keep up with the action without falling prey to the damsel in distress mode that haunted her character in the “Mummy Films”. Singer Gavin Rossdale does a good job as the smarmy demon Balthazar who is a constant bane to John.
Despite the occasional hiccups with the plot and Reeves inability to show range or expressions, for the most part Constantine works and looks to be a good starting point for what is likely to be a franchise series for Warner Bros.
The latest entry into the genre is Constantine, which chronicles the exploits of supernatural detective John Constantine (Keanu Reeves), who is tasked to walk the line between good and evil to make sure that balance is maintained. John is a very troubled individual and his transactions with angels and demons have warped his views on life, humanity, and the afterlife.
Due to things in his past, John is trying to right his wrongs so he can gain a place in heaven, toward that end, the forces of Hell are trying there best to ensure that John is unable to gain redemption so they will be able to collect his soul, and repay him for all of their minions that he has vanquished over the years.
As if this was not bad enough, the rules between Heaven and Hell seem to be blurring as there is a growing demon presence on Earth which does not bode well for the future of humanity. It is learned that there is an agreement in place that there can be no direct contact, only influence to humans giving them the freedom to pick between good and evil and thus the fate of ones soul.
When a local detective named Angela (Rachael Weisz), contacts John, she is desperate to learn the truth behind her twin sister’s apparent suicide. Although skeptical at first, John soon learns that he and Angela have become players in a much larger game with the very fate of humanity dependant upon their actions.
Before long, John and Angela are facing off against legions of Hell’s minions as they attempt to save the soul of Angela’s sister and save humanity.
The film will be different things to many viewers as on one hand; some many take exception to the story and the bland tone and mannerisms of Reeves, as well as some of the films theological stances.
That being said, the film works, the action is good without being in your face as the computer generated effects enhance the film, complimenting the story and actors rather than upstaging them. The film has a murky look to it which sets the tone perfectly as this is not a happy movie filled with lovable people, instead it is a tail of people trying to do what is right and staying true to their beliefs though surrounded by temptations and numerous chances to stray.
Reeves plays Constantine as a man who is dedicated to what he does, but also shows us that he is unhappy with his life and past choices as they have forever haunted him. John is forced to do things he would rather not do as it is the only chance he has left at redemption and this has seen him deteriorate as he feels he is a tool that is being used with no end in sight.
Weisz does a good job with a very limited role as she is able to keep up with the action without falling prey to the damsel in distress mode that haunted her character in the “Mummy Films”. Singer Gavin Rossdale does a good job as the smarmy demon Balthazar who is a constant bane to John.
Despite the occasional hiccups with the plot and Reeves inability to show range or expressions, for the most part Constantine works and looks to be a good starting point for what is likely to be a franchise series for Warner Bros.
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated Shazam! (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019
"i'd like to purchase some of your finest beer please"
Shout "Shazam!" into the sky and you're struck by a bolt of lightning from the heavens; blessed with the wisdom of Solomon, the strength of Hercules, the stamina of Atlas, the power of Zeus, the courage of Achilles and the speed of Mercury. Instantly elevated from whatever you were into your peak self; reborn with a crack of thunder, a flash of light and a cloud of smoke. It's a wonderfully novel and simple idea for a comic book character. Something that allows for a spectacular hero moment right before each conflict or feat; an epic bit of imagery to light up the night sky and electrify the frame. This transformation also perfectly captures the spirit of both this film and it's hero; a belief in the idea that even the most forgotten, marginalized and seemingly powerless person can change the world.
Shazam! distinguishes itself as DC's first true crack at a comedy; also it's lightest and most modest effort yet. There's a really nice commitment to the lofty, somewhat ridiculously mythological source material here. There's little liberty taken with Shazam's campy world of wizards, demons and magic; the attitude towards these elements can best be described as self-aware without being self-conscious. The jokes almost all land and there's charm oozing out of every frame. Loads of heart, tons of humor and a true fidelity to childhood joy make this such a uniquely enjoyable flick; and an impressively confident approach to a hero that soars due to it's big personality and earnest attitude.
Our hero's journey here boils down to a kid learning to care about a world that has never bothered to care about him. Abandoned as a child and shuttled through the foster system; the explanation and depiction of Billy Batson's unenviable situation is irreverent and laced with sarcasm, true to how teens often confront traumas that imply vulnerability. The film allows these kids to be kids; meaning they're impulsive and ill-equipped for the situation they're in; and often crude and frustratingly ignorant to a seemingly obvious truth. The premise lends itself to a close look at responsibility and purpose; basically a feature length look at a lost kid reclaiming his identity and finding a family. The point at which Billy truly becomes a hero with something to fight for is powerful; a simple but big-hearted affirmation of the importance of connection and love, especially to a kid who's never allowed himself to know either.
Superhero stories can impart lessons in a variety of ways. Both on the page and on the screen; there's a wide array of films that all excel in their own specific way; shaping themselves in the image of their hero, and what he/she means to readers around the world. Shazam! distinguishes itself spectacularly as a film about what constitutes a family, and how that family reflects who we are. There's a powerful yearning in Billy for a connection; someone or something to fight for. A desperate desire for love and support; to feel like a part of something in some way. There's a meaningful, deeply human core to that concept; something universal and immediately affecting. Shazam! understands this from the start; setting aside the punchsplosians and skybeams for a moment, to remind us that sometimes a kid looking for his mom can be as compelling than the threat of planetary destruction. So bring on Joker, Birds of Prey, Wonder Woman 1984 and whatever else DC has in it's chaotic, ever-changing slate of planned superhero flicks; they're on a roll right now.
Shazam! distinguishes itself as DC's first true crack at a comedy; also it's lightest and most modest effort yet. There's a really nice commitment to the lofty, somewhat ridiculously mythological source material here. There's little liberty taken with Shazam's campy world of wizards, demons and magic; the attitude towards these elements can best be described as self-aware without being self-conscious. The jokes almost all land and there's charm oozing out of every frame. Loads of heart, tons of humor and a true fidelity to childhood joy make this such a uniquely enjoyable flick; and an impressively confident approach to a hero that soars due to it's big personality and earnest attitude.
Our hero's journey here boils down to a kid learning to care about a world that has never bothered to care about him. Abandoned as a child and shuttled through the foster system; the explanation and depiction of Billy Batson's unenviable situation is irreverent and laced with sarcasm, true to how teens often confront traumas that imply vulnerability. The film allows these kids to be kids; meaning they're impulsive and ill-equipped for the situation they're in; and often crude and frustratingly ignorant to a seemingly obvious truth. The premise lends itself to a close look at responsibility and purpose; basically a feature length look at a lost kid reclaiming his identity and finding a family. The point at which Billy truly becomes a hero with something to fight for is powerful; a simple but big-hearted affirmation of the importance of connection and love, especially to a kid who's never allowed himself to know either.
Superhero stories can impart lessons in a variety of ways. Both on the page and on the screen; there's a wide array of films that all excel in their own specific way; shaping themselves in the image of their hero, and what he/she means to readers around the world. Shazam! distinguishes itself spectacularly as a film about what constitutes a family, and how that family reflects who we are. There's a powerful yearning in Billy for a connection; someone or something to fight for. A desperate desire for love and support; to feel like a part of something in some way. There's a meaningful, deeply human core to that concept; something universal and immediately affecting. Shazam! understands this from the start; setting aside the punchsplosians and skybeams for a moment, to remind us that sometimes a kid looking for his mom can be as compelling than the threat of planetary destruction. So bring on Joker, Birds of Prey, Wonder Woman 1984 and whatever else DC has in it's chaotic, ever-changing slate of planned superhero flicks; they're on a roll right now.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Inferno (2016) in Movies
Jul 15, 2019
Inferno is the latest thriller based on the novels of Dan Brown that follow the fictional character of Robert Langdon who is a world renowned symbologist (study of symbols). Like The DaVinci Code and Angels & Demons before them, Inferno follows mostly the same story arch and structure.
Tom Hanks has reprised his role as Robert Langdon (this time with an appropriate haircut) and once again he travels around to beautiful locations of European art and architecture with a young woman by his side, trying to solve a series of clues in order to stop a billionaire madman who believes humanity is a parasite and his plague inferno is the cure. If this sounds like a film you have seen before, it is because you have. In the other two movies that have come before it
Once again, audiences will enjoy being whisked around to see beautiful cities, art, and architecture to solve historical literary clues as the film plays out like a late middle ages travel lesson. These are all good things.
The bad is that during the first half of the film, Robert Langdon has amnesia due to a blow to the head. He cannot remember much which of what he was doing, which makes him a less compelling character. Throughout the series of films, Langdon has used his “dizzying intellect” to solve clues the brightest minds could not solve. In Inferno, that “super power” is taken away and we are left with an average, middle aged man, who is somehow able to solve impossible puzzles and clues while being chased by seedy underground characters and the world health organization. Who for the purposes of this film, seem to have become the FBI/CIA in one. This setup does not work and makes for a boring first half of the film Eventually Langdon regains his memory and the film picks up a bit from there, but for some it might be too late.
As far as the performances go, Tom Hanks delivers a watchable, likable performance, much to his credit considering that the character of Robert Langdon is a relatively boring protagonist. Meanwhile Ben Foster plays the somewhat forgettable billionaire madman (Bertrand Zobrist) in a somewhat forgettable way. It is a shame because perhaps if we had a chance to understand the nuance of his character, like I assume can be done in the books, he would have felt like a more compelling character and caused us to think if he was to be on the right side of history. Unfortunately, any nuance from the book does not translate well to the film adaptation. But not all is lost. For me, the bright spot of the film was Felicity Jones who plays the gifted doctor Sienna Brooks. Brooks, who in helping Langdon with his injury, gets swept up into game for the fate of the world. In her performance, Felicity Jones shows a transition of her emotional resonance throughout the film as her character develops and we get to understand her more, for better or worse. I am excited to see Jones continue to grow in her career and look forward to seeing her this holiday’s Star Wars Story: Rouge One. She has the ability to carry a film, let’s hope she is given the opportunity to do so.
In the end, Inferno is not a terrible film, but it is not very memorable either. Unlike the two films before it, Robert Langdon is handcuffed by an injury that doesn’t allow him to use his intellect that made him compelling before Couple that with what seems like an inspector gadget plot, where the bad guy leave a series of clues to foil his own master plan, and you end up with a “Meh” film.
Tom Hanks has reprised his role as Robert Langdon (this time with an appropriate haircut) and once again he travels around to beautiful locations of European art and architecture with a young woman by his side, trying to solve a series of clues in order to stop a billionaire madman who believes humanity is a parasite and his plague inferno is the cure. If this sounds like a film you have seen before, it is because you have. In the other two movies that have come before it
Once again, audiences will enjoy being whisked around to see beautiful cities, art, and architecture to solve historical literary clues as the film plays out like a late middle ages travel lesson. These are all good things.
The bad is that during the first half of the film, Robert Langdon has amnesia due to a blow to the head. He cannot remember much which of what he was doing, which makes him a less compelling character. Throughout the series of films, Langdon has used his “dizzying intellect” to solve clues the brightest minds could not solve. In Inferno, that “super power” is taken away and we are left with an average, middle aged man, who is somehow able to solve impossible puzzles and clues while being chased by seedy underground characters and the world health organization. Who for the purposes of this film, seem to have become the FBI/CIA in one. This setup does not work and makes for a boring first half of the film Eventually Langdon regains his memory and the film picks up a bit from there, but for some it might be too late.
As far as the performances go, Tom Hanks delivers a watchable, likable performance, much to his credit considering that the character of Robert Langdon is a relatively boring protagonist. Meanwhile Ben Foster plays the somewhat forgettable billionaire madman (Bertrand Zobrist) in a somewhat forgettable way. It is a shame because perhaps if we had a chance to understand the nuance of his character, like I assume can be done in the books, he would have felt like a more compelling character and caused us to think if he was to be on the right side of history. Unfortunately, any nuance from the book does not translate well to the film adaptation. But not all is lost. For me, the bright spot of the film was Felicity Jones who plays the gifted doctor Sienna Brooks. Brooks, who in helping Langdon with his injury, gets swept up into game for the fate of the world. In her performance, Felicity Jones shows a transition of her emotional resonance throughout the film as her character develops and we get to understand her more, for better or worse. I am excited to see Jones continue to grow in her career and look forward to seeing her this holiday’s Star Wars Story: Rouge One. She has the ability to carry a film, let’s hope she is given the opportunity to do so.
In the end, Inferno is not a terrible film, but it is not very memorable either. Unlike the two films before it, Robert Langdon is handcuffed by an injury that doesn’t allow him to use his intellect that made him compelling before Couple that with what seems like an inspector gadget plot, where the bad guy leave a series of clues to foil his own master plan, and you end up with a “Meh” film.
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated Whickering Place (Legacy of Darkness #2) in Books
Nov 22, 2019
I've been a fan of London Clarke since I read her debut novel Wildfell. I was thrilled when Whickering Place, the second novel in the Legacy of Darkness series, came out. I really enjoyed the first book in the series The Meadows. I must say that Whickering Place really blew me away!
If you're a fan of vampires, ghosts, and a touch of romance, you will love Whickering Place. I'm not going to rehash the synopsis since you will have probably read it yourself, and the synopsis does such a great job at describing this book. Even though I'm not a fan of the whole vampire movement in media, I really did enjoy Whickering Place. The plot was done brilliantly. I very much enjoyed the world building. In fact, I couldn't find one fault with the world building. Clarke does a fantastic job at making sure you're left feeling like you are a bystander amidst all the action. While there is a cliffhanger at the end of Whickering Place, this was done intentionally and will hopefully all will be revealed in the next book in the series.
The pacing was slow for about the first quarter or so of the book as the backstory and plot were being set up. I will admit that I did think about just giving up on Whickering Place, but I'm glad I kept reading because wow, the pacing definitely picked up after that! Once it picked up, there was no going back. I devoured each page. The suspense kept me on my toes! I was heavily invested in the story and all of the characters in Whickering Place.
Each and every character no matter how minor or major was written fantastically! Each character had their own personality, and it felt as if I was reading about a real flesh and blood person instead of just a character in a book. Avery was a great character. I could sort of relate to her agoraphobia. I used to be almost as bad as her. I felt bad for her, and I was always hoping she would get better so she could have more of a life. I kept thinking that Avery and myself could become great friends if she was real. It was almost as if every decision she made was one that I would have made. Pearse was definitely an interesting character. I did feel bad for him when it came to The Colony. I was always hoping he'd be able to get away from them. He seemed like he had a good heart. I also felt bad for Colin when it came to Avery. It was very obvious that he cared deeply for her. Colin definitely came across as a stand up sort of guy! I didn't really care for Maris, not because she was written poorly. She was actually written quite well! She just reminded me of those pretty mean girls I knew back when I was in school. I didn't know what to think of Cassie. I liked Cassie, and I loved her personality and how willing she was to help out, but I was never sure if I could trust her 100 percent.
Trigger warnings for Whickering Place include profanity (there's not a lot though), sexual situations (although these aren't graphic, and there aren't many sexual scenes), murder, attempted murder, alcohol, dealings with the occult, demons, and violence.
Overall, Whickering Place is a thrilling read which such a fantastic set of characters and an intense plot! This is one of those books that even though it starts out slow, it does a fantastic job at pulling you right into its pages and doesn't let you go! I would definitely recommend Whickering Place by London Clarke to everyone aged 17+ who loves getting lost in a good thriller.
If you're a fan of vampires, ghosts, and a touch of romance, you will love Whickering Place. I'm not going to rehash the synopsis since you will have probably read it yourself, and the synopsis does such a great job at describing this book. Even though I'm not a fan of the whole vampire movement in media, I really did enjoy Whickering Place. The plot was done brilliantly. I very much enjoyed the world building. In fact, I couldn't find one fault with the world building. Clarke does a fantastic job at making sure you're left feeling like you are a bystander amidst all the action. While there is a cliffhanger at the end of Whickering Place, this was done intentionally and will hopefully all will be revealed in the next book in the series.
The pacing was slow for about the first quarter or so of the book as the backstory and plot were being set up. I will admit that I did think about just giving up on Whickering Place, but I'm glad I kept reading because wow, the pacing definitely picked up after that! Once it picked up, there was no going back. I devoured each page. The suspense kept me on my toes! I was heavily invested in the story and all of the characters in Whickering Place.
Each and every character no matter how minor or major was written fantastically! Each character had their own personality, and it felt as if I was reading about a real flesh and blood person instead of just a character in a book. Avery was a great character. I could sort of relate to her agoraphobia. I used to be almost as bad as her. I felt bad for her, and I was always hoping she would get better so she could have more of a life. I kept thinking that Avery and myself could become great friends if she was real. It was almost as if every decision she made was one that I would have made. Pearse was definitely an interesting character. I did feel bad for him when it came to The Colony. I was always hoping he'd be able to get away from them. He seemed like he had a good heart. I also felt bad for Colin when it came to Avery. It was very obvious that he cared deeply for her. Colin definitely came across as a stand up sort of guy! I didn't really care for Maris, not because she was written poorly. She was actually written quite well! She just reminded me of those pretty mean girls I knew back when I was in school. I didn't know what to think of Cassie. I liked Cassie, and I loved her personality and how willing she was to help out, but I was never sure if I could trust her 100 percent.
Trigger warnings for Whickering Place include profanity (there's not a lot though), sexual situations (although these aren't graphic, and there aren't many sexual scenes), murder, attempted murder, alcohol, dealings with the occult, demons, and violence.
Overall, Whickering Place is a thrilling read which such a fantastic set of characters and an intense plot! This is one of those books that even though it starts out slow, it does a fantastic job at pulling you right into its pages and doesn't let you go! I would definitely recommend Whickering Place by London Clarke to everyone aged 17+ who loves getting lost in a good thriller.