Search
Search results
Niten. NR (75 KP) rated Dunkirk (2017) in Movies
Jul 27, 2017
Cinematography (6 more)
Story line/lines (merge)
An excellent cast.
Hans Zimmer's score
Minimalistic dialogue
Spitfires (aerial combat scenes)
Fionn Whitehead, Mark Rylance & Tom Hardy (being cool) .
Powerful & Immense
This is one hell of a film. It's an epic, all consuming, continually intensifying beast of a movie. The cinematography blew me away with those great big expansive shots. The 3 storyline amalgamation and the timescale structure of this, was superb in my opinion. Each lead in each storyline gave a powerful performance without the overuse of dialogue. Hans Zimmer's score built and built until, at times I felt like I was about to explode. I did feel that I enjoyed the film all the more because I was aware of the situation historically, there is a brief explanation early on but, I would advise anyone who's not aware, to read up a little on the massive scale of this evacuation, the uniqueness of the situation and the dangerous time it was for all involved. Overall, it's a must see at the cinema and to get the best of the sound and those beautiful aerial Spitfire vs Messerschmitt scenes, in Imax if possible.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Black Mirror: Bandersnatch (2018) in Movies
Dec 28, 2018 (Updated Dec 28, 2018)
A brilliant concept
Black Mirror is one of those series that is very divisive, people either seem to love it or hate it. I absolutely adore it. I love the bleak, technology driven alternate reality based stories, it’s fascinating and a worrying insight into what our future could become. I only found out yesterday that they were releasing this feature length standalone on Netflix, and when I found out it was a ‘choose your own ending’ type story, I couldn’t have been more excited. And it really does not disappoint.
The choose your own adventure style is flawless. I was worried it’d be clunky, slow or disrupt the flow of the scene, but it really is immaculate. The scene carries on while you choose, and choosing is simple, although you do have to be quite quick. It starts off with a few innocuous choices but then soon descends into ones that are a lot darker, and in some cases a lot funnier too. When you get to whatever ending you’ve reached, it allows you to go back and change some of your choices to see how the outcome would’ve differed, exactly like you’d do if you were reading a choose your ending Goosebumps book - flicking back and choosing a different option. On watching some of the alternate options, I soon realised some of the ones I’d picked were the best choices!
The plot itself is interesting and relevant, and also very meta as the story goes along, which for me really helped involve me as a watcher. There are some very bleak, gruesome and funny moments in this, which is really exactly what you’d expect from Charlie Brooker and even gets you questioning your own reality. Fionn Whitehead is great as Stefan, after this and Dunkirk he’s sure to do well. My only negative is that the story seemed to unfold very slowly in parts, but this could have all been down to the choices I made.
This is a fantastic concept for Black Mirror, and I’d love to see it used in other parts of the series. Albeit very sparingly, as it is something that could get old quite quickly if overused. But for Bandersnatch, it was a delight to watch, and take part.
The choose your own adventure style is flawless. I was worried it’d be clunky, slow or disrupt the flow of the scene, but it really is immaculate. The scene carries on while you choose, and choosing is simple, although you do have to be quite quick. It starts off with a few innocuous choices but then soon descends into ones that are a lot darker, and in some cases a lot funnier too. When you get to whatever ending you’ve reached, it allows you to go back and change some of your choices to see how the outcome would’ve differed, exactly like you’d do if you were reading a choose your ending Goosebumps book - flicking back and choosing a different option. On watching some of the alternate options, I soon realised some of the ones I’d picked were the best choices!
The plot itself is interesting and relevant, and also very meta as the story goes along, which for me really helped involve me as a watcher. There are some very bleak, gruesome and funny moments in this, which is really exactly what you’d expect from Charlie Brooker and even gets you questioning your own reality. Fionn Whitehead is great as Stefan, after this and Dunkirk he’s sure to do well. My only negative is that the story seemed to unfold very slowly in parts, but this could have all been down to the choices I made.
This is a fantastic concept for Black Mirror, and I’d love to see it used in other parts of the series. Albeit very sparingly, as it is something that could get old quite quickly if overused. But for Bandersnatch, it was a delight to watch, and take part.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Dunkirk (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A war vehicle running low on fuel.
The words “Christopher Nolan” and “disappointment” are not words I would naturally associate… but for me, they apply where “Dunkirk” is concerned.
It promised so much from the trailer: a historical event of epic proportions; Kenneth Branagh; Tom Hardy; Mark Rylance; Hans Zimmer on the keys; the director of such classics as “The Dark Knight”; “Inception” and “Interstellar” : what could go wrong?
But it just doesn’t work and I’ve spent the last 24 hours trying to unpick why.
A key problem for me was the depiction of the beach itself. The film eschews CGI effects – a move that I would normally approve of – in favour of the use of “practical effects” and the involvement of “thousands of extras” (as the rather glutinously positive Wiki entry declares). Unfortunately for the movie, there were some 400,000 troops marooned in this last patch of civilisation ahead of the Nazi hoard, and all of the shots refuse to acknowledge this scale of potential human tragedy. Yes, there are individual scenes of horror, such as the soldier walking into the sea against the impassive stares of the young heroes. But nothing of scale. At times I thought I’d seen more people on the beach on a winter’s day in Bournemouth! In the absence of a co-production with China, and the provision of the volume of extras as in “The Great Wall“, CGI becomes a necessary evil to make the whole exercise believable.
What it was really like…. one of the famous paintings by Charles Cundall (Crown copyright).
My disquiet at this deepened when we got to the sharp end of the rescue by the “small boats”. In my mind (and I’m NOT quite old enough to remember this!) I imagine a sea full of them. A sight to truly merit Branagh’s awed gaze. But no. They might have been “original” vessels…. but there was only about half a dozen of them. A mental vision dashed.
Did I feel a spot of rain? Looking to unfriendly skies on the River Mole.
The film attempts to tell the story from three perspectives: from the land; from the sea and from the air. The sea though gets the lion’s share of the film, and there is much drowning that occurs that (I am aware) was distressing for some in the audience.
Styles going in One Direction…. down.
Nolan also pushes his quirky “timeline” manipulation too far for an audience that largely expects a linear telling of a classic tale. It’s day; it’s night; the minesweeper’s sailing; then sunk; then sailing again; a Spitfire crashes, then crashes again from a different perspective. I know many in the audience just didn’t ‘get’ that: leaving them presumably very confused!
That being said, the film is not a write off, and has its moments of brilliance. Kenneth Branagh (“Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit“, “Valkyrie”) – although having a range of Nolan’s clipped and cheesy lines to say – is impressive as the commanding officer. Mark Rylance (“Bridge of Spies“, “The BFG“) also shines as the captain of the “Moonstone”: one of the small boats out of Weymouth (although here there is a grievous lack of backstory for the civilian efforts). And Tom Hardy (“The Revenant“, “Legend“), although having limited opportunity to act with anything other than his eyes, is impressive as RAF pilot Farrier. His final scene of stoic heroism is memorable.
Fionn Whitehead is also impressive in his movie debut, and even Harry Styles (“This is Us“) equips himself well.
A surfeit of horror leads to a lack of compassion. Harry Styles, Aneurin Barnard and Fionn Whitehead look on as the death toll mounts.
The cinematography by Hoyte Van Hoytema (“Interstellar“) is stunning with some memorable shots: a burning plane on a beach being a highspot for me.
And Hans Zimmer’s score is Oscar-worthy, generating enormous tension with a reverberating score, albeit sometimes let down by unsuitable cutaways (for example, to scenes of boat loading). Elsewhere in the sound department though I had major issues, with a decent percentage of the dialogue being completely inaudible in the sound mix.
Kenneth Branagh, impressive as Commander Bolton RN.
I really wanted this to be a “Battle of Britain”. Or a “Bridge Too Far”. Or even a “Saving Private Ryan”. Unfortunately, for me it was none of these, and this goes down as one of my movie disappointments of the year so far.
It promised so much from the trailer: a historical event of epic proportions; Kenneth Branagh; Tom Hardy; Mark Rylance; Hans Zimmer on the keys; the director of such classics as “The Dark Knight”; “Inception” and “Interstellar” : what could go wrong?
But it just doesn’t work and I’ve spent the last 24 hours trying to unpick why.
A key problem for me was the depiction of the beach itself. The film eschews CGI effects – a move that I would normally approve of – in favour of the use of “practical effects” and the involvement of “thousands of extras” (as the rather glutinously positive Wiki entry declares). Unfortunately for the movie, there were some 400,000 troops marooned in this last patch of civilisation ahead of the Nazi hoard, and all of the shots refuse to acknowledge this scale of potential human tragedy. Yes, there are individual scenes of horror, such as the soldier walking into the sea against the impassive stares of the young heroes. But nothing of scale. At times I thought I’d seen more people on the beach on a winter’s day in Bournemouth! In the absence of a co-production with China, and the provision of the volume of extras as in “The Great Wall“, CGI becomes a necessary evil to make the whole exercise believable.
What it was really like…. one of the famous paintings by Charles Cundall (Crown copyright).
My disquiet at this deepened when we got to the sharp end of the rescue by the “small boats”. In my mind (and I’m NOT quite old enough to remember this!) I imagine a sea full of them. A sight to truly merit Branagh’s awed gaze. But no. They might have been “original” vessels…. but there was only about half a dozen of them. A mental vision dashed.
Did I feel a spot of rain? Looking to unfriendly skies on the River Mole.
The film attempts to tell the story from three perspectives: from the land; from the sea and from the air. The sea though gets the lion’s share of the film, and there is much drowning that occurs that (I am aware) was distressing for some in the audience.
Styles going in One Direction…. down.
Nolan also pushes his quirky “timeline” manipulation too far for an audience that largely expects a linear telling of a classic tale. It’s day; it’s night; the minesweeper’s sailing; then sunk; then sailing again; a Spitfire crashes, then crashes again from a different perspective. I know many in the audience just didn’t ‘get’ that: leaving them presumably very confused!
That being said, the film is not a write off, and has its moments of brilliance. Kenneth Branagh (“Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit“, “Valkyrie”) – although having a range of Nolan’s clipped and cheesy lines to say – is impressive as the commanding officer. Mark Rylance (“Bridge of Spies“, “The BFG“) also shines as the captain of the “Moonstone”: one of the small boats out of Weymouth (although here there is a grievous lack of backstory for the civilian efforts). And Tom Hardy (“The Revenant“, “Legend“), although having limited opportunity to act with anything other than his eyes, is impressive as RAF pilot Farrier. His final scene of stoic heroism is memorable.
Fionn Whitehead is also impressive in his movie debut, and even Harry Styles (“This is Us“) equips himself well.
A surfeit of horror leads to a lack of compassion. Harry Styles, Aneurin Barnard and Fionn Whitehead look on as the death toll mounts.
The cinematography by Hoyte Van Hoytema (“Interstellar“) is stunning with some memorable shots: a burning plane on a beach being a highspot for me.
And Hans Zimmer’s score is Oscar-worthy, generating enormous tension with a reverberating score, albeit sometimes let down by unsuitable cutaways (for example, to scenes of boat loading). Elsewhere in the sound department though I had major issues, with a decent percentage of the dialogue being completely inaudible in the sound mix.
Kenneth Branagh, impressive as Commander Bolton RN.
I really wanted this to be a “Battle of Britain”. Or a “Bridge Too Far”. Or even a “Saving Private Ryan”. Unfortunately, for me it was none of these, and this goes down as one of my movie disappointments of the year so far.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Voyagers (2021) in Movies
Apr 7, 2021
The classic novel Lord of the Flies by William Golding is not only a beloved classic but has been assigned reading for generations of students since it was first published in 1954. The book has been adapted into plays and films over the years and remains a chilling and poignant cautionary tale.
In the new movie “Voyagers” audiences are introduced to an Earth that has been ravaged by climate change and disease. In an effort to save the species; a grand experiment to genetically create a group of children who are the origins of a colonization effort is undertaken.
The planet is 86 years away so the decision is made that the children will be raised and trained indoors without any exposure to nature, open skies, fresh air, and other aspects they will be deprived of on the ship.
Richard (Colin Farrell) decides to accompany the children on the mission as he wants to protect them and ensure things go as planned so their progeny will be well suited to continue on the mission to the next generation who will ultimately be the ones who colonize the planet.
Ten years into the mission things are going well until a discovery is made that a drink the children take daily known as “The Blue” is a drug used to suppress their emotions and keep them docile and easy to control.
When friends Christopher (Tye Sheridan) and Zac (Fionn Whitehead); who learned the secret of the drug decide to stop taking it; they soon reveal the truth of their discovery to the rest of the children who in turn stop using the drug.
In no time rampant emotions, aggressions, desires, paranoia, and mistrust start to run wild and Zac becomes obsessed with Sela (Lilly-Rose Depp). His unwelcome advances soon become more and more aggressive which causes Christopher and Richard to intervene and tragedy soon follows.
Christopher and Zac soon find themselves at odds with one another and fear and paranoia lead the crew to form into factions and turn on one other which not only threatens the mission but their very survival.
The film was very engaging and while I saw the influence of Lord of the Flies early on; the engaging cast and setting make the film entertaining and enjoyable despite any really unexpected twists.
The young leads work well with one another and it will be very interesting to watch how their careers unfold in the years to come. “Voyagers” is a refreshing new take on a classic tale and provides an entertaining and engaging adventure for viewers to enjoy.
In the new movie “Voyagers” audiences are introduced to an Earth that has been ravaged by climate change and disease. In an effort to save the species; a grand experiment to genetically create a group of children who are the origins of a colonization effort is undertaken.
The planet is 86 years away so the decision is made that the children will be raised and trained indoors without any exposure to nature, open skies, fresh air, and other aspects they will be deprived of on the ship.
Richard (Colin Farrell) decides to accompany the children on the mission as he wants to protect them and ensure things go as planned so their progeny will be well suited to continue on the mission to the next generation who will ultimately be the ones who colonize the planet.
Ten years into the mission things are going well until a discovery is made that a drink the children take daily known as “The Blue” is a drug used to suppress their emotions and keep them docile and easy to control.
When friends Christopher (Tye Sheridan) and Zac (Fionn Whitehead); who learned the secret of the drug decide to stop taking it; they soon reveal the truth of their discovery to the rest of the children who in turn stop using the drug.
In no time rampant emotions, aggressions, desires, paranoia, and mistrust start to run wild and Zac becomes obsessed with Sela (Lilly-Rose Depp). His unwelcome advances soon become more and more aggressive which causes Christopher and Richard to intervene and tragedy soon follows.
Christopher and Zac soon find themselves at odds with one another and fear and paranoia lead the crew to form into factions and turn on one other which not only threatens the mission but their very survival.
The film was very engaging and while I saw the influence of Lord of the Flies early on; the engaging cast and setting make the film entertaining and enjoyable despite any really unexpected twists.
The young leads work well with one another and it will be very interesting to watch how their careers unfold in the years to come. “Voyagers” is a refreshing new take on a classic tale and provides an entertaining and engaging adventure for viewers to enjoy.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Children Act (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
“And the Oscar goes to”… (or should go to)… “Dame Emma Thompson”.
Given my last review was for “The Equalizer 2“, where Denzel was judge, jury and executioner, it’s a nice seque that this film follows the life of a senior judge in London’s Law Courts: trying to do the justice job, but in the right way!
Judge Maye (Thompson) is a childless wife to her loving husband Jack (Tucci), but is also a workaholic. This is driving the long-term couple to the point of infidelity: a fact the ever-focused Fiona – whose life, to her, probably feels to be in a perfect if selfish equilibrium – is oblivious to. With Fiona’s intense but comfortable world about to cave in around her, her increasing stress is not helped by the latest case she is working on: one where Adam ( Fionn Whitehead from “Dunkirk“), a Jehovah’s Witness boy and a minor, is refusing on religious grounds the blood transfusion he desperately needs to fight his leukaemia. Fiona’s decisions in the months ahead go much further than a simple judgement on the case.
Two acting giants – one born in London; one born in New York – tower over this Ian McEwan adaptation like leviathons. I bandy around the phrase “national treasure” a lot in these reviews but, if there was a league table of national treasures, Emma Thompson would qualify for the Champion’s League every season. Here she is simply breathtakingly powerful in the lead role of Judge Fiona Maye, exhibiting such extremes of emotion that you would like to think that an Oscar nomination would be assured. (However, before I run out and put a £10 bet on her to win, the film is such a small British film that unfortunately both a nomination and a win seem unlikely! THIS IS A CRIME! So I have added the tag #OscarBuzz to this post…. please share and lobby people, lobby! Perhaps at the very least we can hope for some BAFTA recognition).
Sometimes a masterly lead performance can make a co-star performance seem unbalanced, but no such danger here. Stanley Tucci makes a perfect acting foil for Thompson: if he were a wine he would be described as “exasperation, frustration, compassion with strong notes of respect”. And he carries it off with perfection.
This is an incredibly intelligent film, working on so many different levels and subject to so much interpretation. Fiona’s feelings for the troubled teenager feel more maternal than sexual, but when those feelings become returned and escalate the whole piece develops a queasily oedipal quality. Many films have focused on illicit attractions between teacher and pupil, but here lies a new variation, with Maye fighting against her best professional insticts to ‘do the right thing’. “I’m frightened of myself” she eventually wails to a colleague.
In his opening hospital scenes*, Adam seems completely other-wordly compared to a typical teen and this comes across as utterly false. That is, until you consider the oddness of his family background and Jehovah’s Witness upbringing. As such, the film just about gets away with it. Whitehead does a good job with a difficult role. (*It took my wife to point out – after the film, thank goodness – the similarities between this hospital scene and a famous guitar-playing scene in “Airplane” at which I dissolved into guffaws!).
If you’ve been in a court, you’ll know that there is something regal and magical about a judge in full regalia entering a packed courtroom. So it’s unusual to see the view from the other side of the door… a non-descript office corridor and a non-descript door. Helping the judge on this side of the door is her PA Nigel, played by the brilliant Jason Watkins: a TV regular (e.g. “Line of Duty”, “W1A”) but seen far less at the movies.
As a story of obsessive fixation, it borders on McEwan’s disturbing earlier work “Enduring Love”. And it has the potential to go in lots of interesting directions as a sort of bonkers platonic love triangle (“He wants to live with US?” splutters Tucci). Where the story does end up going was not particularly to my liking, and a melodramatic concert scene was – for me – a little overdone. However it does give rise to a scene (the ‘sopping wet’ scene) that shows Thompson at her most brilliant: if she DID get Oscar or BAFTA nominated then this will be her pre-announcement snippet.
It’s a great film for showcasing acting talent, but beware: it’s not got a “lot of laffs”. As such it’s very much a “Father Ted film” that takes a while to recover from.
Judge Maye (Thompson) is a childless wife to her loving husband Jack (Tucci), but is also a workaholic. This is driving the long-term couple to the point of infidelity: a fact the ever-focused Fiona – whose life, to her, probably feels to be in a perfect if selfish equilibrium – is oblivious to. With Fiona’s intense but comfortable world about to cave in around her, her increasing stress is not helped by the latest case she is working on: one where Adam ( Fionn Whitehead from “Dunkirk“), a Jehovah’s Witness boy and a minor, is refusing on religious grounds the blood transfusion he desperately needs to fight his leukaemia. Fiona’s decisions in the months ahead go much further than a simple judgement on the case.
Two acting giants – one born in London; one born in New York – tower over this Ian McEwan adaptation like leviathons. I bandy around the phrase “national treasure” a lot in these reviews but, if there was a league table of national treasures, Emma Thompson would qualify for the Champion’s League every season. Here she is simply breathtakingly powerful in the lead role of Judge Fiona Maye, exhibiting such extremes of emotion that you would like to think that an Oscar nomination would be assured. (However, before I run out and put a £10 bet on her to win, the film is such a small British film that unfortunately both a nomination and a win seem unlikely! THIS IS A CRIME! So I have added the tag #OscarBuzz to this post…. please share and lobby people, lobby! Perhaps at the very least we can hope for some BAFTA recognition).
Sometimes a masterly lead performance can make a co-star performance seem unbalanced, but no such danger here. Stanley Tucci makes a perfect acting foil for Thompson: if he were a wine he would be described as “exasperation, frustration, compassion with strong notes of respect”. And he carries it off with perfection.
This is an incredibly intelligent film, working on so many different levels and subject to so much interpretation. Fiona’s feelings for the troubled teenager feel more maternal than sexual, but when those feelings become returned and escalate the whole piece develops a queasily oedipal quality. Many films have focused on illicit attractions between teacher and pupil, but here lies a new variation, with Maye fighting against her best professional insticts to ‘do the right thing’. “I’m frightened of myself” she eventually wails to a colleague.
In his opening hospital scenes*, Adam seems completely other-wordly compared to a typical teen and this comes across as utterly false. That is, until you consider the oddness of his family background and Jehovah’s Witness upbringing. As such, the film just about gets away with it. Whitehead does a good job with a difficult role. (*It took my wife to point out – after the film, thank goodness – the similarities between this hospital scene and a famous guitar-playing scene in “Airplane” at which I dissolved into guffaws!).
If you’ve been in a court, you’ll know that there is something regal and magical about a judge in full regalia entering a packed courtroom. So it’s unusual to see the view from the other side of the door… a non-descript office corridor and a non-descript door. Helping the judge on this side of the door is her PA Nigel, played by the brilliant Jason Watkins: a TV regular (e.g. “Line of Duty”, “W1A”) but seen far less at the movies.
As a story of obsessive fixation, it borders on McEwan’s disturbing earlier work “Enduring Love”. And it has the potential to go in lots of interesting directions as a sort of bonkers platonic love triangle (“He wants to live with US?” splutters Tucci). Where the story does end up going was not particularly to my liking, and a melodramatic concert scene was – for me – a little overdone. However it does give rise to a scene (the ‘sopping wet’ scene) that shows Thompson at her most brilliant: if she DID get Oscar or BAFTA nominated then this will be her pre-announcement snippet.
It’s a great film for showcasing acting talent, but beware: it’s not got a “lot of laffs”. As such it’s very much a “Father Ted film” that takes a while to recover from.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Dunkirk (2017) in Movies
Jul 26, 2017
Breathtaking and Intense
It's 1940 and the Nazis are overpowering the British army, forcing them to retreat to Dunkirk in an effort to return home to England. The English channel is all that stands in the way of the 400,000 soldiers that are stranded on the beach. The story begins with Tommy (Fionn Whitehead), making his way through the town as propaganda is being dropped from the sky, informing them that the enemy are closing in. After a brief dash to avoid the bullets that begin raining down on him and some fellow soldiers, he barely manages to make it to the beach where the immense desperation of the situation becomes apparent. Thousands of men lined up, waiting for something to free them while bodies wash up on the beach. The cinematic scale is, as you'd expect from Christopher Nolan, impressive. And it doesn't let up from then on.
We follow three different stories, covering land, sea and air and spanning differing time-frames. Intersecting and even overtaking each other at crucial moments, which sounds confusing but actually works very well. After being introduced to the perspective on land, which then continues to play out over a week, we're introduced to Mr Dawson (Mark Rylance) as he prepares to set off from England by yacht along with his son and another local boy, loaded with lifejackets and keen to do their bit to help bring our boys home. This storyline is set to play out over the period of one day. Finally, we're introduced to RAF pilot Farrier (Tom Hardy), whose story will play out over an hour. He's up in the sky, over the channel. As we alternate between each story, momentum is never lost and the tension continues to grow as time, and available options, begin to dwindle. On land, bombs, bullets and torpedoes repeatedly prevent a successful escape, sinking boats and ships. Up in the air, a damaged fuel gauge means that Farrier has to constantly guesstimate how much fuel and time he's got left before dropping out of the sky, while single-handedly taking out enemy planes in the process. Down on the water, Dawson and his small crew have their own drama after rescuing a stranded soldier (Cillian Murphy). Clearly a broken man who takes a turn for the worse upon realising that they're not headed for home and are in fact on their way back to the hell that he's just left behind.
Despite featuring a number of famous faces, probably the most surprising cast member of all is Harry Styles. Every time he features in a scene, and he does feature quite a bit, it kind of threw me off balance and I was just expecting him to cock the whole thing up. Luckily he doesn't. This is a truly breathtaking movie, with no over the top CGI or gore and with everyone at the top of their game. Perfectly ramped up tension, accompanied by an intense musical score from the fantastic Hans Zimmer. The dogfights, featuring real spitfires filmed over the English Channel, are also incredible with the roar of their engines and bullets flying. The movie does an amazing job of fully immersing you in this pivotal moment of history. It's truly edge of seat stuff throughout. Incredible.
We follow three different stories, covering land, sea and air and spanning differing time-frames. Intersecting and even overtaking each other at crucial moments, which sounds confusing but actually works very well. After being introduced to the perspective on land, which then continues to play out over a week, we're introduced to Mr Dawson (Mark Rylance) as he prepares to set off from England by yacht along with his son and another local boy, loaded with lifejackets and keen to do their bit to help bring our boys home. This storyline is set to play out over the period of one day. Finally, we're introduced to RAF pilot Farrier (Tom Hardy), whose story will play out over an hour. He's up in the sky, over the channel. As we alternate between each story, momentum is never lost and the tension continues to grow as time, and available options, begin to dwindle. On land, bombs, bullets and torpedoes repeatedly prevent a successful escape, sinking boats and ships. Up in the air, a damaged fuel gauge means that Farrier has to constantly guesstimate how much fuel and time he's got left before dropping out of the sky, while single-handedly taking out enemy planes in the process. Down on the water, Dawson and his small crew have their own drama after rescuing a stranded soldier (Cillian Murphy). Clearly a broken man who takes a turn for the worse upon realising that they're not headed for home and are in fact on their way back to the hell that he's just left behind.
Despite featuring a number of famous faces, probably the most surprising cast member of all is Harry Styles. Every time he features in a scene, and he does feature quite a bit, it kind of threw me off balance and I was just expecting him to cock the whole thing up. Luckily he doesn't. This is a truly breathtaking movie, with no over the top CGI or gore and with everyone at the top of their game. Perfectly ramped up tension, accompanied by an intense musical score from the fantastic Hans Zimmer. The dogfights, featuring real spitfires filmed over the English Channel, are also incredible with the roar of their engines and bullets flying. The movie does an amazing job of fully immersing you in this pivotal moment of history. It's truly edge of seat stuff throughout. Incredible.
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Black Mirror: Bandersnatch (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
It comes as no surprise that Black Mirror was Netflix’s guinea pig for their first ever interactive film. Charlie Brooker’s anthology series about the dark side of technology has captivated fans ever since it first aired on Channel 4 in the UK. With Netflix being a leading entertainment service, the time had come for them to try something brand new. The film dropped over the Christmas break, and I for one was very excited to sit down and try it.
Black Mirror: Bandersnatch is set in the ’80s and follows teenager Stefan Butler as he works to create a choice/consequence video game called ‘Bandersnatch’. He’s basing it off one of his mother’s ‘choose your own adventure’ books, where you could flick back and forth between chapters to change the course of your story. He’s been invited to speak with video games company Tuckersoft, comprised of video game creator Colin Ritman and savvy businessman Mohan Thaku, in the hopes he can make the game for their company.
As Stefan works on ‘Bandersnatch’, he also visits a therapist to help with his depression following the loss of his mother. He takes an unnamed medication in an attempt to ease his symptoms. Soon, the lines between reality and the video game world start to blur for Stefan, and he becomes more and more unhinged before our eyes.
That’s about all I’m going to tell you about the plot itself, because I don’t want to give away any spoilers. My advice when approaching this for the first time is to go in completely blind and just make your own decisions. You can find numerous pathway guides online, but try to avoid these until your later playthroughs if you can. Black Mirror: Bandersnatch is an experience that requires multiple watches and a lot of patience, but I promise you it’s worth it.
Personally I adore this episode, and I think they did such a fantastic job of bringing it to life. It’s so fluid and engaging; the scenes continue to play even when the options pop up on screen. The acting is absolutely stunning, with Fionn Whitehead (Stefan) and Will Poulter (Colin) impressing me the most, but every character is so well acted and believable. For the very first time, you feel part of the Black Mirror universe, and everything starts to feel so meta. There are also a lot of references to previous episodes which will delight long term fans, but aren’t too jarring for those new to the series.
Both Black Mirror and Netflix have proven they can work with interactivity without making it too gimmicky or tedious. It’s a fascinating format that I’m excited to see more of, and I’m sure we haven’t seen the last of this. I have equal amounts of praise for both the series and Netflix themselves, because they’re constantly upping the entertainment game which makes me fall in love even more. This is the kind of stuff that really excites me!
In classic Black Mirror style, there are some disturbing pathways but they’re arguably my favourite. They’re chilling, harrowing and bloody brilliant. At this point I think I’ve explored every possible ending or pathway, but I’m reluctant to spoil any of them on here because that would ruin the experience. However, if you do want to discuss anything, please do message me on @LGTHBlog so we can fangirl together!
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2019/01/06/netflixs-first-interactive-film-my-thoughts-on-black-mirror-bandersnatch/
Black Mirror: Bandersnatch is set in the ’80s and follows teenager Stefan Butler as he works to create a choice/consequence video game called ‘Bandersnatch’. He’s basing it off one of his mother’s ‘choose your own adventure’ books, where you could flick back and forth between chapters to change the course of your story. He’s been invited to speak with video games company Tuckersoft, comprised of video game creator Colin Ritman and savvy businessman Mohan Thaku, in the hopes he can make the game for their company.
As Stefan works on ‘Bandersnatch’, he also visits a therapist to help with his depression following the loss of his mother. He takes an unnamed medication in an attempt to ease his symptoms. Soon, the lines between reality and the video game world start to blur for Stefan, and he becomes more and more unhinged before our eyes.
That’s about all I’m going to tell you about the plot itself, because I don’t want to give away any spoilers. My advice when approaching this for the first time is to go in completely blind and just make your own decisions. You can find numerous pathway guides online, but try to avoid these until your later playthroughs if you can. Black Mirror: Bandersnatch is an experience that requires multiple watches and a lot of patience, but I promise you it’s worth it.
Personally I adore this episode, and I think they did such a fantastic job of bringing it to life. It’s so fluid and engaging; the scenes continue to play even when the options pop up on screen. The acting is absolutely stunning, with Fionn Whitehead (Stefan) and Will Poulter (Colin) impressing me the most, but every character is so well acted and believable. For the very first time, you feel part of the Black Mirror universe, and everything starts to feel so meta. There are also a lot of references to previous episodes which will delight long term fans, but aren’t too jarring for those new to the series.
Both Black Mirror and Netflix have proven they can work with interactivity without making it too gimmicky or tedious. It’s a fascinating format that I’m excited to see more of, and I’m sure we haven’t seen the last of this. I have equal amounts of praise for both the series and Netflix themselves, because they’re constantly upping the entertainment game which makes me fall in love even more. This is the kind of stuff that really excites me!
In classic Black Mirror style, there are some disturbing pathways but they’re arguably my favourite. They’re chilling, harrowing and bloody brilliant. At this point I think I’ve explored every possible ending or pathway, but I’m reluctant to spoil any of them on here because that would ruin the experience. However, if you do want to discuss anything, please do message me on @LGTHBlog so we can fangirl together!
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2019/01/06/netflixs-first-interactive-film-my-thoughts-on-black-mirror-bandersnatch/
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Black Mirror: Bandersnatch (2018) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
Over a year on from this novelty being the first fully interactive film released by Netflix there is still no evidence of a similarly user controlled show out there. The streaming service had promised, after scooping a primetime Emmy for outstanding TV movie, that it was commissioning many more like it. But as of January 2020 they are nowhere to be seen.
Could it be that without the context of being a Black Mirror mind game, wrapped in Charlie Brooker’s clever if flimsy script, that it would just feel too intrusive and unnecessary for a mainstream drama audience? Not to mention the extra cost and hassle of filming multiple scenarios on a production. It’s fine as a distracting experiment, but would we want to have choices as a normal part of watching something?
Especially when looking back on Bandersnatch and realising that without this gimmick it is probably one of the weaker entries under the banner of Black Mirror quality. I can see how it would work well in children’s programming, as a way of keeping young audiences engaged. But beyond that, why not just play an actual video game, if an immersive interactive story that you control is what you want?
Fionn Whitehead of Dunkirk fame, does a fine job as 80s teen computer geek Stefan, as does the versatile yet under-used Will Poulter, in roles that in a straight drama would feel massively under-written. The impressive thing is how smooth the whole experience is. And you do feel increasingly uncomfortable the more you begin to influence Stefan, choosing more and more sinister actions simply out of a dark curiosity of where that will take him, and you!
The idea of reaching a dead end and having to go back to relive a moment, whilst cleverly woven in here to reflect a “choose your own adventure” book, does become a fault and a bit annoying. Something of a cheat! What would be truly impressive would be to branch the story in ways that never allow you to go back, but still results in the story making sense. Although the logistics of that script boggles the mind.
I do like the idea of no two people ever watching the same film, sort of. I also hate it. Because a good film has enough ambiguity to encourage debate anyway, and knowing everyone has watched the same story as you feels like a shared experience. No matter how interesting it might be in theory, you can’t escape the fact that Xbox and Playstation have this covered, especially as VR gaming becomes more common.
And that is the ultimate failing of Bandersnatch, in that you can’t really talk about the story in any other way than to wonder which ending you got? Apparently, it has five possible outcomes. By the time I had gone over it and found three, I was pretty much done with it. My curiosity certainly didn’t extend to going back and discovering the consequences of every possible choice.
Would I still recommend it? Well, yes. Anyone that hasn’t tried it probably should, at least have a go, to be able to say been there, done that. Would I like to see interaction as a part of my favourite shows? Definitely not.
Could it be that without the context of being a Black Mirror mind game, wrapped in Charlie Brooker’s clever if flimsy script, that it would just feel too intrusive and unnecessary for a mainstream drama audience? Not to mention the extra cost and hassle of filming multiple scenarios on a production. It’s fine as a distracting experiment, but would we want to have choices as a normal part of watching something?
Especially when looking back on Bandersnatch and realising that without this gimmick it is probably one of the weaker entries under the banner of Black Mirror quality. I can see how it would work well in children’s programming, as a way of keeping young audiences engaged. But beyond that, why not just play an actual video game, if an immersive interactive story that you control is what you want?
Fionn Whitehead of Dunkirk fame, does a fine job as 80s teen computer geek Stefan, as does the versatile yet under-used Will Poulter, in roles that in a straight drama would feel massively under-written. The impressive thing is how smooth the whole experience is. And you do feel increasingly uncomfortable the more you begin to influence Stefan, choosing more and more sinister actions simply out of a dark curiosity of where that will take him, and you!
The idea of reaching a dead end and having to go back to relive a moment, whilst cleverly woven in here to reflect a “choose your own adventure” book, does become a fault and a bit annoying. Something of a cheat! What would be truly impressive would be to branch the story in ways that never allow you to go back, but still results in the story making sense. Although the logistics of that script boggles the mind.
I do like the idea of no two people ever watching the same film, sort of. I also hate it. Because a good film has enough ambiguity to encourage debate anyway, and knowing everyone has watched the same story as you feels like a shared experience. No matter how interesting it might be in theory, you can’t escape the fact that Xbox and Playstation have this covered, especially as VR gaming becomes more common.
And that is the ultimate failing of Bandersnatch, in that you can’t really talk about the story in any other way than to wonder which ending you got? Apparently, it has five possible outcomes. By the time I had gone over it and found three, I was pretty much done with it. My curiosity certainly didn’t extend to going back and discovering the consequences of every possible choice.
Would I still recommend it? Well, yes. Anyone that hasn’t tried it probably should, at least have a go, to be able to say been there, done that. Would I like to see interaction as a part of my favourite shows? Definitely not.
FearlessLover (27 KP) rated Dunkirk (2017) in Movies
Jul 31, 2017
Stunning cinea
It' s 1940, 400,000 allied troops are cornered and cut off on the beaches of Dunkirk; with the enemy closing in, and no cover or defence, they await annihilation or a miracle. We experience the moment as the characters do, without unnecessary exposition or dialogue! This proves quite the departure for Nolan; there is a lot here that owes more to silent cinema than anything else, but his images often say all that needs to be said.
An opening frame invites us to join a group of soldiers. Next, the loudest onslaught of gunfire kicks the film into another gear. We are given as much pause for thought as the soldiers we follow. We run with Tommy, played here by a Fionn Whitehead, and like him, we are aware of comrades falling dead next to us, but it is all panic and no time; we will lament their loss later. Set to the ticking of a watch, we feel Tommy's heart pounding with ours, and we know the tone for this audacious movie has been set.
We see the event from different perspectives and from within different time frames. Right now, not many directors can build momentum like Nolan. The jumping to and from different characters' point of view, the corkscrewing impression of the editing, events echoed and mirrored by Hans Zimmer's Shepherd's Tones and persistent, all enveloping score, acting at times more like sound design than music; it all results in a constant rise in tension, to the point of almost being exhaustive.
This said, the editing also serves another purpose. The "Miracle of Dunkirk" is a grand story, with every soldier, every pilot, and every civilian having their own point of view. Nolan wants us to build up an overall picture of the event purely through subjective experience, so of course we spend a tiring week with the terrified boys. Of course we spend a desperate day with a fisherman as he and his familial crew sail their way into action. Lastly, given the fuel constraints of the RAF, whose decisions had to be immediate and impulsive, always a choice between defending the beach or getting home, why would we spend any more that an edge-of-your-seat, quickly-cut hour in the cockpit of a Spitfire, as they do their duty and enter into dogfights to keep the German aircraft at bay? Each timeline is contracted or dilated to give everybody equal measure and importance, whilst staying true to and very much in their situation. Yes, this means we're kept on our toes; we have moments of confusion as timelines cross over and we see the same thing happening from another point of view, but as we head into the finale, as well as the aforementioned tension and release (which is just exciting cinema), we also get to see how, despite very different perspectives, everyone was working together, and how sacrifice and struggle for duty were par for the course for all involved, whether other people knew it or not. It is important that we the audience recognise this bigger picture, and as everything clicks together in an emotive final convergence of efforts, we not only see the justification for the techniques adopted, but struggle to imagine the story told another way. That is, at least, without going down a standard route, with objective storytelling employed.
A proper review not being complete without comment on the elephant in the room, it must be said that Harry Styles does not stand out like the proverbial sore thumb at all. Frankly, he carries his scenes with aplomb, and surely, following the Heath Ledger lesson, and now this, it is time we learned that, maybe, Christopher Nolan just knows what he's doing better that we do? As to the other big names, there are moments from that remain with me so long after having seen it: Kenneth Brannagh and Mark Rylance can say so much with so little, their faces and gestures doing the heavy lifting to deliver a lot of the human emotion, and it would appear Tom Hardy has Oscar-worthy eyes! You need see nothing more through the course of his drama to have a complete sense of the type of man his Farrier is. We talk about great acting and achieving realism through imagination, but with the knowledge that Nolan actually took everyone to Dunkirk, sank real ships, sailed real ships, flew real Spitfires overhead, employed real explosions on the beach, and even rejected green screen and CGI in favour of cardboard cut-outs, it seems imagination wasn't too necessary for these already consummate actors.
Nolan's principle fan base will be well prepared for what they get; but with his insistence on holding back from the audience any perspective not afforded his characters, ala 'Memento', some knowledge of the "Miracle Of Dunkirk" might put the more casual viewer in better stead. Regardless of which camp you fall into, or indeed of whether or not the movie does it for you, certain things are for sure: With no melodrama or cheese, and no superfluous fluff or emotional subterfuge, 'Dunkirk' is a purely experiential movie, a technical marvel of a war film unlike any other I can name. It also stands as a beacon in Nolan's career, characterised by his desire to cultivate an audience willing to keep up with him. And perhaps most importantly, this is a key moment in world history that is often overlooked; a disaster averted which, had it not been, would have seen the history books written very differently. That this event has been marshalled by a confident and sincere director, who has surely by now cemented his name alongside those of his own heroes, is reason enough to see 'Dunkirk'.
An opening frame invites us to join a group of soldiers. Next, the loudest onslaught of gunfire kicks the film into another gear. We are given as much pause for thought as the soldiers we follow. We run with Tommy, played here by a Fionn Whitehead, and like him, we are aware of comrades falling dead next to us, but it is all panic and no time; we will lament their loss later. Set to the ticking of a watch, we feel Tommy's heart pounding with ours, and we know the tone for this audacious movie has been set.
We see the event from different perspectives and from within different time frames. Right now, not many directors can build momentum like Nolan. The jumping to and from different characters' point of view, the corkscrewing impression of the editing, events echoed and mirrored by Hans Zimmer's Shepherd's Tones and persistent, all enveloping score, acting at times more like sound design than music; it all results in a constant rise in tension, to the point of almost being exhaustive.
This said, the editing also serves another purpose. The "Miracle of Dunkirk" is a grand story, with every soldier, every pilot, and every civilian having their own point of view. Nolan wants us to build up an overall picture of the event purely through subjective experience, so of course we spend a tiring week with the terrified boys. Of course we spend a desperate day with a fisherman as he and his familial crew sail their way into action. Lastly, given the fuel constraints of the RAF, whose decisions had to be immediate and impulsive, always a choice between defending the beach or getting home, why would we spend any more that an edge-of-your-seat, quickly-cut hour in the cockpit of a Spitfire, as they do their duty and enter into dogfights to keep the German aircraft at bay? Each timeline is contracted or dilated to give everybody equal measure and importance, whilst staying true to and very much in their situation. Yes, this means we're kept on our toes; we have moments of confusion as timelines cross over and we see the same thing happening from another point of view, but as we head into the finale, as well as the aforementioned tension and release (which is just exciting cinema), we also get to see how, despite very different perspectives, everyone was working together, and how sacrifice and struggle for duty were par for the course for all involved, whether other people knew it or not. It is important that we the audience recognise this bigger picture, and as everything clicks together in an emotive final convergence of efforts, we not only see the justification for the techniques adopted, but struggle to imagine the story told another way. That is, at least, without going down a standard route, with objective storytelling employed.
A proper review not being complete without comment on the elephant in the room, it must be said that Harry Styles does not stand out like the proverbial sore thumb at all. Frankly, he carries his scenes with aplomb, and surely, following the Heath Ledger lesson, and now this, it is time we learned that, maybe, Christopher Nolan just knows what he's doing better that we do? As to the other big names, there are moments from that remain with me so long after having seen it: Kenneth Brannagh and Mark Rylance can say so much with so little, their faces and gestures doing the heavy lifting to deliver a lot of the human emotion, and it would appear Tom Hardy has Oscar-worthy eyes! You need see nothing more through the course of his drama to have a complete sense of the type of man his Farrier is. We talk about great acting and achieving realism through imagination, but with the knowledge that Nolan actually took everyone to Dunkirk, sank real ships, sailed real ships, flew real Spitfires overhead, employed real explosions on the beach, and even rejected green screen and CGI in favour of cardboard cut-outs, it seems imagination wasn't too necessary for these already consummate actors.
Nolan's principle fan base will be well prepared for what they get; but with his insistence on holding back from the audience any perspective not afforded his characters, ala 'Memento', some knowledge of the "Miracle Of Dunkirk" might put the more casual viewer in better stead. Regardless of which camp you fall into, or indeed of whether or not the movie does it for you, certain things are for sure: With no melodrama or cheese, and no superfluous fluff or emotional subterfuge, 'Dunkirk' is a purely experiential movie, a technical marvel of a war film unlike any other I can name. It also stands as a beacon in Nolan's career, characterised by his desire to cultivate an audience willing to keep up with him. And perhaps most importantly, this is a key moment in world history that is often overlooked; a disaster averted which, had it not been, would have seen the history books written very differently. That this event has been marshalled by a confident and sincere director, who has surely by now cemented his name alongside those of his own heroes, is reason enough to see 'Dunkirk'.