Search
Search results
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Stan & Ollie (2018) in Movies
Jan 28, 2021
My relationship with Laurel & Hardy is a tentative one. I do enjoy their short films, full of ingenuity and genuinely funny moments. But, they’d be down the list a bit for me on the greatest black and white comedy stars – Chaplin, Keaton, Lloyd, then the Marx Brothers maybe, then the slapstick duo next, maybe. It’s not that I don’t think they are great! They are, they definitely are. I just can’t sit down and take to much of them at once. Maybe because their schtick is very stagey, vaudevillian even, rather than cinematic. And that is because they were primary stage actors and clowns. Not necessarily in that order.
So, my anticipation of a movie about them in 2018 was not huge. I was happy to wait, and it was consigned deep down the watchlist for a while. Until one Sunday evening in October, when it suddenly felt like exactly what I wanted to see that day – a nice, calm biopic that probably had a few laughs and a soppy ending. And that is pretty much what this is. Except that it also has two very very impressive performances from the eponymous leads, the consumately talented John C. Reilly and Steve Coogan.
When I say impressive I mean that at times it feels like you are magically watching the real Oliver Hardy and Stan Laurel. So detailed and well observed are their characterisations that nothing whatsoever (other than maybe the makeup on Reilly’s double chin) strikes you as false. Which helps you invest in their story entirely; told in professional if unspectacular style by Jon S. Baird, who demonstrates an understanding of the people, if not a full understanding of how to make a scene truly fly.
The story here is not a full biopic, but rather a snapshot of the end of their careers, when, amazingly, they embarked on a tour of UK theatres in an attempt to keep working once their film career had lost its shine and popularity. What we see are two older men, once treated as superstars, who are now brought down to earth by all things fading, including their youth. They are bitter and argumentative with each other, and their long suffering wives (played satisfyingly by Shirley Henderson and Nina Arianda). Long stewed resentments come to the surface and the smiles of the clowns are seen at their lowest ebb as things begin to fall apart.
What rings true are the observations of a love / hate friendship that has lasted a full lifetime, and how that affects a working relationship and a public legacy. Jeff Pope, who also worked with Coogan on Philomena, gives us a stoic but often deeply meaningful screenplay here, that isn’t bothered by showing off, in favour of colouring the relationship accurately, which is commendably, and feels quite anti-Hollywood and a bit more British.
The physical gags and set-pieces are also beautifully staged, and look gorgeous, evoking the period superbly. My face was almost permanently smiling, although I can’t remember laughing out loud once. And that is what this film feels like, ultimately – a nice, gentle, Sunday afternoon drive into the past. Your grandparents will love it! Personally, I felt it was fine and dandy, but lacked a spark or two to make it properly come to life.
Watch this if you enjoy great acting that doesn’t need to wave its arms around to get attention. Both Reilly and Coogan are extraordinary! Interestingly, the American was nominated for a Golden Globe over there, and the Brit was nominated for a Bafta over here. Neither won, but they were never going to, as this production is almost embarrassed to announce itself as being good. It is good. Just not amazing. Give it a go when a nice cosy, sleepy mood takes you one day.
So, my anticipation of a movie about them in 2018 was not huge. I was happy to wait, and it was consigned deep down the watchlist for a while. Until one Sunday evening in October, when it suddenly felt like exactly what I wanted to see that day – a nice, calm biopic that probably had a few laughs and a soppy ending. And that is pretty much what this is. Except that it also has two very very impressive performances from the eponymous leads, the consumately talented John C. Reilly and Steve Coogan.
When I say impressive I mean that at times it feels like you are magically watching the real Oliver Hardy and Stan Laurel. So detailed and well observed are their characterisations that nothing whatsoever (other than maybe the makeup on Reilly’s double chin) strikes you as false. Which helps you invest in their story entirely; told in professional if unspectacular style by Jon S. Baird, who demonstrates an understanding of the people, if not a full understanding of how to make a scene truly fly.
The story here is not a full biopic, but rather a snapshot of the end of their careers, when, amazingly, they embarked on a tour of UK theatres in an attempt to keep working once their film career had lost its shine and popularity. What we see are two older men, once treated as superstars, who are now brought down to earth by all things fading, including their youth. They are bitter and argumentative with each other, and their long suffering wives (played satisfyingly by Shirley Henderson and Nina Arianda). Long stewed resentments come to the surface and the smiles of the clowns are seen at their lowest ebb as things begin to fall apart.
What rings true are the observations of a love / hate friendship that has lasted a full lifetime, and how that affects a working relationship and a public legacy. Jeff Pope, who also worked with Coogan on Philomena, gives us a stoic but often deeply meaningful screenplay here, that isn’t bothered by showing off, in favour of colouring the relationship accurately, which is commendably, and feels quite anti-Hollywood and a bit more British.
The physical gags and set-pieces are also beautifully staged, and look gorgeous, evoking the period superbly. My face was almost permanently smiling, although I can’t remember laughing out loud once. And that is what this film feels like, ultimately – a nice, gentle, Sunday afternoon drive into the past. Your grandparents will love it! Personally, I felt it was fine and dandy, but lacked a spark or two to make it properly come to life.
Watch this if you enjoy great acting that doesn’t need to wave its arms around to get attention. Both Reilly and Coogan are extraordinary! Interestingly, the American was nominated for a Golden Globe over there, and the Brit was nominated for a Bafta over here. Neither won, but they were never going to, as this production is almost embarrassed to announce itself as being good. It is good. Just not amazing. Give it a go when a nice cosy, sleepy mood takes you one day.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Justice League (2017) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
A powerful force is hidden on Earth, three Mother Boxes, previously used by Steppenwolf and his army of Parademons in an attempt to conquer Earth. As the planet mourns the loss of Superman the power is ignited again and triggers Steppenwolf's return to Earth. When Themyscira is attacked and their Mother Box is stolen, Queen Hippolyta warns her daughter of what is to come.
Bruce Wayne (Batman, shhhh don't tell anyone) enlists Diana Prince to help him gather other metahumans in an effort to stop the impending destruction of the Earth. It's time to meet the new recruits: Arthur Curry AKA Aquaman, Barry Allen AKA The Flash, and Victor Stone AKA Cyborg.
My worry here was that they couldn't come close to how well they did with Wonder Woman. Thankfully, while not everything was quite right, I really enjoyed this film and I barely felt any pain at watching this... all the pain happened when I rewatched Batman Vs Superman before going to see Justice League.
Let me get the gripes out of the way. The CGI, which seems to be a quibble from a lot of people. I'm not really sure how you manage to successfully do so much of it, and yet the villain... quite a major part of the film... looked terrible. In all honesty he kind of looked like they'd tried to recreate Liam Neeson in some shots so why not just get Liam Neeson in and wack some makeup on him. I'd totally have watched that. As for CGIing off Henry Cavill's moustache, admittedly some of the shots looked a little bit off, but I'm not convinced that if we hadn't known about it that most of us would have been able to tell, because who is going to be staring at that unless you have a fetish for his upper lip?
They also tried to make Batman/Bruce Wayne funny, which felt a little odd, and slightly forced at times. You can understand it to some degree, when you're bringing in Flash who is generally regarded as the comedian of the bunch then you're going to have to add some humour in so that he doesn't stick out like a sore thumb.
Obviously we know that I love Wonder Woman, so there isn't a lot I need to say there, she still rocked. I enjoyed Jason Momoa as Aquaman, and yes, a significant portion of that was looking at his half naked body. But I thought he played the part really well, and I loved him getting caught out by Diana's lasso. With the other two I was worried that me knowing them from other things would make it difficult getting to grips with these new incarnations. Thankfully it wasn't too bad though. As it happens I'm not a fan of either Grant Gustin or Ezra Miller in the role of Flash. This film version is probably more how I picture his character, but neither actor really brings it across to me quite how I'd hope. Finally, Ray Fisher as Cyborg, mock me if you must, but I've only seen the character in action as part of Teen Titans Go! In that he's a somewhat happy go lucky chap who loves his food, and this one is a bit more angsty as his creation is quite fresh. I enjoyed him as a character though, it was interesting to see how he developed as his powers did.
I'm not really sure how I felt about the Superman regeneration part of the story, I suppose at least he did a David Tennant and regenerated into himself.
Not a bad offering after Wonder Woman, and I'm looking forward to the follow up films that'll be coming out over the next few years.
Bruce Wayne (Batman, shhhh don't tell anyone) enlists Diana Prince to help him gather other metahumans in an effort to stop the impending destruction of the Earth. It's time to meet the new recruits: Arthur Curry AKA Aquaman, Barry Allen AKA The Flash, and Victor Stone AKA Cyborg.
My worry here was that they couldn't come close to how well they did with Wonder Woman. Thankfully, while not everything was quite right, I really enjoyed this film and I barely felt any pain at watching this... all the pain happened when I rewatched Batman Vs Superman before going to see Justice League.
Let me get the gripes out of the way. The CGI, which seems to be a quibble from a lot of people. I'm not really sure how you manage to successfully do so much of it, and yet the villain... quite a major part of the film... looked terrible. In all honesty he kind of looked like they'd tried to recreate Liam Neeson in some shots so why not just get Liam Neeson in and wack some makeup on him. I'd totally have watched that. As for CGIing off Henry Cavill's moustache, admittedly some of the shots looked a little bit off, but I'm not convinced that if we hadn't known about it that most of us would have been able to tell, because who is going to be staring at that unless you have a fetish for his upper lip?
They also tried to make Batman/Bruce Wayne funny, which felt a little odd, and slightly forced at times. You can understand it to some degree, when you're bringing in Flash who is generally regarded as the comedian of the bunch then you're going to have to add some humour in so that he doesn't stick out like a sore thumb.
Obviously we know that I love Wonder Woman, so there isn't a lot I need to say there, she still rocked. I enjoyed Jason Momoa as Aquaman, and yes, a significant portion of that was looking at his half naked body. But I thought he played the part really well, and I loved him getting caught out by Diana's lasso. With the other two I was worried that me knowing them from other things would make it difficult getting to grips with these new incarnations. Thankfully it wasn't too bad though. As it happens I'm not a fan of either Grant Gustin or Ezra Miller in the role of Flash. This film version is probably more how I picture his character, but neither actor really brings it across to me quite how I'd hope. Finally, Ray Fisher as Cyborg, mock me if you must, but I've only seen the character in action as part of Teen Titans Go! In that he's a somewhat happy go lucky chap who loves his food, and this one is a bit more angsty as his creation is quite fresh. I enjoyed him as a character though, it was interesting to see how he developed as his powers did.
I'm not really sure how I felt about the Superman regeneration part of the story, I suppose at least he did a David Tennant and regenerated into himself.
Not a bad offering after Wonder Woman, and I'm looking forward to the follow up films that'll be coming out over the next few years.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
What would you do if you discovered you had superpowers in adolescence? How would you juggle being a fighter for justice and try to have a normal teenage experience? Spider-Man: Homecoming offers a more realistic look at how this would take place. Where the previous series of films never seemed to make that connection of balancing one’s youth and the varied problems that come during that period with what it means to be a superhero. The Tobey Maguire and the forgettable Andrew Garfield portrayals relied on a more comic book look and storylines to bring audiences to the theaters. This is not the case for the newest iteration. The film is not presumptuous or pretentious in its approach.
Tom Holland returns to the Marvel Universe as Spider-Man after being introduced in Captain America: Civil War. In this version, the audience is not subjected to an origin story to carry the bulk of the film. Instead, it addresses the issues of Spider-Man’s genesis in the previous film so that audiences can arrive in their seats ready to watch the action unfold. From the first opening frames of the films, we bear witness to the development of this story which builds off of The Avengers as we are introduced to Adrian Toomes (Michael Keaton), owner of a salvage company tasked with cleaning up the city. Upon his operation, he and his crew begin to discover the power of the alien equipment that they begin to sell on the black market. The development of this character is done with more care than previous films where the villains’ backstories rely simply on jealousy, seeking power, or just a thirst for chaos. The film shows a man who feels wronged by the system and simply wants to provide for his family. We are allowed to make a connection with “The Vulture” that makes us question if whether we would do anything much differently than he.
The same development is demonstrated with Tom Holland’s portrayal of Spider-Man. He is thrust into this role through the encouragement of Tony Stark, but when Stark doesn’t return his calls or seem to express interest after the battle scene in Captain America: Civil War, he tries to demonstrate his worth through becoming a local superhero. With that new calling, to paraphrase a statement made popular in Spider-Man, comes great responsibility. He must balance his life and try to compartmentalize his existence. The film does not disappoint in allowing the viewers to see Peter Parker as more than Spider-Man. They begin to see all the varied aspects of who he is and his rationale for being a superhero. We bear witness to the pain that he feels in having to keep his identity a secret from his friends and Aunt Mae. His superpowers and abilities come to be seen as a heavy burden that begins pulling him apart. He has to grow and understand who he is in order to be capable of everything he seeks to be.
Spider-Man Homecoming does not disappoint. It is by far, the best Marvel film made due to its ability to connect with fans of different ages and interests. The film is fun, funny, creative, and will have viewers forget about any previous versions and films. Tom Holland is the perfect fit for Peter Parker and an even better fit for Spider-Man. The film is mature, filled with depth, emotion, and many connections to other superhero films in the Marvel cinematic universe. It is well on its way to ensuring that the franchise will have a long life.
Tom Holland returns to the Marvel Universe as Spider-Man after being introduced in Captain America: Civil War. In this version, the audience is not subjected to an origin story to carry the bulk of the film. Instead, it addresses the issues of Spider-Man’s genesis in the previous film so that audiences can arrive in their seats ready to watch the action unfold. From the first opening frames of the films, we bear witness to the development of this story which builds off of The Avengers as we are introduced to Adrian Toomes (Michael Keaton), owner of a salvage company tasked with cleaning up the city. Upon his operation, he and his crew begin to discover the power of the alien equipment that they begin to sell on the black market. The development of this character is done with more care than previous films where the villains’ backstories rely simply on jealousy, seeking power, or just a thirst for chaos. The film shows a man who feels wronged by the system and simply wants to provide for his family. We are allowed to make a connection with “The Vulture” that makes us question if whether we would do anything much differently than he.
The same development is demonstrated with Tom Holland’s portrayal of Spider-Man. He is thrust into this role through the encouragement of Tony Stark, but when Stark doesn’t return his calls or seem to express interest after the battle scene in Captain America: Civil War, he tries to demonstrate his worth through becoming a local superhero. With that new calling, to paraphrase a statement made popular in Spider-Man, comes great responsibility. He must balance his life and try to compartmentalize his existence. The film does not disappoint in allowing the viewers to see Peter Parker as more than Spider-Man. They begin to see all the varied aspects of who he is and his rationale for being a superhero. We bear witness to the pain that he feels in having to keep his identity a secret from his friends and Aunt Mae. His superpowers and abilities come to be seen as a heavy burden that begins pulling him apart. He has to grow and understand who he is in order to be capable of everything he seeks to be.
Spider-Man Homecoming does not disappoint. It is by far, the best Marvel film made due to its ability to connect with fans of different ages and interests. The film is fun, funny, creative, and will have viewers forget about any previous versions and films. Tom Holland is the perfect fit for Peter Parker and an even better fit for Spider-Man. The film is mature, filled with depth, emotion, and many connections to other superhero films in the Marvel cinematic universe. It is well on its way to ensuring that the franchise will have a long life.
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated The Queens Corgi (2019) in Movies
Jul 13, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
The Queens Corgi is an animated children's movie about Rex, the Queen's favourite who, after a disastrous visit from Donald Trump, is tricked into leaving the palace and winds up in the dog pound. This is a common formula in children’s movies both animated and live action and I'm sure most of us can guess what happens next, Rex tries to get back home and, on the way makes some friends and falls in love. So when my daughter wanted to see it I though I'd be in for a funny, possibly sad film. God I was wrong. There is so much wrong with this film and it all seems to go wrong from the scene where Donald Trump visits the Queen and I really wish I could say my problems were politically motivated but unfortunately the film was just that bad.
The character of Trump was reduced to a stereotypical American tourist with Melania passing comments about the size of Donald’s (big) hands being one of the things that attracted her to him.
The problems really start when Melania and the Queen decided it will be a good idea to breed their respective corgis. Melania's Corgi, Mitzi, who is made up in heave eye shadow and lipstick is instantly judged and disliked by all the Queens corgis (both Male and female). Melania's Corgi then passes judgment on all the corgis until she comes to Rex who she decided she wants. The two dogs are then left in a room together after being told by Trump to grab him by the pups.
Now I just want to make the following clear:
1) I've seen plenty of movies where the (normally timid/nerdy) male character is hit on by the strong scary bully female and this normally for comedy value. Although these scenes could be seen as problematic they are normally played for laughs.
2) I understand that dog breeders do choose dogs and put them together to mate. However, as the animals in this film are given human personality's the situation is different.
So when the two dogs are left in the room we are treated to long scene where Mitzi tries to get Rex to mate with her, because Rex wants none of it Mitzi chases him around the room, grabs him, stops him from leaving and generally won’t take no for an answer. This is not done playfully.
Later in the film, Rex is in a dog pound, one of his cell mates starts listing the rules of the pound, rule one, there is no fight club. Now, this may have been ok if it was a one time throw away line, kids films often have little jokes for adults. However, it's not a throw away line, it's used more than once, including the first time the dogs are at a fight club. Yes, the top dog, called Butch, keeps order by making any dog he doesn't like fight. We see a dog carried off on stretcher, Rex is almost thrown into a fire and is only saved when Butch is knock out in one punch which also knocks out half his teeth.
Of course Rex and his new friends make it back to the palace and beat the main villain who is sent off with Trump and Mitzi. Remember non of the palace dogs liked Mitzi and she has all already said she doesn't understand the word no so this has implications for Charlie’s futures. It's ok though because he's the bad guy (not).
So we have a children's film with dog fights, attempted rape, implied rape, judging on appearance and a dull story, that seem find the line between children’s jokes and the adult ones the only reason I'm giving this one star is because it avoids getting political with Trump.
The character of Trump was reduced to a stereotypical American tourist with Melania passing comments about the size of Donald’s (big) hands being one of the things that attracted her to him.
The problems really start when Melania and the Queen decided it will be a good idea to breed their respective corgis. Melania's Corgi, Mitzi, who is made up in heave eye shadow and lipstick is instantly judged and disliked by all the Queens corgis (both Male and female). Melania's Corgi then passes judgment on all the corgis until she comes to Rex who she decided she wants. The two dogs are then left in a room together after being told by Trump to grab him by the pups.
Now I just want to make the following clear:
1) I've seen plenty of movies where the (normally timid/nerdy) male character is hit on by the strong scary bully female and this normally for comedy value. Although these scenes could be seen as problematic they are normally played for laughs.
2) I understand that dog breeders do choose dogs and put them together to mate. However, as the animals in this film are given human personality's the situation is different.
So when the two dogs are left in the room we are treated to long scene where Mitzi tries to get Rex to mate with her, because Rex wants none of it Mitzi chases him around the room, grabs him, stops him from leaving and generally won’t take no for an answer. This is not done playfully.
Later in the film, Rex is in a dog pound, one of his cell mates starts listing the rules of the pound, rule one, there is no fight club. Now, this may have been ok if it was a one time throw away line, kids films often have little jokes for adults. However, it's not a throw away line, it's used more than once, including the first time the dogs are at a fight club. Yes, the top dog, called Butch, keeps order by making any dog he doesn't like fight. We see a dog carried off on stretcher, Rex is almost thrown into a fire and is only saved when Butch is knock out in one punch which also knocks out half his teeth.
Of course Rex and his new friends make it back to the palace and beat the main villain who is sent off with Trump and Mitzi. Remember non of the palace dogs liked Mitzi and she has all already said she doesn't understand the word no so this has implications for Charlie’s futures. It's ok though because he's the bad guy (not).
So we have a children's film with dog fights, attempted rape, implied rape, judging on appearance and a dull story, that seem find the line between children’s jokes and the adult ones the only reason I'm giving this one star is because it avoids getting political with Trump.
Andy K (10823 KP) rated Electric Dreams (1984) in Movies
Oct 13, 2019
Let me start off by saying I recently purchased a region free DVD/Blu Ray player for myself when I discovered there were films I have not seen in 20+ years because they have never had a DVD/Blu Ray release in the US, but are actually available overseas! When I discovered this fact, among the first movies I purchased is this 1980s classic which has been mostly forgotten due to its unavailability.
Miles is an unorganized, nerdy architect who is delighted to discover a young, beautiful cellist moving in to the apartment above his sparse decorated pad in San Francisco. At the same time, a work colleague tells Miles he should get himself organized so he doesn't miss meetings spending all his time working on a new earthquake=proof brick, his dream pet project. Miles heads to his local electronic store (80s version) and gets talked into buying one of these "new" personal computers which everyone seems to be getting.
After some initial difficulty during set up, Miles decides to fully jump in to the PC world and not only sets up his new toy, but decides to have it fully integrated into his apartment including running his lights, door locks and appliances. He then thinks it would be a good idea to do a mass download of information for his work servers to beef up his own unit's capacity. He quickly realizes this is an overload to his machine when it starts to buzz and flash. In a panic, he douses the machine with some champagne to cool it off inadvertently giving it the spark of "life".
His new machine works quickly to understand its new world around including listening and harmonizing music with the beautiful neighbor upstairs. This leads to the two town house cohabitants developing a relationship. This does not sit well with the PC eventually as "he" has now also evolved to the point where he wants to understand love. Tensions escalate and there is a confrontation for the ultimate fate of the relationships and who will ultimately get the girl.
Since it had been probably 30 years since I had seen Electric Dreams, one of those guilty pleasures from the 80s, I was extremely anxious to rewatch; however, was also worried a new viewing in my adulthood would ruin the magic I had remembered from my youth. I couldn't have been more wrong.
The first thing I had forgotten was all the humor of the film including those awkward moments when Miles and the computer where getting to know each other and the goofy dialogue. Also, it's funny how I read a lot of the functions the computer performed had to be simulated at the time since home PCs were still pretty new to everyone at that point, but now those functions are fairly commonplace including the aforementioned "Smart Home" features among other things.
Yes fine, there are plenty of 80s staples present almost immediately like music montages, bad hairdos, leg warmers and boom boxes, but that still gives the movie charm. After thinking about it, there were elements from other 80s classics like Weird Science, WarGames, and a lot of Short Circuit where an AI was learning about itself. Who remembers Max Headroom?
The soundtrack for the film is also front and center with much of it playing a key role in the budding relationship between Miles and his musical love interest, but it works well and still holds up.
I also have to mention Virginia Madsen. I looked up she was 23 when she made this film (she looked like she was 18), but still looks as remarkable as she did then (80s crush speaking here).
I'm sure I probably still revere this movie more than the people who actually made it, but I can handle that.
Miles is an unorganized, nerdy architect who is delighted to discover a young, beautiful cellist moving in to the apartment above his sparse decorated pad in San Francisco. At the same time, a work colleague tells Miles he should get himself organized so he doesn't miss meetings spending all his time working on a new earthquake=proof brick, his dream pet project. Miles heads to his local electronic store (80s version) and gets talked into buying one of these "new" personal computers which everyone seems to be getting.
After some initial difficulty during set up, Miles decides to fully jump in to the PC world and not only sets up his new toy, but decides to have it fully integrated into his apartment including running his lights, door locks and appliances. He then thinks it would be a good idea to do a mass download of information for his work servers to beef up his own unit's capacity. He quickly realizes this is an overload to his machine when it starts to buzz and flash. In a panic, he douses the machine with some champagne to cool it off inadvertently giving it the spark of "life".
His new machine works quickly to understand its new world around including listening and harmonizing music with the beautiful neighbor upstairs. This leads to the two town house cohabitants developing a relationship. This does not sit well with the PC eventually as "he" has now also evolved to the point where he wants to understand love. Tensions escalate and there is a confrontation for the ultimate fate of the relationships and who will ultimately get the girl.
Since it had been probably 30 years since I had seen Electric Dreams, one of those guilty pleasures from the 80s, I was extremely anxious to rewatch; however, was also worried a new viewing in my adulthood would ruin the magic I had remembered from my youth. I couldn't have been more wrong.
The first thing I had forgotten was all the humor of the film including those awkward moments when Miles and the computer where getting to know each other and the goofy dialogue. Also, it's funny how I read a lot of the functions the computer performed had to be simulated at the time since home PCs were still pretty new to everyone at that point, but now those functions are fairly commonplace including the aforementioned "Smart Home" features among other things.
Yes fine, there are plenty of 80s staples present almost immediately like music montages, bad hairdos, leg warmers and boom boxes, but that still gives the movie charm. After thinking about it, there were elements from other 80s classics like Weird Science, WarGames, and a lot of Short Circuit where an AI was learning about itself. Who remembers Max Headroom?
The soundtrack for the film is also front and center with much of it playing a key role in the budding relationship between Miles and his musical love interest, but it works well and still holds up.
I also have to mention Virginia Madsen. I looked up she was 23 when she made this film (she looked like she was 18), but still looks as remarkable as she did then (80s crush speaking here).
I'm sure I probably still revere this movie more than the people who actually made it, but I can handle that.
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated Alienated: Grounded At Groom Lake in Books
Aug 3, 2020
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Book-Review-Banner-31.png"/>;
Alienated: Grounded at Groom Lake by Jeff Norton was the perfect middle grade quarantine book I was waiting for! Also - during the quarantine, Jeff is reading a chapter a day on his YouTube Channel, so please do check it out. His reading is wonderful!
From the first moment I read the synopsis, I knew I was going to like this book.
Fourteen-year-old Sherman is used to moving schools. But he's never been to a school like Groom Lake High, the high school for aliens.
It's a very alien environment for him, and he has to fit in. He quickly makes friends with a gang of galactic misfits. When the school bully NED endangers planet Earth, Sherman and his friends have to do anything they can to stop him!
<b><i>My Thoughts:</i></b>
The thing I loved most about Alienated: Grounded at Groom Lake was the amazing word play and inside jokes. It is very well thought and written and I really enjoyed it! There were so many puns and witty jokes that a children might initially miss, but will definitely make an adult chuckle.
<b><i>"It suddenly struck me that Facebook might be one of the alien inventions we were all using. I had seen its inventor on TV once and he definitely looked more alien than human."</i></b>
We read the book from Sherman's point of view.
And through him, we find out everything. His thoughts, his choices, his fears and his dreams. Not only do we get to know him, but we also get to watch his character grow as we move throughout the book.
<b><i>"Sherman, when you get older, you'll come to appreciate that life is basically a series of disappointments."</i></b>
Even though alien, this high school puts Sherman through all the troubles a normal school does: making friends, being bullied and having a crush. But Sherman also gets to fly rockets and has a chance to save the world!
Sherman's sister and his group of friends are awesome! They are funny and smart. I loved Octo, especially for his bravery and selflessness. I also loved the fact that the female characters were presented as strong and powerful individuals. It was a tiny touch, but quite meaningful, and it shouldn't go unnoticed.
<b><i>"Now don't be fooled. Jess might look like a malnourished goth queen, but she punches like a heavyweight."</i></b>
I also liked NED as a character.
<b><i>"I'd call him a bully, but that's giving bullies a bad name."</i></b>
He was quite a big bully - that is true. However, being evil is the only think he learned from his parents while growing up. The lesson we can learn is that sometimes we do bad things because we don't know any different. But what we do once we are given a second chance is what really matters!
I absolutely loved this book and I recommend it not only to middle-graders, but to people of all ages. It's a gem and it deserves to be n every child's library.
I received a copy of this book through a giveaway on Toppsta. All opinions are my own and completely unbiased.
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
<img src="https://diaryofdifference.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Book-Review-Banner-31.png"/>;
Alienated: Grounded at Groom Lake by Jeff Norton was the perfect middle grade quarantine book I was waiting for! Also - during the quarantine, Jeff is reading a chapter a day on his YouTube Channel, so please do check it out. His reading is wonderful!
From the first moment I read the synopsis, I knew I was going to like this book.
Fourteen-year-old Sherman is used to moving schools. But he's never been to a school like Groom Lake High, the high school for aliens.
It's a very alien environment for him, and he has to fit in. He quickly makes friends with a gang of galactic misfits. When the school bully NED endangers planet Earth, Sherman and his friends have to do anything they can to stop him!
<b><i>My Thoughts:</i></b>
The thing I loved most about Alienated: Grounded at Groom Lake was the amazing word play and inside jokes. It is very well thought and written and I really enjoyed it! There were so many puns and witty jokes that a children might initially miss, but will definitely make an adult chuckle.
<b><i>"It suddenly struck me that Facebook might be one of the alien inventions we were all using. I had seen its inventor on TV once and he definitely looked more alien than human."</i></b>
We read the book from Sherman's point of view.
And through him, we find out everything. His thoughts, his choices, his fears and his dreams. Not only do we get to know him, but we also get to watch his character grow as we move throughout the book.
<b><i>"Sherman, when you get older, you'll come to appreciate that life is basically a series of disappointments."</i></b>
Even though alien, this high school puts Sherman through all the troubles a normal school does: making friends, being bullied and having a crush. But Sherman also gets to fly rockets and has a chance to save the world!
Sherman's sister and his group of friends are awesome! They are funny and smart. I loved Octo, especially for his bravery and selflessness. I also loved the fact that the female characters were presented as strong and powerful individuals. It was a tiny touch, but quite meaningful, and it shouldn't go unnoticed.
<b><i>"Now don't be fooled. Jess might look like a malnourished goth queen, but she punches like a heavyweight."</i></b>
I also liked NED as a character.
<b><i>"I'd call him a bully, but that's giving bullies a bad name."</i></b>
He was quite a big bully - that is true. However, being evil is the only think he learned from his parents while growing up. The lesson we can learn is that sometimes we do bad things because we don't know any different. But what we do once we are given a second chance is what really matters!
I absolutely loved this book and I recommend it not only to middle-graders, but to people of all ages. It's a gem and it deserves to be n every child's library.
I received a copy of this book through a giveaway on Toppsta. All opinions are my own and completely unbiased.
<a href="https://amzn.to/2Wi7amb">Wishlist</a>; | <a
<a href="https://diaryofdifference.com/">Blog</a>; | <a href="https://www.facebook.com/diaryofdifference/">Facebook</a>; | <a href="https://twitter.com/DiaryDifference">Twitter</a>; | <a href="https://www.instagram.com/diaryofdifference/">Instagram</a>; | <a href="https://www.pinterest.co.uk/diaryofdifference/pins/">Pinterest</a>;
Lee (2222 KP) rated The One and Only Ivan (2020) in Movies
Sep 2, 2020
Better than most CGI talking animal Disney movies
Originally scheduled for a cinematic release, but now arriving on Disney+ instead, The One and Only Ivan is the latest in a long line of stories involving CGI animals who can talk, banding together to outsmart us humans in order to escape captivity. Only this one is actually based on a true story.
There were no talking animals in the real version of events this is based on, but there was a silverback gorilla named Ivan,
Stolen as an infant from the rainforests of Congo and made to live in a tiny cage, while regularly putting on a show for visitors to a shopping centre for 27 years in total. This being a Disney movie though, the cruelty of that is glossed over somewhat, with funny animal friends with wacky voices aiming to brighten things up. Although, the message that his captivity was wrong is certainly there for all to see, and hopefully to be appreciated.
Bryan Cranston is Mack, the showman responsible for raising Ivan and making him a star, bristling when enthusiasm and “the show must go on” spirit, despite dwindling audiences and occasional animal illness. From flashbacks, it’s clear that Mack loves Ivan, his passion for raising him having cost him his marriage. But now that Ivan is the star of the show at the mini circus in the mall, complacency has set in, and Mack cannot see that all Ivan now truly wants is his freedom.
In an attempt to try and bring in the crowds, Mack brings in a baby elephant, which takes over top billing status from Ivan, much to his disappointment. Elderly elephant Stella (Angelina Jolie) takes the new baby under her wing, and during some late night storytelling sessions between the animals, we learn that Ivan had a sister back in the jungle, and was actually a budding artist, using mud to paint on rocks. When Julia, young daughter of one of the helping hands at the circus, gives Ivan some of her old crayons and finger paints, Ivan begins drawing again, and is soon moved back up to top billing in the show.
When I first saw the trailer for The One and Only Ivan, I was totally on board. That is, until the animals started talking. I thought the CGI remake of The Lion King last year was just terrible, and the Lady and the Tramp remake which landed on Disney+ earlier this year was even worse. Realistic looking animals simply cannot convey emotions like their traditionally animated counterparts, while retaining their realistic looks. But The One and Only Ivan thankfully feels so different, much better than those movies do. And a lot of that is down to the voice cast.
Sam Rockwell is Ivan. Perfectly cast, he brings a real much needed gravitas to the sombre silverback. Along with the stray dog (Danny DeVito) that visits Ivan’s cage and sleeps on his belly at night, they form a delightful double act, discussing freedom, and the fortunes of the circus. With a lot of time being spent with the animals in their cages, the movie does drag a little at times, but then maybe that’s the whole idea – portraying the solitude and boredom experienced when you do not have your freedom.
As if it wasn’t already clear enough, The One and Only Ivan nicely drives home the important message that animals really shouldn’t be kept in pokey cages for long periods of time, and certainly not for decades either. The end of the movie reminds us that Ivan’s story is actually based on truth, as we’re shown photos of the real Ivan, who stayed with a family before becoming a circus act. Seeing the photos of his eventual release to the vastly improved setting of Atlanta zoo, where he lived out the rest of his days, certainly proves to be very emotional, and a fitting end to a surprisingly enjoyable family movie.
There were no talking animals in the real version of events this is based on, but there was a silverback gorilla named Ivan,
Stolen as an infant from the rainforests of Congo and made to live in a tiny cage, while regularly putting on a show for visitors to a shopping centre for 27 years in total. This being a Disney movie though, the cruelty of that is glossed over somewhat, with funny animal friends with wacky voices aiming to brighten things up. Although, the message that his captivity was wrong is certainly there for all to see, and hopefully to be appreciated.
Bryan Cranston is Mack, the showman responsible for raising Ivan and making him a star, bristling when enthusiasm and “the show must go on” spirit, despite dwindling audiences and occasional animal illness. From flashbacks, it’s clear that Mack loves Ivan, his passion for raising him having cost him his marriage. But now that Ivan is the star of the show at the mini circus in the mall, complacency has set in, and Mack cannot see that all Ivan now truly wants is his freedom.
In an attempt to try and bring in the crowds, Mack brings in a baby elephant, which takes over top billing status from Ivan, much to his disappointment. Elderly elephant Stella (Angelina Jolie) takes the new baby under her wing, and during some late night storytelling sessions between the animals, we learn that Ivan had a sister back in the jungle, and was actually a budding artist, using mud to paint on rocks. When Julia, young daughter of one of the helping hands at the circus, gives Ivan some of her old crayons and finger paints, Ivan begins drawing again, and is soon moved back up to top billing in the show.
When I first saw the trailer for The One and Only Ivan, I was totally on board. That is, until the animals started talking. I thought the CGI remake of The Lion King last year was just terrible, and the Lady and the Tramp remake which landed on Disney+ earlier this year was even worse. Realistic looking animals simply cannot convey emotions like their traditionally animated counterparts, while retaining their realistic looks. But The One and Only Ivan thankfully feels so different, much better than those movies do. And a lot of that is down to the voice cast.
Sam Rockwell is Ivan. Perfectly cast, he brings a real much needed gravitas to the sombre silverback. Along with the stray dog (Danny DeVito) that visits Ivan’s cage and sleeps on his belly at night, they form a delightful double act, discussing freedom, and the fortunes of the circus. With a lot of time being spent with the animals in their cages, the movie does drag a little at times, but then maybe that’s the whole idea – portraying the solitude and boredom experienced when you do not have your freedom.
As if it wasn’t already clear enough, The One and Only Ivan nicely drives home the important message that animals really shouldn’t be kept in pokey cages for long periods of time, and certainly not for decades either. The end of the movie reminds us that Ivan’s story is actually based on truth, as we’re shown photos of the real Ivan, who stayed with a family before becoming a circus act. Seeing the photos of his eventual release to the vastly improved setting of Atlanta zoo, where he lived out the rest of his days, certainly proves to be very emotional, and a fitting end to a surprisingly enjoyable family movie.
Ivana A. | Diary of Difference (1171 KP) rated Falling Short in Books
Oct 2, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
When I first found out about Falling Short, written by Lex Coulton, the blurb promised to be ''fresh, funny and life-affirming''. I am sorry, but no. That is not correct. This book was none of those things. It wasn’t bad at all, but I would prefer describing it as a slow-paced, and confusingly complex in an unsatisfying way.
About the book:
Frances Pilgrim’s father went missing when she was five, and ever since all sorts of things have been going astray: car keys, promotions, a series of underwhelming and unsuitable boyfriends . . . Now here she is, thirty-bloody-nine, teaching Shakespeare to rowdy sixth formers and still losing things.
But she has a much more pressing problem. Her mother, whose odd behaviour Frances has long put down to eccentricity, is slowly yielding to Alzheimer’s, leaving Frances with some disturbing questions about her father’s disappearance, and the family history she’s always believed in. Frances could really do with someone to talk to. Ideally Jackson: fellow teacher, dedicated hedonist, erstwhile best friend. Only they haven’t spoken since that night last summer when things got complicated . . .
As the new school year begins, and her mother’s behavior becomes more and more erratic, Frances realizes that she might just have a chance to find something for once. But will it be what she’s looking for?
My thoughts:
I am usually good at explaining why I don’t like a certain book, or why I feel the way I feel, and believe me, with this one, I have spent two days and 6 sittings in front of this draft (now published post) to try and write about it. So I am doing my best now…
First of all, there has to be something about a certain book to make me want to read it. With this one – there were two things:
I love romance and intrigue, and the blurb promised two people not really talking to each other, but sparks flying around… so yes, that got me.
The Alzheimer’s disease – as a person that has worked with people suffering from Dementia and Alzheimer’s, this subject is very close to my heart. I couldn’t miss this book for this reason.
Now – the romance part disappointed me, as there was no romance. No romance at all. Unless, of course, you count as a romance a person in their mid-forties sleeping around with drunk teens, and is then too complicated of a character to even realise who he loves, and why, and the moment he does, he still has no idea what to do with that information.
The other disappointment I had was that I expected to read about the Alzheimer’s, and not only that they weren’t there, but also some of the symptoms mentioned were not correct at all. There were only sex relationships and sex scenes, and that was supposed to define their relationship in the end. Not realistic at all.
Even though it seems that we follow Frances’s story throughout, we actually follow Jackson’s story as well. Their characters were too complicated and confusing for me, and it let me to now feel nor care about them at all. I honestly cared about Frances’s dog the most in this book.
The plot wasn’t perfect – there were times when the information given didn’t match.
[SPOILER ALERT]
The scene how Frances searches on Google to find the address of her dad. We are then told that she found out his address through Jean. Which one is it, then?
I am actually quite sad that I didn’t enjoy this book, but I will still be curious about new works from Lex Coulton, because, somehow, I really liked her writing style, despite all the flaws.
About the book:
Frances Pilgrim’s father went missing when she was five, and ever since all sorts of things have been going astray: car keys, promotions, a series of underwhelming and unsuitable boyfriends . . . Now here she is, thirty-bloody-nine, teaching Shakespeare to rowdy sixth formers and still losing things.
But she has a much more pressing problem. Her mother, whose odd behaviour Frances has long put down to eccentricity, is slowly yielding to Alzheimer’s, leaving Frances with some disturbing questions about her father’s disappearance, and the family history she’s always believed in. Frances could really do with someone to talk to. Ideally Jackson: fellow teacher, dedicated hedonist, erstwhile best friend. Only they haven’t spoken since that night last summer when things got complicated . . .
As the new school year begins, and her mother’s behavior becomes more and more erratic, Frances realizes that she might just have a chance to find something for once. But will it be what she’s looking for?
My thoughts:
I am usually good at explaining why I don’t like a certain book, or why I feel the way I feel, and believe me, with this one, I have spent two days and 6 sittings in front of this draft (now published post) to try and write about it. So I am doing my best now…
First of all, there has to be something about a certain book to make me want to read it. With this one – there were two things:
I love romance and intrigue, and the blurb promised two people not really talking to each other, but sparks flying around… so yes, that got me.
The Alzheimer’s disease – as a person that has worked with people suffering from Dementia and Alzheimer’s, this subject is very close to my heart. I couldn’t miss this book for this reason.
Now – the romance part disappointed me, as there was no romance. No romance at all. Unless, of course, you count as a romance a person in their mid-forties sleeping around with drunk teens, and is then too complicated of a character to even realise who he loves, and why, and the moment he does, he still has no idea what to do with that information.
The other disappointment I had was that I expected to read about the Alzheimer’s, and not only that they weren’t there, but also some of the symptoms mentioned were not correct at all. There were only sex relationships and sex scenes, and that was supposed to define their relationship in the end. Not realistic at all.
Even though it seems that we follow Frances’s story throughout, we actually follow Jackson’s story as well. Their characters were too complicated and confusing for me, and it let me to now feel nor care about them at all. I honestly cared about Frances’s dog the most in this book.
The plot wasn’t perfect – there were times when the information given didn’t match.
[SPOILER ALERT]
The scene how Frances searches on Google to find the address of her dad. We are then told that she found out his address through Jean. Which one is it, then?
I am actually quite sad that I didn’t enjoy this book, but I will still be curious about new works from Lex Coulton, because, somehow, I really liked her writing style, despite all the flaws.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated People Just Do Nothing: Big in Japan (2021) in Movies
Aug 20, 2021
Good jokes, most of which land (1 more)
Enough David Brent/Partridge moments to make you cringe
As a PJDN virgin, I still laughed a lot!
It’s brave then that such a relatively niche UK TV show should have a go at ‘jumping the shark’ onto the big screen. Would fans like it? And, just as importantly, would newcomers to the characters, like me, be able to enjoy the film as a standalone entity? The answer to the last question is a qualified “yes”.
Positives:
- It well-surpasses the “6 laugh test” for a comedy. There are some scenes that I found extremely funny, with others that rated highly for me on the David Brent / Alan Partridge scale of cringiness.
- I’ve seen comment that the story is "silly" and “unbelievable”. But having experienced the crazy clash between English and Japanese culture first hand, it strikes me as very true to form! The way in which the Japanese music execs try to stylise the ground as a ‘boy band’ (“Bang Boys”!), which Grindah greedily goes along with, is a nice satire on the music industry asserting its brand over musician’s art.
- A subplot of a love story beween the inept Steves and the cute Japanese translator Ishika (Ayumi Itô) is nicely done and strangely touching.
- The good news is that you don’t need any previous experience of the characters to get fun out of the movie: you can jump right in. That being said though, I’m sure fans of the series will get more out of this than I did.
Negatives:
- While the ending was uplifting, I was itching to know what fallout (or success?) there was from the event we witnessed. Perhaps if its a box office success (unlikely I think!) then there will be a sequel.
Summary Thoughts on “People Just Do Nothing: Big in Japan”: IMDB is littered with disastrous reviews of British TV shows that have tried and failed to make the leap from the small screen to the big screen. “On the Buses”; “Are You Being Served?”; “Steptoe and Son”; “Please Sir”; “Love Thy Neighbour” – the list is endless. They are mostly all horribly unfunny. Even the great “Morecambe and Wise”, although showing occasional moments of brilliance, struggled to fully land any of their three big-screen outings.
The ‘go-to’ of many of these efforts was to “go abroad”: take the well-loved characters and put them into a ‘bigger’ and stranger pool. So “People Just Do Nothing: Big in Japan” was following a well-trodden path here. It’s a tribute to the team and their TV-series director Jack Clough, in his feature debut, that they pretty much pull it off.
I’d like to agree with Kevin Maher of “The Times” that the movie is full of “Japanese stereotypes… drunken businessmen, passive giggling women etc”. But having travelled extensively on business in Japan, it seems pretty close to the mark with its observations to me! More importantly, the film never seems to be particularly derogatory or disrespectful of the culture. For example, they take their shoes off too much!
Key to its box office success will be whether or not it can attract an audience outside of its niche TV fan-bases. As a member of that sub-group, I really wasn’t expecting to enjoy this one, but I actually did. It was good fun, and if you want a good laugh at the cinema – a pretty rare thing – then I’d recommend this one, even if – like me – you haven’t seen the original TV show.
(For the full graphical review, please check out onemannsmovies on the web, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks!)
Positives:
- It well-surpasses the “6 laugh test” for a comedy. There are some scenes that I found extremely funny, with others that rated highly for me on the David Brent / Alan Partridge scale of cringiness.
- I’ve seen comment that the story is "silly" and “unbelievable”. But having experienced the crazy clash between English and Japanese culture first hand, it strikes me as very true to form! The way in which the Japanese music execs try to stylise the ground as a ‘boy band’ (“Bang Boys”!), which Grindah greedily goes along with, is a nice satire on the music industry asserting its brand over musician’s art.
- A subplot of a love story beween the inept Steves and the cute Japanese translator Ishika (Ayumi Itô) is nicely done and strangely touching.
- The good news is that you don’t need any previous experience of the characters to get fun out of the movie: you can jump right in. That being said though, I’m sure fans of the series will get more out of this than I did.
Negatives:
- While the ending was uplifting, I was itching to know what fallout (or success?) there was from the event we witnessed. Perhaps if its a box office success (unlikely I think!) then there will be a sequel.
Summary Thoughts on “People Just Do Nothing: Big in Japan”: IMDB is littered with disastrous reviews of British TV shows that have tried and failed to make the leap from the small screen to the big screen. “On the Buses”; “Are You Being Served?”; “Steptoe and Son”; “Please Sir”; “Love Thy Neighbour” – the list is endless. They are mostly all horribly unfunny. Even the great “Morecambe and Wise”, although showing occasional moments of brilliance, struggled to fully land any of their three big-screen outings.
The ‘go-to’ of many of these efforts was to “go abroad”: take the well-loved characters and put them into a ‘bigger’ and stranger pool. So “People Just Do Nothing: Big in Japan” was following a well-trodden path here. It’s a tribute to the team and their TV-series director Jack Clough, in his feature debut, that they pretty much pull it off.
I’d like to agree with Kevin Maher of “The Times” that the movie is full of “Japanese stereotypes… drunken businessmen, passive giggling women etc”. But having travelled extensively on business in Japan, it seems pretty close to the mark with its observations to me! More importantly, the film never seems to be particularly derogatory or disrespectful of the culture. For example, they take their shoes off too much!
Key to its box office success will be whether or not it can attract an audience outside of its niche TV fan-bases. As a member of that sub-group, I really wasn’t expecting to enjoy this one, but I actually did. It was good fun, and if you want a good laugh at the cinema – a pretty rare thing – then I’d recommend this one, even if – like me – you haven’t seen the original TV show.
(For the full graphical review, please check out onemannsmovies on the web, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks!)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated American Made (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Cruise Flying High Again.
If you ask anyone to list the top 10 film actors, chance is that “Tom Cruise” would make many people’s lists. He’s in everything isn’t he? Well, actually, no. Looking at his imdb history, he’s only averaged just over a movie per year for several years. I guess he’s just traditionally made a big impact with the films he’s done. This all rather changed in the last year with his offerings of the rather lacklustre “Jack Reacher: Never Go Back” (FFF) and the pretty dreadful “The Mummy” (Ff) as one of this summer’s big blockbuster disappointments. So Thomas Cruise Mapother IV was sorely in need of a upward turn and fortunately “American Made” delivers in spades.
A quick stop in Nicaragua to pick up some paperwork from Noriega.
“Based on a True Story” this is a biopic on the life of Barry Seal, a hot shot ‘maverick’ (pun intended) TWA pilot who gets drawn into a bizarre but highly lucrative spiral of gun- and drug-running to and from Central America at the behest of a CIA operative Monty Schafer (Domhnall Gleeson). All this is completely mystifying to Barry’s wife Lucy (Sarah Wright) who is, at least not initially, allowed to be ‘in’ on the covert activities.
Flying high over Latin America.
The film is a roller-coaster ride of unbelievable action from beginning to end. In the same manner as you might have thought “that SURELY can’t be true” when watching Spielberg’s “Catch Me If You Can”, this thought constantly flits through your mind. At each turn Seal can’t believe his luck, and Cruise brilliantly portrays the wide-eyed astonishment required. This is a role made for him.
Also delivering his best performance in years is Domhnall Gleeson (“Ex Machina“, “Star Wars: The Force Awakens“) as the CIA man with the (whacky) plan. Large chunks of the film are powered by his manic grin.
Domhnall Gleeson as the CIA man with a sense of Contra-rhythm.
As an actress, Sarah Wright is new to me but as well as being just stunningly photogenic she works with Cruise really well (despite being 20 years his junior – not wanting to be ageist, but this is the second Cruise film in a row I’ve pointed that out!)). Wright also gets my honourary award for the best airplane sex scene this decade!
“Time to pack honey”. Seal (Cruise) delivering a midnight surprise to wife Lucy (Sarah Wright) – and not in a good way.
Written by Gary Spinelli (this being only his second feature) the script is full of wit and panache and – while almost certainly (judging from wiki) stretches the truth as far as Seal’s cash-storage facilities – never completely over-eggs the pudding.
Doug Liman (“Jason Bourne“, “Edge of Tomorrow“) directs brilliantly, giving space among the action for enough character development to make you invest in what happens to the players. The 80’s setting is lovingly crafted with a garish colour-palette with well-chosen documentary video inserts of Carter, Reagan, Oliver Stone, George Bush and others. It also takes really chutzpah to direct a film that (unless I missed it) had neither a title nor any credits until the end.
The real Barry Seal.
The only vaguely negative view I had about this film is that it quietly glosses over the huge pain, death and suffering that the smuggled drugs will be causing to thousands of Americans under the covers. And this mildly guilty thought lingers with you after the lights come up to slightly – just slightly – take the edge off the fun.
Stylish, thrilling, moving and enormously funny in places, this is action cinema at its best. A must see film.
A quick stop in Nicaragua to pick up some paperwork from Noriega.
“Based on a True Story” this is a biopic on the life of Barry Seal, a hot shot ‘maverick’ (pun intended) TWA pilot who gets drawn into a bizarre but highly lucrative spiral of gun- and drug-running to and from Central America at the behest of a CIA operative Monty Schafer (Domhnall Gleeson). All this is completely mystifying to Barry’s wife Lucy (Sarah Wright) who is, at least not initially, allowed to be ‘in’ on the covert activities.
Flying high over Latin America.
The film is a roller-coaster ride of unbelievable action from beginning to end. In the same manner as you might have thought “that SURELY can’t be true” when watching Spielberg’s “Catch Me If You Can”, this thought constantly flits through your mind. At each turn Seal can’t believe his luck, and Cruise brilliantly portrays the wide-eyed astonishment required. This is a role made for him.
Also delivering his best performance in years is Domhnall Gleeson (“Ex Machina“, “Star Wars: The Force Awakens“) as the CIA man with the (whacky) plan. Large chunks of the film are powered by his manic grin.
Domhnall Gleeson as the CIA man with a sense of Contra-rhythm.
As an actress, Sarah Wright is new to me but as well as being just stunningly photogenic she works with Cruise really well (despite being 20 years his junior – not wanting to be ageist, but this is the second Cruise film in a row I’ve pointed that out!)). Wright also gets my honourary award for the best airplane sex scene this decade!
“Time to pack honey”. Seal (Cruise) delivering a midnight surprise to wife Lucy (Sarah Wright) – and not in a good way.
Written by Gary Spinelli (this being only his second feature) the script is full of wit and panache and – while almost certainly (judging from wiki) stretches the truth as far as Seal’s cash-storage facilities – never completely over-eggs the pudding.
Doug Liman (“Jason Bourne“, “Edge of Tomorrow“) directs brilliantly, giving space among the action for enough character development to make you invest in what happens to the players. The 80’s setting is lovingly crafted with a garish colour-palette with well-chosen documentary video inserts of Carter, Reagan, Oliver Stone, George Bush and others. It also takes really chutzpah to direct a film that (unless I missed it) had neither a title nor any credits until the end.
The real Barry Seal.
The only vaguely negative view I had about this film is that it quietly glosses over the huge pain, death and suffering that the smuggled drugs will be causing to thousands of Americans under the covers. And this mildly guilty thought lingers with you after the lights come up to slightly – just slightly – take the edge off the fun.
Stylish, thrilling, moving and enormously funny in places, this is action cinema at its best. A must see film.