Search
Search results
Hadley (567 KP) rated The Amazing Crime and Trial of Leopold and Loeb in Books
Apr 13, 2019
"The crime itself was indefensible. The brilliant, spoiled and bored sons of two of Chicago's wealthiest families planned to commit the perfect crime both for the thrill of and to prove their perverse misunderstanding of Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophy of the 'superman,' who was above all law so long as he made no mistake. Their plan, worked out over several months, was to kidnap and immediately kill one of their younger neighbors and hide his body. They would then demand and collect a ransom. The body would never be discovered, the crime would never be solved and only they would know that they had prevailed over ordinary human beings and their simple-minded legal system. But far from being the 'perfect crime,' the murder of 14-year-old Bobby Franks turned out to be amateurishly botched. Before any ransom could be paid, the boy's body was discovered in a culvert near where Nathan Leopold often went bird-watching. A pair of telltale glasses were found adjacent to the body. They were easily traced to Leopold who first came up with a paper-thin alibi and soon thereafter confessed to the crime. His fellow murderer likewise confessed. Each of the 'superboys' placed blame for the actual killing on the other." - Alan M. Dershowitz
If you mentioned the names Leopold and Loeb today, many people wouldn't know who you were talking about, but if you had mentioned them just thirty years ago, many people would recall the 'murder of the century.'
If you are a fan of the True Crime genre, you'll come across the case of two wealthy Chicago boys who thought they could get away with murder. (The trial is probably the most talked about trial to-date because this is the first time that psychology was brought before a court room.)
For a good part of the late 1920's, Leopold and Loeb were household names for good reason: they came from millionaire families, they were college graduates before they were 18-years-old, and their trial was the first time in history that the world saw psychology put in front of a judge. The trial was even more unforgettable due to a closing speech given by famous defense attorney, Clarence Darrow, which is reprinted in its entirety,spanning a hefty 93 pages.
Nathan Leopold, Jr. and Richard Loeb were two people who should have never met, according to the courtroom. The two met at about the age of fifteen, soon after they began to embark on criminal acts together, ranging from theft to arson. It's stated in 'the Amazing Crime and Trial of Leopold and Loeb' that Loeb had created a fantasy world where he was a crime ringleader that was too smart for the police to catch. Readers get to judge for themselves whether or not they believe Loeb was the cause of their crimes, or if Leopold was the one really in charge.
After robbing Loeb's fraternity house together, Leopold and Loeb came up with a plan to kidnap a wealthy child that they could then ransom. "They began to devise elaborate plans for this kidnapping, and soon the planning became the all-important thing. They gave up the idea of kidnapping this particular person [a young man named William], and settled on the idea of kidnapping anyone who would fit in their kidnapping plans." Throughout the book, we find out that the boys were pretty desperate for a kidnapping victim, that they even thought about kidnapping one of their close friends:
"The plan of kidnaping Dick Rubel was given up because Dick Rubel's father was so tight we might not get any money from him."
Leopold and Loeb discussed everything from how they would receive the ransom, what weapons they would use, how they would get the victim inside a rented vehicle, and what they would do with the body afterwards. "In March, 1924, the patient [Loeb] conceived the idea of securing the money by having it thrown off a moving train. This idea was discussed in great detail, and gradually developed into a carefully systematized plan. As time wore on the plan became greatly modified from the original one. They discussed at considerable length the choice of a suitable subject for kidnapping. The patient's companion [Leopold] suggested that they kidnap a young girl instead of a boy, but the patient [Loeb] objected to this. His companion [Leopold] also suggested that they kidnap the patient's [Loeb] younger brother, but the patient apparently did not seriously consider doing this. They then considered half a dozen boys, any one of whom would do, for the following reasons: that they were physically small enough to be easily handled and their parents were extremely wealthy and would have no difficulty or disinclination to pay ransom money."
During the trial, Leopold and Loeb's psychological evaluations became the forefront of their guilty plea, stating that they were not responsible for their actions due to their upbringing and environment. "I submit the facts do not rest on the evidence of these boys alone. It is proven by the writings; it is proven by every act. It is proven by their companions, and there can by no question about it." Clarence Darrow explains in his famous closing statement. "We brought into this courtroom a number of their boy friends, whom they had known day by day, who had associated with them in the club house, were their constant companions, and they tell the same stories. They tell the story that neither of these two boys was responsible for his conduct."
'The Amazing Crime and Trial of Leopold and Loeb' contains the portions of the psychiatric evaluations that were submitted in court,but the testimony of character witnesses is omitted. For a factual telling of a real life trial, this book is okay. If the reader pays attention, they may notice that some of the book contradicts itself, such as one page states that the car robe used to wrap up Franks' body was found buried near Lake Michigan,but then pages later, the book states it had been burned at Loeb's home.
The psychiatric reports are very repetitive,just using different words to describe the same things. Yet, these reports are the backbone of the trial and well worth a read. The evaluations and Darrow's extensive speech were what saved Leopold and Loeb from a death sentence.
There are very few books written about the 'murder of the century,' and even less about the 'lawyer of the century.' Leopold and Loeb, as well as Darrow, have faded into the obscurity of the True Crime genre, but because the boys' mental state was brought into question, we now accept forensic science/psychology in the court room today. I feel that only people who are truly interested in True Crime, or even have a fascination for the court room are the only ones who will enjoy 'The Amazing Crime and Trial of Leopold and Loeb.'
If you mentioned the names Leopold and Loeb today, many people wouldn't know who you were talking about, but if you had mentioned them just thirty years ago, many people would recall the 'murder of the century.'
If you are a fan of the True Crime genre, you'll come across the case of two wealthy Chicago boys who thought they could get away with murder. (The trial is probably the most talked about trial to-date because this is the first time that psychology was brought before a court room.)
For a good part of the late 1920's, Leopold and Loeb were household names for good reason: they came from millionaire families, they were college graduates before they were 18-years-old, and their trial was the first time in history that the world saw psychology put in front of a judge. The trial was even more unforgettable due to a closing speech given by famous defense attorney, Clarence Darrow, which is reprinted in its entirety,spanning a hefty 93 pages.
Nathan Leopold, Jr. and Richard Loeb were two people who should have never met, according to the courtroom. The two met at about the age of fifteen, soon after they began to embark on criminal acts together, ranging from theft to arson. It's stated in 'the Amazing Crime and Trial of Leopold and Loeb' that Loeb had created a fantasy world where he was a crime ringleader that was too smart for the police to catch. Readers get to judge for themselves whether or not they believe Loeb was the cause of their crimes, or if Leopold was the one really in charge.
After robbing Loeb's fraternity house together, Leopold and Loeb came up with a plan to kidnap a wealthy child that they could then ransom. "They began to devise elaborate plans for this kidnapping, and soon the planning became the all-important thing. They gave up the idea of kidnapping this particular person [a young man named William], and settled on the idea of kidnapping anyone who would fit in their kidnapping plans." Throughout the book, we find out that the boys were pretty desperate for a kidnapping victim, that they even thought about kidnapping one of their close friends:
"The plan of kidnaping Dick Rubel was given up because Dick Rubel's father was so tight we might not get any money from him."
Leopold and Loeb discussed everything from how they would receive the ransom, what weapons they would use, how they would get the victim inside a rented vehicle, and what they would do with the body afterwards. "In March, 1924, the patient [Loeb] conceived the idea of securing the money by having it thrown off a moving train. This idea was discussed in great detail, and gradually developed into a carefully systematized plan. As time wore on the plan became greatly modified from the original one. They discussed at considerable length the choice of a suitable subject for kidnapping. The patient's companion [Leopold] suggested that they kidnap a young girl instead of a boy, but the patient [Loeb] objected to this. His companion [Leopold] also suggested that they kidnap the patient's [Loeb] younger brother, but the patient apparently did not seriously consider doing this. They then considered half a dozen boys, any one of whom would do, for the following reasons: that they were physically small enough to be easily handled and their parents were extremely wealthy and would have no difficulty or disinclination to pay ransom money."
During the trial, Leopold and Loeb's psychological evaluations became the forefront of their guilty plea, stating that they were not responsible for their actions due to their upbringing and environment. "I submit the facts do not rest on the evidence of these boys alone. It is proven by the writings; it is proven by every act. It is proven by their companions, and there can by no question about it." Clarence Darrow explains in his famous closing statement. "We brought into this courtroom a number of their boy friends, whom they had known day by day, who had associated with them in the club house, were their constant companions, and they tell the same stories. They tell the story that neither of these two boys was responsible for his conduct."
'The Amazing Crime and Trial of Leopold and Loeb' contains the portions of the psychiatric evaluations that were submitted in court,but the testimony of character witnesses is omitted. For a factual telling of a real life trial, this book is okay. If the reader pays attention, they may notice that some of the book contradicts itself, such as one page states that the car robe used to wrap up Franks' body was found buried near Lake Michigan,but then pages later, the book states it had been burned at Loeb's home.
The psychiatric reports are very repetitive,just using different words to describe the same things. Yet, these reports are the backbone of the trial and well worth a read. The evaluations and Darrow's extensive speech were what saved Leopold and Loeb from a death sentence.
There are very few books written about the 'murder of the century,' and even less about the 'lawyer of the century.' Leopold and Loeb, as well as Darrow, have faded into the obscurity of the True Crime genre, but because the boys' mental state was brought into question, we now accept forensic science/psychology in the court room today. I feel that only people who are truly interested in True Crime, or even have a fascination for the court room are the only ones who will enjoy 'The Amazing Crime and Trial of Leopold and Loeb.'
Lee (2222 KP) rated A Series of Unfortunate Events - Season 1 in TV
Jul 26, 2017
The latest adaptation of the thirteen books comprising ‘A Series of Unfortunate Events’ makes its way onto Netflix, the last being the 2004 film starring Jim Carrey. I haven’t read any of the books, or seen the movie. However my daughter has, and she loves them (the books, not so much the movie). So, we sat down together to watch season 1, which covers the first four books in the series, with two episodes devoted to each book.
The unfortunate events all involve three children – Violet, Klaus and Sunny Baudelaire, whose parents are killed in a fire at the beginning of the story. They inherit a vast fortune, which will not come into their possession until Violet comes of age, and are placed in the care of Count Olaf, supposedly their only living relative. Olaf is only concerned with getting his hands on the Baudelaire fortune though and the story covers his hilarious attempts to do so, quite often involving ridiculous disguises and usually involving further unfortunate unpleasantness for the children. The children initially escape Olaf, moving between a succession of guardians and locations for each book, only for him to catch up with them once more.
Quite simply, the show is excellent. I have to admit that the first episode took me a little while to settle into but from the opening credits, urging you to ‘look away’, through to the big budget Burtonesque sets and vibrant colours, the attention to detail is simply incredible. Partick Warburton is Lemony Snickett, our narrator, wryly and brilliantly interjecting at various points to explain details and guide us through the story. Neil Patrick Harris is Count Olaf, in full on pantomime villain mode, and I absolutely loved the humour he brought to every single scene he’s in, whether he’s as himself or disguised as a scientist/sailor/woman! My only gripe is that he’s never quite villainous or evil enough, more along the lines of a harmless Dick Dastardly as each desperately elaborate scheme is so easily foiled. He’s aided along the way by a group of oddball goons, who are all part of his theatre group – more creepy than scary – but it doesn’t detract from the shows overall enjoyment, and I guess this is a family show after all! There are also a few good cameos along the way – Don Johnson as owner of the Miserable Mill, and Rhys Darby as his downtrodden partner, for example. All of the supporting cast are all brilliant, however the main stars of the show are the children. Superb young actors, right down to little baby Sunny who cutely talks in baby speak (subtitled for us to understand!), gnawing her way through anything she can get her hands on and surviving all manner of unfortunate events the children find themselves in.
Things get a little formulaic after a while – the children settle in with a new guardian, Count Olaf appears in a new guise and with a new plot, the children foil his plan and move on again. However, things change slightly for the final few episodes and throughout the season we gradually discover a deep background of secrets and conspiracies, which I’m sure will help keep the story moving for the remainder of the seasons to come. And there are a few twists and turns along the way too. Overall I was hugely impressed with the show, as was my daughter. It appears to be a very faithful adaptation of what is a hugely popular series of books, and I’m very much looking forward to what’s to come next.
The unfortunate events all involve three children – Violet, Klaus and Sunny Baudelaire, whose parents are killed in a fire at the beginning of the story. They inherit a vast fortune, which will not come into their possession until Violet comes of age, and are placed in the care of Count Olaf, supposedly their only living relative. Olaf is only concerned with getting his hands on the Baudelaire fortune though and the story covers his hilarious attempts to do so, quite often involving ridiculous disguises and usually involving further unfortunate unpleasantness for the children. The children initially escape Olaf, moving between a succession of guardians and locations for each book, only for him to catch up with them once more.
Quite simply, the show is excellent. I have to admit that the first episode took me a little while to settle into but from the opening credits, urging you to ‘look away’, through to the big budget Burtonesque sets and vibrant colours, the attention to detail is simply incredible. Partick Warburton is Lemony Snickett, our narrator, wryly and brilliantly interjecting at various points to explain details and guide us through the story. Neil Patrick Harris is Count Olaf, in full on pantomime villain mode, and I absolutely loved the humour he brought to every single scene he’s in, whether he’s as himself or disguised as a scientist/sailor/woman! My only gripe is that he’s never quite villainous or evil enough, more along the lines of a harmless Dick Dastardly as each desperately elaborate scheme is so easily foiled. He’s aided along the way by a group of oddball goons, who are all part of his theatre group – more creepy than scary – but it doesn’t detract from the shows overall enjoyment, and I guess this is a family show after all! There are also a few good cameos along the way – Don Johnson as owner of the Miserable Mill, and Rhys Darby as his downtrodden partner, for example. All of the supporting cast are all brilliant, however the main stars of the show are the children. Superb young actors, right down to little baby Sunny who cutely talks in baby speak (subtitled for us to understand!), gnawing her way through anything she can get her hands on and surviving all manner of unfortunate events the children find themselves in.
Things get a little formulaic after a while – the children settle in with a new guardian, Count Olaf appears in a new guise and with a new plot, the children foil his plan and move on again. However, things change slightly for the final few episodes and throughout the season we gradually discover a deep background of secrets and conspiracies, which I’m sure will help keep the story moving for the remainder of the seasons to come. And there are a few twists and turns along the way too. Overall I was hugely impressed with the show, as was my daughter. It appears to be a very faithful adaptation of what is a hugely popular series of books, and I’m very much looking forward to what’s to come next.
Andy K (10821 KP) rated The Irishman (2019) in Movies
Nov 28, 2019
Great but disappointing
Frank Sheeran starts in humble beginnings driving a meat truck while trying to make a living to support his family. He takes the favor of the right connect mobsters and quickly rises through the ranks to become one of its elite. He perpetrates countless villainous activities including murder, bribery, extortion and general unpleasantness toward his fellow man to the point where it almost becomes routine.
Enter Jimmy Hoffa.
Sheeran befriends the mighty Teamsters union boss and popular, yet controversial figure and the two form a lasting friendship. Sheeran sometimes operates as middle man between the hot-headed Hoffa and his mob contacts, always trying to unruffle feathers and keep the peace. Over many years, there are ups and downs even when Hoffa goes to prison, but their friendship endures.
Sheeran's life of excess has fractures his own family life; however, as his daughter becomes estranged after seeing just what her father is capable of. Their relationship is strained and may never recover. Sheeran's mob connections become more of a family for him as they are where his true loyalties lie.
Sheeran's role n the death of Hoffa has to be considered speculation as, to my knowledge, the perpetrator(s) have never been fully identified. This could be due to the source book by Charles Brandt "I Heard You Paint Houses" where Sheeran confesses. There is forensic evidence to back this up, so I guess it could be more definitive than I first suspected.
If you are comparing The Irishman to Goodfellas and/or Casino, you will be disappointed. Easily in 3rd place of the 3, I enjoyed while watching, but no sequence in particular really stood out. I can remember entire sections of both Goodfellas and Casino and here it seems like Scorsese has lost some of his creativity as far as cool camera shots, long pans or long takes in favor o just letting his fantastic cast have the spotlight. Not a bad idea if you have De Niro, Pacino and Pesci, but I still feel like the film lacked that extra "spark" making it truly great. The screenplay was adequate which is also surprising since Academy Award winning screenwriter Steven Zaillian is no stranger to an epic story, but, again, seems more by the numbers and not very standout.
The run time of almost 3 1/2 hours doesn't help as the film gets bogged down somewhat in the union infighting politics and I can see where that would bore much of the audience. There is a lot to enjoy about the film led by the stellar cast of course. De Niro, while always fantastic, doesn't really have the flashy part this time. Even Joe Pesci is understated compared to his characters in other Scorsese films. Pacino as the stubborn, bullish Hoffa is the standout in my opinion, but every time he gets angry and starts shouting I always think of his role as Big Boy Caprice in Dick Tracy (ok I'm a little weird).
I won't be surprised if the film gets lots of Oscars nods for acting, directing and technicals; however, I feel this is a case where it might be a hot property for a little while and then fade away quickly. We also still don't know if history might repeat itself and Oscar voters turn a cheek away from a Netflix film in favor of one with a more "traditional" distribution. Many believe the same happened in 2018 when critic favorite Roma lost to Green Book for the same reason.
We shall see...
Enter Jimmy Hoffa.
Sheeran befriends the mighty Teamsters union boss and popular, yet controversial figure and the two form a lasting friendship. Sheeran sometimes operates as middle man between the hot-headed Hoffa and his mob contacts, always trying to unruffle feathers and keep the peace. Over many years, there are ups and downs even when Hoffa goes to prison, but their friendship endures.
Sheeran's life of excess has fractures his own family life; however, as his daughter becomes estranged after seeing just what her father is capable of. Their relationship is strained and may never recover. Sheeran's mob connections become more of a family for him as they are where his true loyalties lie.
Sheeran's role n the death of Hoffa has to be considered speculation as, to my knowledge, the perpetrator(s) have never been fully identified. This could be due to the source book by Charles Brandt "I Heard You Paint Houses" where Sheeran confesses. There is forensic evidence to back this up, so I guess it could be more definitive than I first suspected.
If you are comparing The Irishman to Goodfellas and/or Casino, you will be disappointed. Easily in 3rd place of the 3, I enjoyed while watching, but no sequence in particular really stood out. I can remember entire sections of both Goodfellas and Casino and here it seems like Scorsese has lost some of his creativity as far as cool camera shots, long pans or long takes in favor o just letting his fantastic cast have the spotlight. Not a bad idea if you have De Niro, Pacino and Pesci, but I still feel like the film lacked that extra "spark" making it truly great. The screenplay was adequate which is also surprising since Academy Award winning screenwriter Steven Zaillian is no stranger to an epic story, but, again, seems more by the numbers and not very standout.
The run time of almost 3 1/2 hours doesn't help as the film gets bogged down somewhat in the union infighting politics and I can see where that would bore much of the audience. There is a lot to enjoy about the film led by the stellar cast of course. De Niro, while always fantastic, doesn't really have the flashy part this time. Even Joe Pesci is understated compared to his characters in other Scorsese films. Pacino as the stubborn, bullish Hoffa is the standout in my opinion, but every time he gets angry and starts shouting I always think of his role as Big Boy Caprice in Dick Tracy (ok I'm a little weird).
I won't be surprised if the film gets lots of Oscars nods for acting, directing and technicals; however, I feel this is a case where it might be a hot property for a little while and then fade away quickly. We also still don't know if history might repeat itself and Oscar voters turn a cheek away from a Netflix film in favor of one with a more "traditional" distribution. Many believe the same happened in 2018 when critic favorite Roma lost to Green Book for the same reason.
We shall see...
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Campfires, going to senior parties, and girls. That’s you would normally think about if you were a junior in high school still in scouts. Ben (Tye Sheridan), Carter (Logan Miller), and Augie (Joey Morgan) have been best friends for years since they first joined scouts. While Augie is getting his Condor Patch, the highest achievement a scout can get; Ben and Carter think it’s about time they leave scouts, since they are going into their junior year and don’t want to be seen as dorks. However after ditching Augie the two set out to find the secret senior party where Carter’s sister Kendall (Halston Sage) is at and Ben is all for it. However Ben begins to notice some abnormal things in town, like their scout master (David Koechner) not showing up for the campfire and the town being completely abandoned. The two make a pit stop and run into some trouble at a strip club, much to Carters delight due to the bouncer being mysteriously gone from the door. Unfortunately the two get a little more than a lap dance when they come face to face with the source of all the odd behavior, Zombies. Luckily they befriend Denise (Sarah Dumont) a cocktail waitress from the club and the three of them plus Augie set out on a mission to save Kendall before the government decides what to do to the zombie infested town.
From Christopher B. Landon comes Scout’s Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse. With Landon being most known for working on the Paranormal Activity franchise, this movie is a bit of a change from his usual work. Scout’s Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse is exactly what you would want from a comedy horror movie obviously targeting young adults. It has witty lines, zombies, and attractive leads. While the movie sometimes boarders the lines of too campy, I feel it balances well. While the whole concept of the film is silly, it is executed in a brilliant way and thankfully they don’t rely heavily on dick jokes.
I was fortunate enough to be able to go the Scout’s Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse Ultimate Fan Experience. They gave shirts to everyone who attended and the excitement could be felt while in the room with avid zombie film fanatics. However at the beginning of the film it showed a special piece of film just for the event, and it was awful. Ten minutes of Dillion Francis’s zombie cameo in a music video that never seemed to end. While some enjoyed it most of the audience sighed with relief when it was over. That has to be my only concern with the event, and thankfully it was for the fan experience and more than likely will not be in the actual film showings (General public you are saved). I would recommend this movie for people who enjoy campy horror films, since by all means this film is anything but serious. Also would not recommend of young children, there is some nudity.
I would give this film a 3.5/5 stars. While it was a fun film that kept me laughing for most of it; that fan experience clip definitely was a disaster. I would definitely watch the
From Christopher B. Landon comes Scout’s Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse. With Landon being most known for working on the Paranormal Activity franchise, this movie is a bit of a change from his usual work. Scout’s Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse is exactly what you would want from a comedy horror movie obviously targeting young adults. It has witty lines, zombies, and attractive leads. While the movie sometimes boarders the lines of too campy, I feel it balances well. While the whole concept of the film is silly, it is executed in a brilliant way and thankfully they don’t rely heavily on dick jokes.
I was fortunate enough to be able to go the Scout’s Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse Ultimate Fan Experience. They gave shirts to everyone who attended and the excitement could be felt while in the room with avid zombie film fanatics. However at the beginning of the film it showed a special piece of film just for the event, and it was awful. Ten minutes of Dillion Francis’s zombie cameo in a music video that never seemed to end. While some enjoyed it most of the audience sighed with relief when it was over. That has to be my only concern with the event, and thankfully it was for the fan experience and more than likely will not be in the actual film showings (General public you are saved). I would recommend this movie for people who enjoy campy horror films, since by all means this film is anything but serious. Also would not recommend of young children, there is some nudity.
I would give this film a 3.5/5 stars. While it was a fun film that kept me laughing for most of it; that fan experience clip definitely was a disaster. I would definitely watch the
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Scoob (2020) in Movies
May 8, 2021
Another film that snuck its way through to VOD (and is thankfully now streaming). As much as I love Scooby Doo, I did not have the desire to pay money to view this one.
Here I would normally put an extended synopsis, but I'll be honest, after watching the film I don't think I could tell you what the story was. I'm not sure it actually matters anyway.
The beginning of the film confused me. From every trailer that I saw I thought this film was about the mini Scooby Gang. At least that's what I remembered. So having seen lots of clips of them as kids, coupled with the posters meant I was left confused when it was hardly a feature of the final product.
Apart from me evidently forgetting the plot of the film, it was a classic Scooby story with a modern twist, and ultimately you can't go wrong with that. You get all the things you expect from masked villains to hair-brained schemes that seem to fool the minions... and that is all pretty satisfying stuff to watch.
A note I made very quickly was that the voices left a lot to be desired. While capturing the essence of the original cast would be very difficult, there's no denying that the actors from the live-action originals did a very good job... here we had no real comparison at all. Gina Rodriguez (who has been knocking it out of the park recently) probably being the only exception. I just truly don't know how anyone could possibly be better than Casey Kasem and Matthew Lillard. MVP of the film was definitely the bike cop when questioning Scooby and Shaggy, quality content, loved the end of his scene.
Despite the nostalgia of everything it doesn't make up for some truly awful dialogue, it's very inconsistent and yoyos between bad and good (when I say good, in this case, I probably mean cheesy). There are a couple of true gems though, my favourite being an early line from Shaggy with some heavy foreshadowing.
The yoyoing of the script is generally reflected in my notes on the film as a whole. For every laugh, there was something negative I wrote down. Scoob! was very self-aware, which was amusing to begin with, but it began to grate a little.
I was at least thankful that the CG animation actually became less of an annoyance as I got into the film, I wasn't a fan. The majority of the film managed to get a pass, but sadly I really disliked the portrayal of Dick Dastardly and Muttley in this style. As much as I'd like a Hanna and Barbera universe, I do not care to see anymore in this look. And absolutely no more Dastardly looking like Gru with his minions.
"But Emma... you gave this film a pretty decent rating and all you've done is grumble about it!" Yes, yes I have. But... I still enjoyed myself, and like I said, for every bad note there was a laugh or a moment that made me happy. And sometimes having a rant about a film's pitfalls is just something you need to do.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/05/scoob-movie-review.html
Here I would normally put an extended synopsis, but I'll be honest, after watching the film I don't think I could tell you what the story was. I'm not sure it actually matters anyway.
The beginning of the film confused me. From every trailer that I saw I thought this film was about the mini Scooby Gang. At least that's what I remembered. So having seen lots of clips of them as kids, coupled with the posters meant I was left confused when it was hardly a feature of the final product.
Apart from me evidently forgetting the plot of the film, it was a classic Scooby story with a modern twist, and ultimately you can't go wrong with that. You get all the things you expect from masked villains to hair-brained schemes that seem to fool the minions... and that is all pretty satisfying stuff to watch.
A note I made very quickly was that the voices left a lot to be desired. While capturing the essence of the original cast would be very difficult, there's no denying that the actors from the live-action originals did a very good job... here we had no real comparison at all. Gina Rodriguez (who has been knocking it out of the park recently) probably being the only exception. I just truly don't know how anyone could possibly be better than Casey Kasem and Matthew Lillard. MVP of the film was definitely the bike cop when questioning Scooby and Shaggy, quality content, loved the end of his scene.
Despite the nostalgia of everything it doesn't make up for some truly awful dialogue, it's very inconsistent and yoyos between bad and good (when I say good, in this case, I probably mean cheesy). There are a couple of true gems though, my favourite being an early line from Shaggy with some heavy foreshadowing.
The yoyoing of the script is generally reflected in my notes on the film as a whole. For every laugh, there was something negative I wrote down. Scoob! was very self-aware, which was amusing to begin with, but it began to grate a little.
I was at least thankful that the CG animation actually became less of an annoyance as I got into the film, I wasn't a fan. The majority of the film managed to get a pass, but sadly I really disliked the portrayal of Dick Dastardly and Muttley in this style. As much as I'd like a Hanna and Barbera universe, I do not care to see anymore in this look. And absolutely no more Dastardly looking like Gru with his minions.
"But Emma... you gave this film a pretty decent rating and all you've done is grumble about it!" Yes, yes I have. But... I still enjoyed myself, and like I said, for every bad note there was a laugh or a moment that made me happy. And sometimes having a rant about a film's pitfalls is just something you need to do.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/05/scoob-movie-review.html
Fred (860 KP) rated The Producers (2005) in Movies
May 27, 2019
If I had never seen the original, this may have been decent
No question that the original 1968 film is one of the greatest comedies of all time. Anyone who's seen the original is going to have a hard time not comparing this film to the original. As soon as this movie started, I knew I was in trouble. Let's just say that Nathan Lane & Matthew Broderick don't even come close to Zero Mostel & Gene Wilder. But it doesn't stop there. There is nobody in this film that is better than anyone in the original film. I realize they needed people that could not only act, but sing & in some cases, dance. But one cannot look at the first 10 minutes of the film & think, "Those are the worst impressions of Mostel & Wilder I've ever seen." Broderick is the hardest to look at. He just doesn't come off as natural when he becomes hysterical or when he's explaining things to Bialystock. Nathan Lane fares better, but somehow the jokes come out very stale & unfunny.
Some of my favorite jokes from the original are just awful in this film. For example, in the original, Max says, "Well, you know what they say; smile & the world smiles with you." He then turns & looks into the camera & says, "This man should be in a straight-jacket." Crossing the 4th wall works so well. Yet, in this film, Lane says the line to a statue. During the out-takes on the DVD, we see Lane deliver the line to the camera, ala Mostel. But he stops, realizing that he's not supposed to do it the same way as Zero, but the new, lamer version. The Hitler tryouts are also ruined in comparison to the original. In the original, the man singing "Have You Ever Heard the German Band", points to the piano player & orders, "You Vill Play It!" Hilarious. In this one the same character turns & say, "Play the song, please." or something weak like that. And finally, when the man (who has become a mentally challenged man for this film) goes to sing "The Little Wooden Boy", he goes into a stupid little dance, & when he is just about to start, the director yells, "Next!" Nowhere near as funny as the original, where we see a man so sure of himself & so confident get ready to sing & then is cut off with the much funnier, "Thank you!" More problems arise with the changing of the story from the original. The main change is the omission of LSD (Dick Shawn's character). I heard they removed him as a hippie wouldn't work today. So, instead of just making him something other than a hippie, let's get rid of him & throw the character of Franz in there. Doesn't work. Then, when the play is finally put on, the director, a very homosexual Roger DeBris, comes out & sings, creating an obviously gay Hitler. And the audience then loves the show. How weak. There are other changes too, none of them good.
Now, let's get to the good points of this film. Some of the original songs are pretty good. Broderick redeems his bad acting for some good singing & dancing. Even Will Ferrel does a pretty good job. I can't say the same for Uma Thurman though, as her song is annoying & screechy! There are some funny parts in the movie, & they are all new to the story as all the original jokes fall flat (even without comparison). But there are not enough of the funny parts to save this film.
I can see how some may like the Broadway aspect of this film & I myself might have if the film itself didn't stink on the whole. So, I'll stick to the original film, this film had no reason to be made & now that I have seen it, it had no reason to be watched either.
Some of my favorite jokes from the original are just awful in this film. For example, in the original, Max says, "Well, you know what they say; smile & the world smiles with you." He then turns & looks into the camera & says, "This man should be in a straight-jacket." Crossing the 4th wall works so well. Yet, in this film, Lane says the line to a statue. During the out-takes on the DVD, we see Lane deliver the line to the camera, ala Mostel. But he stops, realizing that he's not supposed to do it the same way as Zero, but the new, lamer version. The Hitler tryouts are also ruined in comparison to the original. In the original, the man singing "Have You Ever Heard the German Band", points to the piano player & orders, "You Vill Play It!" Hilarious. In this one the same character turns & say, "Play the song, please." or something weak like that. And finally, when the man (who has become a mentally challenged man for this film) goes to sing "The Little Wooden Boy", he goes into a stupid little dance, & when he is just about to start, the director yells, "Next!" Nowhere near as funny as the original, where we see a man so sure of himself & so confident get ready to sing & then is cut off with the much funnier, "Thank you!" More problems arise with the changing of the story from the original. The main change is the omission of LSD (Dick Shawn's character). I heard they removed him as a hippie wouldn't work today. So, instead of just making him something other than a hippie, let's get rid of him & throw the character of Franz in there. Doesn't work. Then, when the play is finally put on, the director, a very homosexual Roger DeBris, comes out & sings, creating an obviously gay Hitler. And the audience then loves the show. How weak. There are other changes too, none of them good.
Now, let's get to the good points of this film. Some of the original songs are pretty good. Broderick redeems his bad acting for some good singing & dancing. Even Will Ferrel does a pretty good job. I can't say the same for Uma Thurman though, as her song is annoying & screechy! There are some funny parts in the movie, & they are all new to the story as all the original jokes fall flat (even without comparison). But there are not enough of the funny parts to save this film.
I can see how some may like the Broadway aspect of this film & I myself might have if the film itself didn't stink on the whole. So, I'll stick to the original film, this film had no reason to be made & now that I have seen it, it had no reason to be watched either.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Rocketman (2019) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Strong Lead Performance
I have to admit, I thought the Freddy Mercury bio-pic BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY was just "meh" and that Rami Malek was "just o'k" as the Queen frontman (personally, I would have given the Oscar to Christian Bale for his portrayal of Dick Cheney in VICE) so I was not rushing to the multi-plex to check out the Elton John musical film ROCKETMAN. And the fact that the release of this film was "buried" in the summer and not right before "Oscar Season" gave me room to pause.
And...I would be wrong...for ROCKETMAN is a fun, fantastical fantasy musical depicting the rise and fall (by drug and alcohol abuse) of one of rock's most flamboyant showman of the 1970's.
Following the "Jukebox Musical" blueprint of something like JERSEY BOYS, Rocketman follows a young Reggie Dwight as he discovers his musical talent and grows into the Global Superstar known as Elton John.
I was happy that the filmmakers went this route (vs the bio-pic route that BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY went) for they were able to use the vast catalog of Elton John/Bernie Taupin tunes to their fullest advantage, when it made sense to drive the narrative forward - or to give the storytelling a shot of adrenaline.
This film had Elton John's blessings and he was not kind to a few people in his life - most notably his mother (an almost unrecognizable Bryce Dallas Howard in a strong turn), his father (Steve Mackintosh, who I had never seen before) and his Manager, John Reid (Game of Throne's Richard Madden). All 3 are pretty one-dimensional villains that help contribute to Elton's drug and alcohol abuse.
On the other side of the coin is his writing partner, Bernie Taupin (Jamie Bell, the original BILLY ELLIOT in a performance that I think is the best of his career) and his Grandmother, Ivy (good ol' Gemma Jones BRIDGET JONES DIARY and Madam Pomfrey in the Harry Potter films). Both of these characters are generally positive influences on Elton's life, trying to understand and support our hero on his journey.
As for our hero, Taran Egerton (the KINGSMAN films) embodies Elton with panache and zeal while showing an underlying shyness and insecurity that helps lead to his abuse issues. Egerton is EXCELLENT in this role - both in acting and singing. He doesn't so much imitate Elton John but embodies the essence of Sir Elton and his performance is quite effective. If Rami Malek deserved his Oscar for playing Freddy Mercury in BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY then Taran Egerton better be in the Oscar conversation this year.
The film was Directed by Dexter Fletcher (who was brought on to finish BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY once Bryan Singer was fired from that film for his on-set behavior), so he puts to good use his experience on the Queen movie, keeping the action moving fast, the characterizations simple (but satisfying) enough while showcasing just enough music to fill a "Best of" Album.
While BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY was a "meh" movie with a buffo ending (the recreation of the LIVE AID concert was amazing), ROCKETMAN suffers from just the opposite problem. Starting off strong and growing weaker until it ends in "meh" fashion. The fact that this film musical fantasy decided to end with a faithful recreation of the I'M STILL STANDING music video is at the heart of the issue. I understand the implied underlying meaning of this song selection, but it just doesn't pack the punch that a live concert appearance would have.
Come for the music, stay for Egerton's performance and you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And...I would be wrong...for ROCKETMAN is a fun, fantastical fantasy musical depicting the rise and fall (by drug and alcohol abuse) of one of rock's most flamboyant showman of the 1970's.
Following the "Jukebox Musical" blueprint of something like JERSEY BOYS, Rocketman follows a young Reggie Dwight as he discovers his musical talent and grows into the Global Superstar known as Elton John.
I was happy that the filmmakers went this route (vs the bio-pic route that BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY went) for they were able to use the vast catalog of Elton John/Bernie Taupin tunes to their fullest advantage, when it made sense to drive the narrative forward - or to give the storytelling a shot of adrenaline.
This film had Elton John's blessings and he was not kind to a few people in his life - most notably his mother (an almost unrecognizable Bryce Dallas Howard in a strong turn), his father (Steve Mackintosh, who I had never seen before) and his Manager, John Reid (Game of Throne's Richard Madden). All 3 are pretty one-dimensional villains that help contribute to Elton's drug and alcohol abuse.
On the other side of the coin is his writing partner, Bernie Taupin (Jamie Bell, the original BILLY ELLIOT in a performance that I think is the best of his career) and his Grandmother, Ivy (good ol' Gemma Jones BRIDGET JONES DIARY and Madam Pomfrey in the Harry Potter films). Both of these characters are generally positive influences on Elton's life, trying to understand and support our hero on his journey.
As for our hero, Taran Egerton (the KINGSMAN films) embodies Elton with panache and zeal while showing an underlying shyness and insecurity that helps lead to his abuse issues. Egerton is EXCELLENT in this role - both in acting and singing. He doesn't so much imitate Elton John but embodies the essence of Sir Elton and his performance is quite effective. If Rami Malek deserved his Oscar for playing Freddy Mercury in BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY then Taran Egerton better be in the Oscar conversation this year.
The film was Directed by Dexter Fletcher (who was brought on to finish BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY once Bryan Singer was fired from that film for his on-set behavior), so he puts to good use his experience on the Queen movie, keeping the action moving fast, the characterizations simple (but satisfying) enough while showcasing just enough music to fill a "Best of" Album.
While BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY was a "meh" movie with a buffo ending (the recreation of the LIVE AID concert was amazing), ROCKETMAN suffers from just the opposite problem. Starting off strong and growing weaker until it ends in "meh" fashion. The fact that this film musical fantasy decided to end with a faithful recreation of the I'M STILL STANDING music video is at the heart of the issue. I understand the implied underlying meaning of this song selection, but it just doesn't pack the punch that a live concert appearance would have.
Come for the music, stay for Egerton's performance and you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Josh Burns (166 KP) rated Spartacus: A Game of Blood and Treachery in Tabletop Games
Jun 20, 2019
Easy to learn but a ton of fun (1 more)
Great strategy and combat
I had my eye on this game for a while before finally pulling the trigger and ordering it a few years ago. I had little faith in a game based on a tv show, but I love gladiator games and there aren't many to choose from.
The base game is 3-4 players, there are expansions that increase that, but I'm sticking with the base game for this review. Each player controls a different House, which have their own stats, abilities, and alternate objectives, with the main objective being to reach 10 influence.
The game plays basically as follows:
Upkeep phase: collect money, try to heal wounded gladiators, and reactivate slaves that were used.
Market: A number of cards are drawn and placed face down, then one card is flipped. It could be a gladiator, a slave (can earn you money and may have abilities that are useful outside the arena) or gear for your gladiators. All players choose how many coins to bid and keep them in a closed fist until everyone is ready, then everyone reveals their bid. Whoever was highest wins. You then repeat till each card is flipped. You can also put your own cards up for auction or offer trades.
the arena: after this, 2 players chosen by another player have to either fight each other, pitting a slave or gladiator against the oppents, or forfeit at the cost of Influence. Players may place bets on who will win and if the loser will be killed, or badly injured.
The game is basically 2 games in 1: outside the arena and in it.
Outside: It is primarily about making deals, lying, setting each other up, making temporary allies and backstabbing. Literally the only rule in the actual rulebook about how to go about this is: "Don't be a dick. " It actually says that, and says they mean keep it fun, don't actually try to be a spiteful douche. There is nothing directing you when to lie or be honest, if you have to keep promises, etc.
In the arena: Combat is fun and simple. Not all fighters are equal but I have seen weak ones overcome the odds. If you're a fan of the show you will recognize many names. As a quick sidenote, an expansion can turn these fights from 1 vs 1 to 2 vs 2. I've won hard fought games, and I've lost on purpose to win a bet or fulfill a deal. Your fighter may or may not die or be injured. The player who chose the participants also decides the fate of the losing fighter (if they didn't die fighting) with a thumbs up or down. The player with the losing fighter can plead for the fighters survival or bribe, or maybe the player chosing wants the losing player to owe them a favor. There is never a clear cut choice.
In conclusion: This is a favorite of mine. It is unbelievably fun making deals (whether you keep them or not) bribing, setting players against each other etc. The combat is fun and easy to learn and the other players are typically screaming at whoever they want to win if they aren't doing well (in good fun, not actual anger). I can't think of anything to not like about it. If you like the show you'll love references such as the "Jupiter's Cock" card and seeing all the characters (slaves, gladiators, and dominas). If you don't like the show, it's still a hell of a game and you don't need to watch the show to know what's going on.
The base game is 3-4 players, there are expansions that increase that, but I'm sticking with the base game for this review. Each player controls a different House, which have their own stats, abilities, and alternate objectives, with the main objective being to reach 10 influence.
The game plays basically as follows:
Upkeep phase: collect money, try to heal wounded gladiators, and reactivate slaves that were used.
Market: A number of cards are drawn and placed face down, then one card is flipped. It could be a gladiator, a slave (can earn you money and may have abilities that are useful outside the arena) or gear for your gladiators. All players choose how many coins to bid and keep them in a closed fist until everyone is ready, then everyone reveals their bid. Whoever was highest wins. You then repeat till each card is flipped. You can also put your own cards up for auction or offer trades.
the arena: after this, 2 players chosen by another player have to either fight each other, pitting a slave or gladiator against the oppents, or forfeit at the cost of Influence. Players may place bets on who will win and if the loser will be killed, or badly injured.
The game is basically 2 games in 1: outside the arena and in it.
Outside: It is primarily about making deals, lying, setting each other up, making temporary allies and backstabbing. Literally the only rule in the actual rulebook about how to go about this is: "Don't be a dick. " It actually says that, and says they mean keep it fun, don't actually try to be a spiteful douche. There is nothing directing you when to lie or be honest, if you have to keep promises, etc.
In the arena: Combat is fun and simple. Not all fighters are equal but I have seen weak ones overcome the odds. If you're a fan of the show you will recognize many names. As a quick sidenote, an expansion can turn these fights from 1 vs 1 to 2 vs 2. I've won hard fought games, and I've lost on purpose to win a bet or fulfill a deal. Your fighter may or may not die or be injured. The player who chose the participants also decides the fate of the losing fighter (if they didn't die fighting) with a thumbs up or down. The player with the losing fighter can plead for the fighters survival or bribe, or maybe the player chosing wants the losing player to owe them a favor. There is never a clear cut choice.
In conclusion: This is a favorite of mine. It is unbelievably fun making deals (whether you keep them or not) bribing, setting players against each other etc. The combat is fun and easy to learn and the other players are typically screaming at whoever they want to win if they aren't doing well (in good fun, not actual anger). I can't think of anything to not like about it. If you like the show you'll love references such as the "Jupiter's Cock" card and seeing all the characters (slaves, gladiators, and dominas). If you don't like the show, it's still a hell of a game and you don't need to watch the show to know what's going on.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Magic Mike XXL (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
When we last saw Mike Lane (Channing Tatum) he was trading in his g-string and the adulation of grown women with lots of dollar bills to spare, for a custom furniture business of his own and a serious relationship with a girl named Brooke. He said goodbye to his band of magical, muscular men (and by magical, we mean in the art of making clothes disappear) and headed off into a better future.
Or so he thought.
Three years later, we find Mike has found a little success, his company has grown by one employee. The empty apartment with no sign of a roommate suggests his future no longer includes Brooke. A phone call from Tarzan (Kevin Nash) has Mike donning a suit to attend a “wake”. Cue the reunion with his old gang that is far from somber, and more of a ruse to see him. Apparently, his orphaned crew is set on one last hurrah before they follow in Mike’s footsteps and go after their own entrepreneurial dreams.
Does Mike want in on the swan song of stripteases at Myrtle Beach’s stripper convention? Of course not. He has a business to run, employees to pay, he postures. But considering this movie is a sequel entitled “Magic Mike XXL” you know he changes his mind. And, boy, how he changes his mind! With a little help from power tools and Genuwine’s “Pony”, natch.
Magic Mike XXL is a road trip of discovery for Mike, Tarzan, Tito (Adam Rodriguez), Ken (Matt Bomer), Tobias (Gabriel Iglesias) and Big Dick Richie (Joe Mangeniello). There were a few times I wondered where exactly this story was going, but as ensemble features go, the insightful peeks into the guys’ individual stories distracted from the meandering plot. Okay, why I was looking for a plot in a movie clearly made to titillate fans of sculpted male phsyiques, I don’t know. Sorry. Not sorry.
The road to Myrtle Beach is littered with conquests, old and new, and epiphanies fueled by pharmaceuticals inspire the Kings of Tampa to learn a few new tricks along the way. XXL actually achieves that rare feat of being better than the original. I know, that may not exactly be high praise, but it delivers more of what fans enjoyed in the original – the male entertainment.
XXL has the same awkward, but slightly improved banter between Mike and the females he encounters, but it also has new routines, a sexier emcee in Jada Pinkett-Smith (with all due respect to Matthew McConaughey) and it doesn’t require Kevin Nash to dance like a lost mannequin. There are some eyebrow-raising casting choices for a couple of new strippers. You may find yourself asking “Hey, is that who I think it is jumping all over that woman?” And “Okay…so he doesn’t actually strip. He just sings?” But don’t worry, that singer inspires Matt Bomer to do both. Very well. How did I not know Matt Bomer could sing?
The finale is one the screener audience, the majority of which were female, of course, did not want to end. I admit I could’ve stayed in my seat for more Channing Tatum and professional dancer, Stephen “tWitch” Boss, who could make his own Magic Malik movie. As my girlfriends and I left the theater, one commented that her face hurt from smiling the whole time. At the risk of sounding extremely shallow, we all agreed that the only way the movie could have been better is if it was shown on the IMAX screen in 3D. Maybe in Dbox seats.
Probably not a movie women will want to take their significant others to, but their girlfriends for a ladies night out? Hell to the yeah.
For story, acting and plot? Ummm 2 out of 5
For sheer, eye-candy entertainment? 4 stars.
Or so he thought.
Three years later, we find Mike has found a little success, his company has grown by one employee. The empty apartment with no sign of a roommate suggests his future no longer includes Brooke. A phone call from Tarzan (Kevin Nash) has Mike donning a suit to attend a “wake”. Cue the reunion with his old gang that is far from somber, and more of a ruse to see him. Apparently, his orphaned crew is set on one last hurrah before they follow in Mike’s footsteps and go after their own entrepreneurial dreams.
Does Mike want in on the swan song of stripteases at Myrtle Beach’s stripper convention? Of course not. He has a business to run, employees to pay, he postures. But considering this movie is a sequel entitled “Magic Mike XXL” you know he changes his mind. And, boy, how he changes his mind! With a little help from power tools and Genuwine’s “Pony”, natch.
Magic Mike XXL is a road trip of discovery for Mike, Tarzan, Tito (Adam Rodriguez), Ken (Matt Bomer), Tobias (Gabriel Iglesias) and Big Dick Richie (Joe Mangeniello). There were a few times I wondered where exactly this story was going, but as ensemble features go, the insightful peeks into the guys’ individual stories distracted from the meandering plot. Okay, why I was looking for a plot in a movie clearly made to titillate fans of sculpted male phsyiques, I don’t know. Sorry. Not sorry.
The road to Myrtle Beach is littered with conquests, old and new, and epiphanies fueled by pharmaceuticals inspire the Kings of Tampa to learn a few new tricks along the way. XXL actually achieves that rare feat of being better than the original. I know, that may not exactly be high praise, but it delivers more of what fans enjoyed in the original – the male entertainment.
XXL has the same awkward, but slightly improved banter between Mike and the females he encounters, but it also has new routines, a sexier emcee in Jada Pinkett-Smith (with all due respect to Matthew McConaughey) and it doesn’t require Kevin Nash to dance like a lost mannequin. There are some eyebrow-raising casting choices for a couple of new strippers. You may find yourself asking “Hey, is that who I think it is jumping all over that woman?” And “Okay…so he doesn’t actually strip. He just sings?” But don’t worry, that singer inspires Matt Bomer to do both. Very well. How did I not know Matt Bomer could sing?
The finale is one the screener audience, the majority of which were female, of course, did not want to end. I admit I could’ve stayed in my seat for more Channing Tatum and professional dancer, Stephen “tWitch” Boss, who could make his own Magic Malik movie. As my girlfriends and I left the theater, one commented that her face hurt from smiling the whole time. At the risk of sounding extremely shallow, we all agreed that the only way the movie could have been better is if it was shown on the IMAX screen in 3D. Maybe in Dbox seats.
Probably not a movie women will want to take their significant others to, but their girlfriends for a ladies night out? Hell to the yeah.
For story, acting and plot? Ummm 2 out of 5
For sheer, eye-candy entertainment? 4 stars.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Personal History of David Copperfield (2019) in Movies
Jan 8, 2021
The fantastic ensemble cast (1 more)
Great directing and editing
Effortlessly stylish and entertaining
The Personal History of David Copperfield starts with the young man (Dev Patel) regaling a theatre audience with a reading of his autobiography. This immediately pitches him into witnessing his own birth to widowed single mother Clara (the wonderful Morfydd Clark, or "Saint Maud" fame). From there, Copperfield goes helter-skelter into a rollercoaster life encompassing workhouse-bottling poverty, fish-gutting and rich gentlemanly pursuits.
You have to admire the artistry of Dickens. Of course, I am aware of some of the plethora of rich and complex characters that Dickens imagined including the rascally Mr Micawber (Peter Capaldi) and the ever-'umble but conniving Uriah Heep (Ben Wishaw). But the story is literally rammed with amazing characters. It's almost as if Dickens conjured up full pen-portraits of 30 different characters and then contrived to fit them somehow into the story. Remarkably rich.
There's a very striking nature to the casting of this movie. It had me going "Wha?? Who??" while watching it. Because the roles are cast multi-culturally, without nature to the demographics of the time and - crucially - to the relationship between the characters. For example, with Copperfield, you might - with a bit of a squint - play along with it since we never see the father. But then the mother of the (very-much-white) Steerforth (Aneurin Barnard) turns up as Nigerian-born actress Nikki Amuka-Bird (who is fabulous). Benedict Wong also turns up as legal director Mr Wickfield. It was as if the casting was done purely on talent and regardless of race and appropriateness for the Dickensian times. Which is refreshingly different and much to be welcomed.
Sarah Crowe has won a number of awards for her casting of the film and a BAFTA nomination too. And well deserved, since she pulls in a truly stellar ensemble cast. As well as those mentioned above, we also have Hugh Laurie as the addled Mr Dick; Tilda Swinton as Betsey Trotwood; Anna Maxwell Martin as Mrs Strong; Paul Whitehouse as Daniel Peggotty; and Gwendoline Christie as the evil Mrs Murdstone. Even Daisy May Cooper (from TV's "This Country") turns up and is particularly effective as Peggoty - the housemaid and friend to Copperfield. And casting Morfydd Clark in a second role as the scatty love interest Dora Spenlow is also both brilliant and provocative.
With such a wealth of talent on show, it's difficult to pull out specific performances. This is a movie that genuinely deserved to make the SAG Ensemble award list.
When I saw that the director of this was Armando Iannucci, I raised an eyebrow. For the subject matter seemed to be at right angles to the normal satirical thrust of the director. But the guy behind "The Thick of It" and "The Death of Stalin" reigned in his most satirical barbs and - together with his regular collaborative screenwriter Simon Blackwell - turned the movie into a delightfully quirky telling of the story. I felt that there was something of the Guy Ritchie "Sherlock Holmes" behind the very effective use of the cutting and on screen handwriting.
In that cutting, many of the scene transitions are masterfully done. So a special shout-out to the film editors Mick Audsley and Peter Lambert here. A memorable example is a flashback in the "boat house" where a background tarpaulin blows away to reveal Steerforth on horseback in France: simply breathtaking.
This was a refreshing movie. Endlessly innovative and entertaining. It makes me even possibly want to revisit trying to read the book again! Highly recommended.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review here - https://rb.gy/ba74zo ).
You have to admire the artistry of Dickens. Of course, I am aware of some of the plethora of rich and complex characters that Dickens imagined including the rascally Mr Micawber (Peter Capaldi) and the ever-'umble but conniving Uriah Heep (Ben Wishaw). But the story is literally rammed with amazing characters. It's almost as if Dickens conjured up full pen-portraits of 30 different characters and then contrived to fit them somehow into the story. Remarkably rich.
There's a very striking nature to the casting of this movie. It had me going "Wha?? Who??" while watching it. Because the roles are cast multi-culturally, without nature to the demographics of the time and - crucially - to the relationship between the characters. For example, with Copperfield, you might - with a bit of a squint - play along with it since we never see the father. But then the mother of the (very-much-white) Steerforth (Aneurin Barnard) turns up as Nigerian-born actress Nikki Amuka-Bird (who is fabulous). Benedict Wong also turns up as legal director Mr Wickfield. It was as if the casting was done purely on talent and regardless of race and appropriateness for the Dickensian times. Which is refreshingly different and much to be welcomed.
Sarah Crowe has won a number of awards for her casting of the film and a BAFTA nomination too. And well deserved, since she pulls in a truly stellar ensemble cast. As well as those mentioned above, we also have Hugh Laurie as the addled Mr Dick; Tilda Swinton as Betsey Trotwood; Anna Maxwell Martin as Mrs Strong; Paul Whitehouse as Daniel Peggotty; and Gwendoline Christie as the evil Mrs Murdstone. Even Daisy May Cooper (from TV's "This Country") turns up and is particularly effective as Peggoty - the housemaid and friend to Copperfield. And casting Morfydd Clark in a second role as the scatty love interest Dora Spenlow is also both brilliant and provocative.
With such a wealth of talent on show, it's difficult to pull out specific performances. This is a movie that genuinely deserved to make the SAG Ensemble award list.
When I saw that the director of this was Armando Iannucci, I raised an eyebrow. For the subject matter seemed to be at right angles to the normal satirical thrust of the director. But the guy behind "The Thick of It" and "The Death of Stalin" reigned in his most satirical barbs and - together with his regular collaborative screenwriter Simon Blackwell - turned the movie into a delightfully quirky telling of the story. I felt that there was something of the Guy Ritchie "Sherlock Holmes" behind the very effective use of the cutting and on screen handwriting.
In that cutting, many of the scene transitions are masterfully done. So a special shout-out to the film editors Mick Audsley and Peter Lambert here. A memorable example is a flashback in the "boat house" where a background tarpaulin blows away to reveal Steerforth on horseback in France: simply breathtaking.
This was a refreshing movie. Endlessly innovative and entertaining. It makes me even possibly want to revisit trying to read the book again! Highly recommended.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review here - https://rb.gy/ba74zo ).
