Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Shazam! (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Zoltar Rides Again!
All work and no play makes Bob the Movie Man a dull reviewer. Due to work commitments, this is the first film I’ve been able to see at the cinema for over a month. There’s a whole slew of films I wanted to see that have already come and gone. Big sigh. So I might be about the last of the crowd to review this, but I’m glad I caught it before it shuffled off its silver screen coil.
Every review I’ve seen of this starts off with the hackneyed comment that “At last, DC have produced a fun film” – so I won’t (even though it’s true!).
The Plot
“Shazam!” harks back, strongly, to the vehicle that helped launch Tom Hanks‘ illustrious career – Penny Marshall’s “Big” from 1988. In that film the young teen Josh (David Moscow) visits a deserted fairground where “Zoltar” mystically (and without explanation) morphs Josh into his adult self (Hanks). Much fun is had with Hanks showing his best friend Billy the joys (and sometimes otherwise) of booze, girls and other adult pastimes. In similar vein, in “Shazam!” we see the parent-less Billy Batson (Asher Angel) hijacked on a Philadelphia subway train and transformed into a DC superhero as a last-gasp effort of the ancient-wizard (Djimon Hounsou) to find someone ‘good’ to pass his magic onto. “Grab onto my staff with both hands” (Ugh) and say my name – “Juman….”…. no, sorry, wrong film…. “Shazam!”. And as in “Big”, Billy has to explore his new superhero powers with the only person vaguely close to him; his new foster-brother Freddie (Jack Dylan Grazer from “It”).
Billy is not the first to have met the wizard – not by a long shot. There has been a long line of potential candidates examined and rejected on this road, one of which, back in 1974, was the unhappy youngster Thaddeus Sivana (Ethan Pugiotto, but now grown up as Mark Cross), who has a seething chip on his shoulder as big as the Liberty Bell. Gaining evil super-powers of his own, the race is on to see if Dr Sivana can track down the fledgling Billy before he can learn to master his superhero skills and so take him down.
Wizards with red capes?
With the loose exception of possibly Scarlet Witch, I don’t think it’s actually ever been explored before that “superheroes” are actually “magicians” with different coloured capes… it’s a novel take. Before the Marvel/DC wheels eventually come off – which before another twenty years are up they surely must? – will we see a “Harry Potter vs Superman” crossover? “YOUR MOTHER’S NAME WAS LILY AND MINE WAS MARTHA…. L AND M ARE NEXT TO EACH OTHER IN THE DICTIONARY!!!!” The mind boggles.
What does make “Shazam!” interesting is that the story is consciously set in a DC world where Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman and the rest all live and breathe. Freddie has a Bat-a-rang (“only a replica”) and a carefully shrink-wrapped squashed bullet that had impacted on Superman’s body. So when Billy – in superhero form – makes his appearances on the streets of Philly, this makes “Shazam” an “oh look, there’s another one” curiosity rather than an out-and-out marvel.
(Source: Warner Brothers). Lightning from the fingers! Proving very useful for Shazam’s own….
Much fun is obviously had with “Shazam” testing out his powers. Freddie’s Youtube videos gather thousands of hits baas Billy tries to fly; tries to burn; tries to use his “laser sight”; etc.
What works well.
It’s a fun flick that delivers the Marvel laughs of “Ragnarok” and “Ant Man” without ever really getting to the gravitas of either. The screenplay writer (Henry Gayden) is clearly a lover of cinema, as there are numerous references to other movies scattered throughout the film: the victory run of “Rocky” (obviously); the cracking windshield of “The Lost World”; the scary-gross-out body disintegrations of “Indiana Jones”; the portal entry doors of “Monsters, Inc”. Even making an appearance briefly, as a respectful nod presumably to the story’s plagiarism, is the toy-store floor piano of “Big”. There are probably a load of other movie Easter Eggs that I missed.
Playing Billy, the relatively unknown Zachary Levi also charms in a similarly goofball way as Hanks did all those years ago. (Actually, he’s more reminiscent of the wide-eyed delight of Brendan Fraser’s “George of the Jungle” rather than Hanks). In turns, his character is genuinely delighted then shocked at his successes and failures (“Leaping buildings with a single bound” – LOL!). Also holding up their own admirably are the young leads Asher Angel and Jack Dylan Grazer.
Mark Cross, although having flaunted with being the good guy in the “Kingsman” films, is now firmly back in baddie territory as the “supervillain”: and very good he is at it too; I thought he was the best thing in the whole film.
Finally, the movie’s got a satisfying story arc, with Billy undergoing an emotional journey that emphasises the importance of family. But it’s not done in a slushy manipulative way.
What works less well.
As many of you know, I have a few rules-of-thumb for movies, one of which is that a comedy had better by bloody good if it’s going to have a run-time of much more than 90 minutes. At 132 minutes, “Shazam!” overstayed its welcome for me by a good 20 or 30 minutes. Director David F. Sandberg could have made a much tighter and better film if he had wielded the editing knife a bit more freely. I typically enjoy getting backstory to characters, and in many ways this film delivers where many don’t. The pre-credit scenes with Thaddeus nicely paint the character for his (hideous) actions that follow. However, Billy is over-burdened with backstory, and it takes wayyyyyyy too long for the “Shazam!” to happen and the fun to begin. We also lapse into an overlong superhero finale. I didn’t actually see the twist in the plot coming, which was good, but once there then the denouement could and should have been much swifter.
The film also has its scary moments and deserves its 12A certificate. As a film rather painted as kid-friendly from the trailer and the poster, there is probably the potential to traumatise young children here, particularly in a terrifying scene in a board room (with a view). As well as the physical scares there is also a dark streak running under the story that reminded me of both the original “Jumanji” and “Ghostbusters”. Parents beware.
Monkeys?
Following on from the Marvel expectations, there are a couple of “monkeys” (see Glossary) in the title roll: one mid-titles, featuring Dr Sivana and implying an undoubted sequel, and one right at the end pointing fun at the otherwise ignored “Aquaman”.
Final thoughts.
It’s clearly been a long overdue hit for DC, and on the whole I enjoyed it. If the film had been a bit tighter, this would have had the potential to be a classic.
Every review I’ve seen of this starts off with the hackneyed comment that “At last, DC have produced a fun film” – so I won’t (even though it’s true!).
The Plot
“Shazam!” harks back, strongly, to the vehicle that helped launch Tom Hanks‘ illustrious career – Penny Marshall’s “Big” from 1988. In that film the young teen Josh (David Moscow) visits a deserted fairground where “Zoltar” mystically (and without explanation) morphs Josh into his adult self (Hanks). Much fun is had with Hanks showing his best friend Billy the joys (and sometimes otherwise) of booze, girls and other adult pastimes. In similar vein, in “Shazam!” we see the parent-less Billy Batson (Asher Angel) hijacked on a Philadelphia subway train and transformed into a DC superhero as a last-gasp effort of the ancient-wizard (Djimon Hounsou) to find someone ‘good’ to pass his magic onto. “Grab onto my staff with both hands” (Ugh) and say my name – “Juman….”…. no, sorry, wrong film…. “Shazam!”. And as in “Big”, Billy has to explore his new superhero powers with the only person vaguely close to him; his new foster-brother Freddie (Jack Dylan Grazer from “It”).
Billy is not the first to have met the wizard – not by a long shot. There has been a long line of potential candidates examined and rejected on this road, one of which, back in 1974, was the unhappy youngster Thaddeus Sivana (Ethan Pugiotto, but now grown up as Mark Cross), who has a seething chip on his shoulder as big as the Liberty Bell. Gaining evil super-powers of his own, the race is on to see if Dr Sivana can track down the fledgling Billy before he can learn to master his superhero skills and so take him down.
Wizards with red capes?
With the loose exception of possibly Scarlet Witch, I don’t think it’s actually ever been explored before that “superheroes” are actually “magicians” with different coloured capes… it’s a novel take. Before the Marvel/DC wheels eventually come off – which before another twenty years are up they surely must? – will we see a “Harry Potter vs Superman” crossover? “YOUR MOTHER’S NAME WAS LILY AND MINE WAS MARTHA…. L AND M ARE NEXT TO EACH OTHER IN THE DICTIONARY!!!!” The mind boggles.
What does make “Shazam!” interesting is that the story is consciously set in a DC world where Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman and the rest all live and breathe. Freddie has a Bat-a-rang (“only a replica”) and a carefully shrink-wrapped squashed bullet that had impacted on Superman’s body. So when Billy – in superhero form – makes his appearances on the streets of Philly, this makes “Shazam” an “oh look, there’s another one” curiosity rather than an out-and-out marvel.
(Source: Warner Brothers). Lightning from the fingers! Proving very useful for Shazam’s own….
Much fun is obviously had with “Shazam” testing out his powers. Freddie’s Youtube videos gather thousands of hits baas Billy tries to fly; tries to burn; tries to use his “laser sight”; etc.
What works well.
It’s a fun flick that delivers the Marvel laughs of “Ragnarok” and “Ant Man” without ever really getting to the gravitas of either. The screenplay writer (Henry Gayden) is clearly a lover of cinema, as there are numerous references to other movies scattered throughout the film: the victory run of “Rocky” (obviously); the cracking windshield of “The Lost World”; the scary-gross-out body disintegrations of “Indiana Jones”; the portal entry doors of “Monsters, Inc”. Even making an appearance briefly, as a respectful nod presumably to the story’s plagiarism, is the toy-store floor piano of “Big”. There are probably a load of other movie Easter Eggs that I missed.
Playing Billy, the relatively unknown Zachary Levi also charms in a similarly goofball way as Hanks did all those years ago. (Actually, he’s more reminiscent of the wide-eyed delight of Brendan Fraser’s “George of the Jungle” rather than Hanks). In turns, his character is genuinely delighted then shocked at his successes and failures (“Leaping buildings with a single bound” – LOL!). Also holding up their own admirably are the young leads Asher Angel and Jack Dylan Grazer.
Mark Cross, although having flaunted with being the good guy in the “Kingsman” films, is now firmly back in baddie territory as the “supervillain”: and very good he is at it too; I thought he was the best thing in the whole film.
Finally, the movie’s got a satisfying story arc, with Billy undergoing an emotional journey that emphasises the importance of family. But it’s not done in a slushy manipulative way.
What works less well.
As many of you know, I have a few rules-of-thumb for movies, one of which is that a comedy had better by bloody good if it’s going to have a run-time of much more than 90 minutes. At 132 minutes, “Shazam!” overstayed its welcome for me by a good 20 or 30 minutes. Director David F. Sandberg could have made a much tighter and better film if he had wielded the editing knife a bit more freely. I typically enjoy getting backstory to characters, and in many ways this film delivers where many don’t. The pre-credit scenes with Thaddeus nicely paint the character for his (hideous) actions that follow. However, Billy is over-burdened with backstory, and it takes wayyyyyyy too long for the “Shazam!” to happen and the fun to begin. We also lapse into an overlong superhero finale. I didn’t actually see the twist in the plot coming, which was good, but once there then the denouement could and should have been much swifter.
The film also has its scary moments and deserves its 12A certificate. As a film rather painted as kid-friendly from the trailer and the poster, there is probably the potential to traumatise young children here, particularly in a terrifying scene in a board room (with a view). As well as the physical scares there is also a dark streak running under the story that reminded me of both the original “Jumanji” and “Ghostbusters”. Parents beware.
Monkeys?
Following on from the Marvel expectations, there are a couple of “monkeys” (see Glossary) in the title roll: one mid-titles, featuring Dr Sivana and implying an undoubted sequel, and one right at the end pointing fun at the otherwise ignored “Aquaman”.
Final thoughts.
It’s clearly been a long overdue hit for DC, and on the whole I enjoyed it. If the film had been a bit tighter, this would have had the potential to be a classic.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Werewolves Within (2021) in Movies
Dec 14, 2021
An incredible ensemble cast. (2 more)
Plot stays true to the classic 'whodunit' formula.
Milana Vayntrub.
Not enough horror. (2 more)
Not enough werewolves.
The burning desire for a hard R-rating.
A Sleepover with Guns
A horror comedy film based on the 2016 Red Storm Entertainment developed, Ubisoft published multiplayer VR video game of the same name, Werewolves Within keeps the same mystery/whodunit element of the game by introducing audiences to a small town under attack from a werewolf and leaving them to wonder which of the townsfolk could be the actual lycanthrope.
Directed by Josh Ruben and written by Mishna Wolff, Werewolves Within begins as Ranger Finn Wheeler (Sam Richardson) arrives in Beaverfield for his new post. Finn hits it off with the local mail carrier Cecily (Milana Vayntrub), but the rest of the town is unusually eccentric, to say the least.
There’s Trisha (Micahela Watkins) and Pete (Michael Chernus) Aderton, a couple who makes weird miniature dolls of everyone they meet and care a little too much for their dog. Devon (Cheyenne Jackson) and Joaquim (Harvey Guillén) are a homosexual couple living off the riches of a successful technological company. The town’s resident mechanic is Gwen (Sarah Burns), a crude woman whose husband Marcus (George Basil) is largely regarded as the town idiot.
Elsewhere in town, rounding out Beaverfield’s colorful cast of characters, is the clingy owner of the local lodge, Jeanine (Catherine Curtin), canine attack expert Dr. Ellis (Rebecca Henderson), oil magnate Sam (Wayne Duvall) who hopes to install a pipeline through the town at any cost, and Emerson, a ‘scary’ hunter who hates people and lives on the outskirts of town.
One night, when the power suddenly goes out and with the town’s back-up generators in a state of disrepair, everyone in town takes refuge in Jeanine’s lodge. However, after a corpse is discovered underneath the lodge’s porch and the townsfolk barricade themselves inside the building in an attempt to protect themselves from whatever may be lurking outside, the werewolf manages to attack from within.
In the aftermath of the attack, everyone begins to turn on each other, as the monster’s strike from inside the lodge provides them with a shocking revelation: Somebody in the lodge is the werewolf.
The cast works so well together. Richardson is does an excellent job of portraying Finn, a guy so nice and soft spoken that he feels like an African American Ned Flanders attempting to take charge as the authority figure.
Similarly, Vayntrub is so charming as Cecily that it makes you wonder why she hasn’t been in much else outside of AT&T commercials and the occasional voice role as Marvel’s Squirrel Girl, while Guillén is just as funny here as he is on What We Do in the Shadows, albeit in a slightly different way.
However, the most entertaining aspect of the film’s casting is the way everyone’s eccentric chemistry bounces off each other in a way that evokes this palpable sense of quirky absurdity that you can’t really find anywhere else.
The formula of Werewolves Within is a lot like Knives Out or Murder on the Orient Express, as it’s a mystery wrapped within the confines of a horror comedy, with the ensemble cast taking center stage as they dance around the comedy genre and a mild R-rating while the horror aspect is mostly reduced to sitting in the backseat and tapping you on the shoulder from time to time.
In fact, to that same mysterious end, the eponymous werewolf isn’t actually revealed until the last ten or so minutes of the film.
As someone who hasn’t played the original video game, the film adaptation of Werewolves Within was, overall, a little disappointing from a personal standpoint.
Yes, the film is more of a whodunit than a straight horror film, and thus it’s understandable why it did not lean completely into the more gory and terrifying potential of its premise. Yet, even with this fact in mind, the film still feels particularly lacking when it comes to its actual horror elements.
It’s also one of the softest R-rated films to come along in quite some time. While some aspects, such as Finn biting his tongue or saying “Heavens to Betsy” instead of dropping an F-bomb make sense, it remains frustrating nonetheless that Werewolves Within constantly feels as if it’s purposely holding itself back.
Which is a shame, because there’s more to a film like this than silly on-screen hijinks and running attempts by the audience to figure out who the killer is – after all, some of us will pay good money to see the monster you’ve advertised your entire film.
Recently, there seems to be a rising trend among modern werewolf movies to barely feature a film’s respective monster on screen. This year’s Bloodthirsty is a great example and, as much as I love the film, The Wolf of Snow Hollow did the horror/comedy concoction to a much more satisfying degree than Werewolves Within, and yet totally massacred the idea of an actual werewolf being the culprit.
At the end of the day, Werewolves Within is a film where a bunch of weirdos in some-little-nowhere-town are forcibly crammed into a lodge during a snowstorm and proceed to irritate one another to semi-humorous results as a werewolf hides among them. The film is essentially a wolf in a person’s clothing, as while Werewolves Within is fine for what it is and features some great performances here and a couple laugh-out-loud moments, its potential seems to be far greater than what we received.
Ultimately, Werewolves Within leaves horror fans starving and salivating for more.
Directed by Josh Ruben and written by Mishna Wolff, Werewolves Within begins as Ranger Finn Wheeler (Sam Richardson) arrives in Beaverfield for his new post. Finn hits it off with the local mail carrier Cecily (Milana Vayntrub), but the rest of the town is unusually eccentric, to say the least.
There’s Trisha (Micahela Watkins) and Pete (Michael Chernus) Aderton, a couple who makes weird miniature dolls of everyone they meet and care a little too much for their dog. Devon (Cheyenne Jackson) and Joaquim (Harvey Guillén) are a homosexual couple living off the riches of a successful technological company. The town’s resident mechanic is Gwen (Sarah Burns), a crude woman whose husband Marcus (George Basil) is largely regarded as the town idiot.
Elsewhere in town, rounding out Beaverfield’s colorful cast of characters, is the clingy owner of the local lodge, Jeanine (Catherine Curtin), canine attack expert Dr. Ellis (Rebecca Henderson), oil magnate Sam (Wayne Duvall) who hopes to install a pipeline through the town at any cost, and Emerson, a ‘scary’ hunter who hates people and lives on the outskirts of town.
One night, when the power suddenly goes out and with the town’s back-up generators in a state of disrepair, everyone in town takes refuge in Jeanine’s lodge. However, after a corpse is discovered underneath the lodge’s porch and the townsfolk barricade themselves inside the building in an attempt to protect themselves from whatever may be lurking outside, the werewolf manages to attack from within.
In the aftermath of the attack, everyone begins to turn on each other, as the monster’s strike from inside the lodge provides them with a shocking revelation: Somebody in the lodge is the werewolf.
The cast works so well together. Richardson is does an excellent job of portraying Finn, a guy so nice and soft spoken that he feels like an African American Ned Flanders attempting to take charge as the authority figure.
Similarly, Vayntrub is so charming as Cecily that it makes you wonder why she hasn’t been in much else outside of AT&T commercials and the occasional voice role as Marvel’s Squirrel Girl, while Guillén is just as funny here as he is on What We Do in the Shadows, albeit in a slightly different way.
However, the most entertaining aspect of the film’s casting is the way everyone’s eccentric chemistry bounces off each other in a way that evokes this palpable sense of quirky absurdity that you can’t really find anywhere else.
The formula of Werewolves Within is a lot like Knives Out or Murder on the Orient Express, as it’s a mystery wrapped within the confines of a horror comedy, with the ensemble cast taking center stage as they dance around the comedy genre and a mild R-rating while the horror aspect is mostly reduced to sitting in the backseat and tapping you on the shoulder from time to time.
In fact, to that same mysterious end, the eponymous werewolf isn’t actually revealed until the last ten or so minutes of the film.
As someone who hasn’t played the original video game, the film adaptation of Werewolves Within was, overall, a little disappointing from a personal standpoint.
Yes, the film is more of a whodunit than a straight horror film, and thus it’s understandable why it did not lean completely into the more gory and terrifying potential of its premise. Yet, even with this fact in mind, the film still feels particularly lacking when it comes to its actual horror elements.
It’s also one of the softest R-rated films to come along in quite some time. While some aspects, such as Finn biting his tongue or saying “Heavens to Betsy” instead of dropping an F-bomb make sense, it remains frustrating nonetheless that Werewolves Within constantly feels as if it’s purposely holding itself back.
Which is a shame, because there’s more to a film like this than silly on-screen hijinks and running attempts by the audience to figure out who the killer is – after all, some of us will pay good money to see the monster you’ve advertised your entire film.
Recently, there seems to be a rising trend among modern werewolf movies to barely feature a film’s respective monster on screen. This year’s Bloodthirsty is a great example and, as much as I love the film, The Wolf of Snow Hollow did the horror/comedy concoction to a much more satisfying degree than Werewolves Within, and yet totally massacred the idea of an actual werewolf being the culprit.
At the end of the day, Werewolves Within is a film where a bunch of weirdos in some-little-nowhere-town are forcibly crammed into a lodge during a snowstorm and proceed to irritate one another to semi-humorous results as a werewolf hides among them. The film is essentially a wolf in a person’s clothing, as while Werewolves Within is fine for what it is and features some great performances here and a couple laugh-out-loud moments, its potential seems to be far greater than what we received.
Ultimately, Werewolves Within leaves horror fans starving and salivating for more.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Lady In The Van (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019 (Updated Jun 11, 2019)
Like a particularly lethargic sloth
Cinema has a long lasting love of people having their homes invaded by unwanted intruders, and not just because that’s how most directors view anyone who tries to tell them their opinion on filmmaking. It’s because there’s a lot of different directions one can take with the drama and excitement of home invasion. The horror of Wait Until Dark, the brutality of Straw Dogs, the silliness of Home Alone, the potential is quite large. And now throwing in its own interpretation of this theme is The Lady in the Van, based on the somewhat true story of Alan Bennett’s relationship with a transient woman who parked her van on his driveway. So, how does he and the audience respond?
With a dull, mild curiosity.
Despite being from the viewpoint of two Alan Bennetts, described as one being the writer and the other living the life, the main character is Miss Sheppard, the lady in the van. The film insists that we should be interested in her mysterious life, her past as a pianist and a nun, and why she chooses to live in the van, but throughout most of the film I was only thinking “Oh, let’s just go back and hear Alan Bennett be cynical some more.” The words are witty and sharp, but it’s mostly said about things we don’t care about. Miss Sheppard is a flat, mostly dull character, and the audience is unwillingly handcuffed to her.
The highlight of the film is its acting, with the cast being a veritable who’s who of Britain’s finest talent, and James Corden. What dimension Miss Sheppard has is provided almost entirely by the volatile yet vulnerable performance by Maggie Smith, and Alex Jennings is as real an Alan Bennett as the actual Alan Bennett. Even in the small roles, everyone from Roger Allam to Gwen Taylor manage to force themselves to shine. The only bad performance is from, of all people, Jim Broadbent, who pops up to antagonise Miss Sheppard but appears less like a real human being and more like a cartoon supervillain. For a second, I thought the character’s name was Baron von Drakkhen.
But great players cannot save a bad game, and the story of the film is flat, predictable and boring. If you don’t immediately care about Miss Sheppard, then the film becomes more tedious and lifeless by the second. I guessed long before the end the mystery behind Miss Sheppard, but even if I hadn’t I would still have been bored due to the lack of any interest. The film believes that the existence of a mystery to be motivation enough to solve it, which just isn’t the case; I don’t know what John McCririck had for breakfast, but I’m not going to stare at his stools to find out.
Not helping matters is a very by the numbers direction by Nicholas Hytner. While not incompetent, there’s very little in the way of style or flair without being casual. The only parts that show any sort of imagination are the fourth wall breaks, but the best only happen towards the end. It’s a shame that the potential of having two Alan Bennetts and seeing the film from the perspective of the writer only starts to be explored as the film is drawing to a close. Otherwise, a robot could’ve directed this film.
Alan Bennett is a highly praised writer, and rightfully so, but The Lady in the Van just isn’t his best. The above-average but by no means stellar script is tied to a plot as lifeless and sluggish as a particularly lethargic sloth. If you’re really hurting to see Bennett at his best, it’d be a lot cheaper and a lot more entertaining to rent The Madness of King George or The History Boys or even one of The Secret Policeman’s Ball’s, plus you can order some pizza from your sofa. Otherwise, The Lady in the Van, unlike the real Miss Sheppard, can very safely be ignored.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/11/19/like-a-particularly-lethargic-sloth-the-lady-in-the-van-review/
With a dull, mild curiosity.
Despite being from the viewpoint of two Alan Bennetts, described as one being the writer and the other living the life, the main character is Miss Sheppard, the lady in the van. The film insists that we should be interested in her mysterious life, her past as a pianist and a nun, and why she chooses to live in the van, but throughout most of the film I was only thinking “Oh, let’s just go back and hear Alan Bennett be cynical some more.” The words are witty and sharp, but it’s mostly said about things we don’t care about. Miss Sheppard is a flat, mostly dull character, and the audience is unwillingly handcuffed to her.
The highlight of the film is its acting, with the cast being a veritable who’s who of Britain’s finest talent, and James Corden. What dimension Miss Sheppard has is provided almost entirely by the volatile yet vulnerable performance by Maggie Smith, and Alex Jennings is as real an Alan Bennett as the actual Alan Bennett. Even in the small roles, everyone from Roger Allam to Gwen Taylor manage to force themselves to shine. The only bad performance is from, of all people, Jim Broadbent, who pops up to antagonise Miss Sheppard but appears less like a real human being and more like a cartoon supervillain. For a second, I thought the character’s name was Baron von Drakkhen.
But great players cannot save a bad game, and the story of the film is flat, predictable and boring. If you don’t immediately care about Miss Sheppard, then the film becomes more tedious and lifeless by the second. I guessed long before the end the mystery behind Miss Sheppard, but even if I hadn’t I would still have been bored due to the lack of any interest. The film believes that the existence of a mystery to be motivation enough to solve it, which just isn’t the case; I don’t know what John McCririck had for breakfast, but I’m not going to stare at his stools to find out.
Not helping matters is a very by the numbers direction by Nicholas Hytner. While not incompetent, there’s very little in the way of style or flair without being casual. The only parts that show any sort of imagination are the fourth wall breaks, but the best only happen towards the end. It’s a shame that the potential of having two Alan Bennetts and seeing the film from the perspective of the writer only starts to be explored as the film is drawing to a close. Otherwise, a robot could’ve directed this film.
Alan Bennett is a highly praised writer, and rightfully so, but The Lady in the Van just isn’t his best. The above-average but by no means stellar script is tied to a plot as lifeless and sluggish as a particularly lethargic sloth. If you’re really hurting to see Bennett at his best, it’d be a lot cheaper and a lot more entertaining to rent The Madness of King George or The History Boys or even one of The Secret Policeman’s Ball’s, plus you can order some pizza from your sofa. Otherwise, The Lady in the Van, unlike the real Miss Sheppard, can very safely be ignored.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/11/19/like-a-particularly-lethargic-sloth-the-lady-in-the-van-review/
Illeana Douglas recommended Easy Rider (1969) in Movies (curated)
Darren (1599 KP) rated From Dusk Till Dawn (1996) in Movies
Sep 2, 2019
Thoughts on From Dusk till Dawn
Characters – Seth Gecko has just been sprung from prison by his brother, he wants to get across the border to complete a deal which would see them both have freedom, he is the one that remains in control wanting to keep everything calm, which would mean not leaving a pile of bodies behind them. He does deliver the threats which would see them as a danger, though he does just want things to be simple. Richard or Ritchie is must more of a loose cannon, he is paranoid and this makes him more dangerous, as he will kill people putting their safety at risk. He is protected by his brother, as he doesn’t seem like he is capable of putting a plan together himself. Jacob was a priest that has lost his faith after his wife’s death, he I taking his family on a vacation and gets forced into helping the brothers, he wants to keep them safe, willing to risk his own life to make this happen. Kate and Scott are his children, they are dealing with their own loss the best way they know how to and being supportive to their father. Santanico is the beautiful dancer that will stop a bar with her dance, she is one of the leaders of the vampires who has been waiting for the food in human form.
Performances – George Clooney is great to see in this role, after this we only usually see him in smooth talking roles, rather than a rough criminal, showing he could become any role offered to him. Tarantino in this film is creepy and putting himself in the supporting role does hide any restrictions he might have as an actor. Harvey Keitel is great showing a character that is meant to be hating his life choice, but remaining strong for his children. Juliette Lewis and Ernest Liu are both solid enough in the supporting roles without getting too much more to work with, while Salma Hayek turns heads with her performance.
Story – The story here follows two criminals trying to get to Mexico, the family they force to help them across the border and the bar they find, filled with vampires that they must fight to survive the night. Where this story stands up on its own, is by making it a criminal tory to start with, having no hints of horror or vampires involved, as we just watch the two loose cannons trying to get to safety, by pulling the rug out from under us to thrown us into the horror idea is genius switch of pace for the story. we do have themes going on especially with the Jacob character needing to find his lost faith which finding it will become the big part in fight the vampires. The story also exists in a world where vampire stories do exist, which gives them ideas on how to fight back, which was the main attraction to the 90’s horror stories.
Action/Horror – The action in the film involves the fighting with the vampires, we get to take everything to a new level for this side of the genre, with the blood splatter in the action, which the horror gives us because we vampires which are a staple of horror, but we do focus on the action over the scares.
Settings – The film uses the getting to the location setting of the camper van which does show us the road trip feel to the film, but it is the bar that will be one that is always going to be hard to forget, being a run down biker and trucker bar.
Special Effects – The special effects are some of the best you will see in the vampire genre, it shows that you can get plenty done with practical effects, with the only weakness come from the human to vampire transformations, which look CGI and have dated.
Scene of the Movie – The battle.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The transformations have dated badly.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the most fun vampire movies you will ever see, it has plenty of blood flying around the screen and will keep you entertained from start to finish.
Overall: Purely entertaining vampire movie.
Characters – Seth Gecko has just been sprung from prison by his brother, he wants to get across the border to complete a deal which would see them both have freedom, he is the one that remains in control wanting to keep everything calm, which would mean not leaving a pile of bodies behind them. He does deliver the threats which would see them as a danger, though he does just want things to be simple. Richard or Ritchie is must more of a loose cannon, he is paranoid and this makes him more dangerous, as he will kill people putting their safety at risk. He is protected by his brother, as he doesn’t seem like he is capable of putting a plan together himself. Jacob was a priest that has lost his faith after his wife’s death, he I taking his family on a vacation and gets forced into helping the brothers, he wants to keep them safe, willing to risk his own life to make this happen. Kate and Scott are his children, they are dealing with their own loss the best way they know how to and being supportive to their father. Santanico is the beautiful dancer that will stop a bar with her dance, she is one of the leaders of the vampires who has been waiting for the food in human form.
Performances – George Clooney is great to see in this role, after this we only usually see him in smooth talking roles, rather than a rough criminal, showing he could become any role offered to him. Tarantino in this film is creepy and putting himself in the supporting role does hide any restrictions he might have as an actor. Harvey Keitel is great showing a character that is meant to be hating his life choice, but remaining strong for his children. Juliette Lewis and Ernest Liu are both solid enough in the supporting roles without getting too much more to work with, while Salma Hayek turns heads with her performance.
Story – The story here follows two criminals trying to get to Mexico, the family they force to help them across the border and the bar they find, filled with vampires that they must fight to survive the night. Where this story stands up on its own, is by making it a criminal tory to start with, having no hints of horror or vampires involved, as we just watch the two loose cannons trying to get to safety, by pulling the rug out from under us to thrown us into the horror idea is genius switch of pace for the story. we do have themes going on especially with the Jacob character needing to find his lost faith which finding it will become the big part in fight the vampires. The story also exists in a world where vampire stories do exist, which gives them ideas on how to fight back, which was the main attraction to the 90’s horror stories.
Action/Horror – The action in the film involves the fighting with the vampires, we get to take everything to a new level for this side of the genre, with the blood splatter in the action, which the horror gives us because we vampires which are a staple of horror, but we do focus on the action over the scares.
Settings – The film uses the getting to the location setting of the camper van which does show us the road trip feel to the film, but it is the bar that will be one that is always going to be hard to forget, being a run down biker and trucker bar.
Special Effects – The special effects are some of the best you will see in the vampire genre, it shows that you can get plenty done with practical effects, with the only weakness come from the human to vampire transformations, which look CGI and have dated.
Scene of the Movie – The battle.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The transformations have dated badly.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the most fun vampire movies you will ever see, it has plenty of blood flying around the screen and will keep you entertained from start to finish.
Overall: Purely entertaining vampire movie.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated The Witchwood Crown in Books
Jul 22, 2017
Gosh, what a long book!
Review I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.
Approximately 30 years ago, the first novel in Tad Williams’ Memory, Sorrow and Thorn trilogy was published. Fans all over the world adored this high fantasy story about a young kitchen boy, Simon, who goes on to become King of Ostern Ard. Now Williams’ has returned to the fictional lands with a follow-up trilogy, The Last King of Ostern Ard.
Three decades have been and gone since the ending of the previous series. The Witchwood Crown explores the changes that have occurred since the epic story finished, unfortunately, things are not looking good. Simon and his wife, Miriamele, have suffered a few personal tragedies, leaving them with two fatherless grandchildren. Young Lillia is an out spoken child who expostulates with everyone in order to get her way – she is a princess after all. Morgan, the heir, is rather obtuse in comparison; a lazy young man whose vexatious behaviour constantly causes the Royals to despair. However, this is only a tiny problem in their restless kingdom.
The Norn Queen, an antagonist of the original story, has been asleep for the past few decades. Mortals foolishly believed they were safe from the evil character, yet unexpectedly, she has awoken and is determined to destroy humanity. Too weak to carry out her own plans, she infiltrates the minds of the members of her immortal race, sending them off on perilous missions, for example, to extract blood from a live dragon.
As well as Simon’s city and the Norns, there are several more important characters and locations, each with their own on going storyline. A mix of assiduous and animus personas shake up the peace that had settled at the closing of Memory, Sorrow and Thorn. It is almost impossible to fathom whom the good and bad are, especially when reading from so many different points of view.
If the 700 odd pages did not already give it away, the inclusion of maps and appendixes prove the book to contain an extremely lengthy tale. Flitting from one set of characters to another, it is hard to keep up with the hundreds of names and roles. It does not help that the majority are unpronounceable, full of additional apostrophes making them as unlike English names as possible – a usual trait of fantasy fiction.
Not only are the names difficult to pronounce, the words and vernacular some of the characters use are just as dumbfounding. Thankfully, definitions are provided at the back of the book, but to keep flipping between pages can get quite tedious after a while.
The sheer number of characters makes it difficult to unearth the main storyline. In fact, there does not appear to be a strong plot at all. Judging by the ending, it is as though The Witchwood Crown is only an introduction to the narrative that will begin in the following book.
Reading the primary series first will have its benefits, however, it is not mandatory. New readers, like myself, are able to pick up snippets of past events and piece together the lead up to the current scenario. Although a work of historical fantasy, it is possible to see elements of real life within the story. Dragons and fairies may not exist in our world, but similar beliefs and systems are relatable. For instance, the days of the week are obviously based on the English names: Sunday, Moonday, Tiasday, Udunsday, Drorsday, Frayday and Satrinsday.
The most striking connection between real and imagined is the religious beliefs of different clans and species. Many of the mortals have taken, up what is suggested to be, a new religion. There are so many similarities; it is undoubtedly based on Christianity. Likewise, other beliefs are comparable to pagan rites and ceremonies of the distant past.
The Witchwood Crown is not an easy book to read, neither is it all that exciting. On the other hand, it is interesting. It is equivalent to reading historical information with the added benefit of mythical creatures. This is not a quick read; therefore you need to be dedicated to sitting down and pacing through the story. It is definitely targeted at high fantasy fans – in fact, the original stories influenced George R. R. Martin (A Game of Thrones) – who are used to the length and complexity of the narrative
Approximately 30 years ago, the first novel in Tad Williams’ Memory, Sorrow and Thorn trilogy was published. Fans all over the world adored this high fantasy story about a young kitchen boy, Simon, who goes on to become King of Ostern Ard. Now Williams’ has returned to the fictional lands with a follow-up trilogy, The Last King of Ostern Ard.
Three decades have been and gone since the ending of the previous series. The Witchwood Crown explores the changes that have occurred since the epic story finished, unfortunately, things are not looking good. Simon and his wife, Miriamele, have suffered a few personal tragedies, leaving them with two fatherless grandchildren. Young Lillia is an out spoken child who expostulates with everyone in order to get her way – she is a princess after all. Morgan, the heir, is rather obtuse in comparison; a lazy young man whose vexatious behaviour constantly causes the Royals to despair. However, this is only a tiny problem in their restless kingdom.
The Norn Queen, an antagonist of the original story, has been asleep for the past few decades. Mortals foolishly believed they were safe from the evil character, yet unexpectedly, she has awoken and is determined to destroy humanity. Too weak to carry out her own plans, she infiltrates the minds of the members of her immortal race, sending them off on perilous missions, for example, to extract blood from a live dragon.
As well as Simon’s city and the Norns, there are several more important characters and locations, each with their own on going storyline. A mix of assiduous and animus personas shake up the peace that had settled at the closing of Memory, Sorrow and Thorn. It is almost impossible to fathom whom the good and bad are, especially when reading from so many different points of view.
If the 700 odd pages did not already give it away, the inclusion of maps and appendixes prove the book to contain an extremely lengthy tale. Flitting from one set of characters to another, it is hard to keep up with the hundreds of names and roles. It does not help that the majority are unpronounceable, full of additional apostrophes making them as unlike English names as possible – a usual trait of fantasy fiction.
Not only are the names difficult to pronounce, the words and vernacular some of the characters use are just as dumbfounding. Thankfully, definitions are provided at the back of the book, but to keep flipping between pages can get quite tedious after a while.
The sheer number of characters makes it difficult to unearth the main storyline. In fact, there does not appear to be a strong plot at all. Judging by the ending, it is as though The Witchwood Crown is only an introduction to the narrative that will begin in the following book.
Reading the primary series first will have its benefits, however, it is not mandatory. New readers, like myself, are able to pick up snippets of past events and piece together the lead up to the current scenario. Although a work of historical fantasy, it is possible to see elements of real life within the story. Dragons and fairies may not exist in our world, but similar beliefs and systems are relatable. For instance, the days of the week are obviously based on the English names: Sunday, Moonday, Tiasday, Udunsday, Drorsday, Frayday and Satrinsday.
The most striking connection between real and imagined is the religious beliefs of different clans and species. Many of the mortals have taken, up what is suggested to be, a new religion. There are so many similarities; it is undoubtedly based on Christianity. Likewise, other beliefs are comparable to pagan rites and ceremonies of the distant past.
The Witchwood Crown is not an easy book to read, neither is it all that exciting. On the other hand, it is interesting. It is equivalent to reading historical information with the added benefit of mythical creatures. This is not a quick read; therefore you need to be dedicated to sitting down and pacing through the story. It is definitely targeted at high fantasy fans – in fact, the original stories influenced George R. R. Martin (A Game of Thrones) – who are used to the length and complexity of the narrative
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Solo: A Star Wars Story (2018) in Movies
Feb 18, 2019
The Star Wars Story that nobody asked for, but was is a story worth telling?
In short, NO.
Where to start? Indeed, where to start with a background prequel focusing on one of the most iconic Star Wars characters ever, taking the ageing Harrison Ford’s characters to, well not so far beyond the age that we first met him back in 1977.
Recast with actor who brings very little Ford with him, apart from a few well practice smiles and other expressions here and there, this is a reinterpretation of the character, in this case as a naive and wimpy version, maybe even soft, is not the part for Alden Ehrenreich.
The Character arch of Han Solo in the original trilogy was his redemption from a selfish, self-assured space pirate to a man who could recognise and fight for a cause bigger than himself. But according this haphazard prequel, he was already a big softy before her learns the harsh realities of life, only he doesn’t, not really.
He just learns to be a little more cynical and to smirk his way through every situation with his lucky die and everything turns out okay for him. Ehrenrieich done not bring an ounce of the gravitas or charisma of Harrison Ford, as this film, which had to be almost entirely re-shot with Ron Howard taking the helm after The Lego Movie directing due Chris Miller and Phil Lord where unceremoniously fired after “not getting it”, apparently, shoe horns as much of the token events of Solo’s pre-rebellion life into its two and bit hour run time.
Ron Howard; A few hits and plenty of misses. Willow (1988) springs to mind. Not only was Willow Lucas’ attempt to begin and new fantasy trilogy after the Star Wars Saga was completed, it was micro directed by George Lucas as Ron Howard took the credit. And this has a lot of the hallmarks of Willow.
In short; A poor mans Star Wars. Hammy scripting and at times acting, the story is all over the place, with shallow characterisations, poor exposition, haphazard pacing and the action is actually quite hard to follow. Just please, give us ONE decent shot of the Millennium Falcon that we can keep up with and actually see, especially as it has been altered so much from the icon version that we all love. Maybe we’re getting bored of the same ship after 40 years? Maybe we all need to go out and by a new version?
Toyetic… anyone?
Instead everything of interest is speeding across the screen and the boring stuff is left to linger. And there was a level of boredom here. Incredibly predictable plotting, simply going through the motions of a no stakes story. But it does feel as if they shoehorned a larger narrative in there, with introduction in the final act of the rebellion and an old villain returns with a new legs, but by the time what should have been an earth shattering twist appeared, it wasn’t really interested, especially if you know the The Clone Wars or Rebels.
One major plus note though, Donald Glover aced Lando Calrissian, to such an extant that I wish this movie was actually called Lando: A Star War Story rather than Solo, because there’s no doubt that Glover brought so much more Billy Dee Williams and built on it, than Ehrenreich did for Ford’s.
As well as the subtle and well conceived plotting around Lando’s female droid, L3-37 (Phoebe Waller-Bridge) who may well be the ‘Old girl’ referred to by both Han and Lando during in the original trilogy when they speak to the Falcon, whilst shining a light on the deliberately ambiguous nature of droids in the Star Wars universe. In short; are they sentient or not? But this is not Star Trek so we do not really need an answer to that… do we?
Overall, I want to say that this was missed opportunity but in truth, it was not. It was waste of time. A story that did not need to be told with script that did not know what say. Clearly, they were aiming for a Guardians Of The Galaxy (2015), unaware that the secret of that surprise success was that it tapped in to the retro Star Wars vibe by NOT being Star Wars. And with little expectations.
Here they were playing with one of the biggest guns in modern film history and in my opinion, it blew up in there faces.
Where to start? Indeed, where to start with a background prequel focusing on one of the most iconic Star Wars characters ever, taking the ageing Harrison Ford’s characters to, well not so far beyond the age that we first met him back in 1977.
Recast with actor who brings very little Ford with him, apart from a few well practice smiles and other expressions here and there, this is a reinterpretation of the character, in this case as a naive and wimpy version, maybe even soft, is not the part for Alden Ehrenreich.
The Character arch of Han Solo in the original trilogy was his redemption from a selfish, self-assured space pirate to a man who could recognise and fight for a cause bigger than himself. But according this haphazard prequel, he was already a big softy before her learns the harsh realities of life, only he doesn’t, not really.
He just learns to be a little more cynical and to smirk his way through every situation with his lucky die and everything turns out okay for him. Ehrenrieich done not bring an ounce of the gravitas or charisma of Harrison Ford, as this film, which had to be almost entirely re-shot with Ron Howard taking the helm after The Lego Movie directing due Chris Miller and Phil Lord where unceremoniously fired after “not getting it”, apparently, shoe horns as much of the token events of Solo’s pre-rebellion life into its two and bit hour run time.
Ron Howard; A few hits and plenty of misses. Willow (1988) springs to mind. Not only was Willow Lucas’ attempt to begin and new fantasy trilogy after the Star Wars Saga was completed, it was micro directed by George Lucas as Ron Howard took the credit. And this has a lot of the hallmarks of Willow.
In short; A poor mans Star Wars. Hammy scripting and at times acting, the story is all over the place, with shallow characterisations, poor exposition, haphazard pacing and the action is actually quite hard to follow. Just please, give us ONE decent shot of the Millennium Falcon that we can keep up with and actually see, especially as it has been altered so much from the icon version that we all love. Maybe we’re getting bored of the same ship after 40 years? Maybe we all need to go out and by a new version?
Toyetic… anyone?
Instead everything of interest is speeding across the screen and the boring stuff is left to linger. And there was a level of boredom here. Incredibly predictable plotting, simply going through the motions of a no stakes story. But it does feel as if they shoehorned a larger narrative in there, with introduction in the final act of the rebellion and an old villain returns with a new legs, but by the time what should have been an earth shattering twist appeared, it wasn’t really interested, especially if you know the The Clone Wars or Rebels.
One major plus note though, Donald Glover aced Lando Calrissian, to such an extant that I wish this movie was actually called Lando: A Star War Story rather than Solo, because there’s no doubt that Glover brought so much more Billy Dee Williams and built on it, than Ehrenreich did for Ford’s.
As well as the subtle and well conceived plotting around Lando’s female droid, L3-37 (Phoebe Waller-Bridge) who may well be the ‘Old girl’ referred to by both Han and Lando during in the original trilogy when they speak to the Falcon, whilst shining a light on the deliberately ambiguous nature of droids in the Star Wars universe. In short; are they sentient or not? But this is not Star Trek so we do not really need an answer to that… do we?
Overall, I want to say that this was missed opportunity but in truth, it was not. It was waste of time. A story that did not need to be told with script that did not know what say. Clearly, they were aiming for a Guardians Of The Galaxy (2015), unaware that the secret of that surprise success was that it tapped in to the retro Star Wars vibe by NOT being Star Wars. And with little expectations.
Here they were playing with one of the biggest guns in modern film history and in my opinion, it blew up in there faces.
Gareth von Kallenbach (974 KP) rated Suburbicon (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
Suburbicon is a picturesque community built to free families from all the hustle and bustle of the big city but with all the amenities a community will need. For all intents in purposes Suburbicon is the ideal place to raise a family in the 1950s. That is exactly what the Lodge family is doing. That is until the night Nicky (Noah Jupe) is awoken by his father, Gardner (Matt Damon), and told that there are two men in the house. The two criminals, Sloan and Louis (Glenn Fleshler and Alex Hassell), move the family to the kitchen and tie Nicky, Gardner, Nicky’s mother Rose (Julianne Moore) and Rose’s sister Margaret (also Julianne Moore) to chairs and put them to sleep using chloroform. When Nicky awakens in the hospital his father and aunt are waiting for him but sadly his mother was overdosed with chloroform and died. After the funeral it is decided by Gardner that Aunt Margaret should come stay with them. When officer Hightower (Jack Conley) calls to let them know they have found two possible suspects Gardner rushes to the police station to look at a lineup. Gardner arrives and is surprised to find Margaret and Nicky there. He asks that Nicky be left outside to save him from the trauma. After a line of potential criminals are paraded in front of Gardner and Margaret both agree that the perpetrators are not there. When they turn around they are surprised to see Nicky with a shocked look on his face as he is staring directly at Sloan and Louis. Nicky now knows that something is going on with his mother’s death and he may be trapped in a house with the two people who are responsible. He is not the only one that thinks something is amiss an insurance investigator, Bud Cooper (Oscar Isaac), shows up with questions about the policy. Is the Suburbicon truly the sanctuary that it looks like from the outside or is there something sinister happening behind closed doors?
This dark comedy, thriller, and mystery is directed by George Clooney (The Monuments Men, Leatherheads) and written by Joel and Ethan Coen (Fargo, The Big Lebowski). The film has some fun moments and interesting twists. I enjoyed how they made the film authentic to the 1950s era. The scenery and sets all give you the feel of the time period. The performances were are mostly well done. Julianne Moore’s performance was really good in both roles but especially as the out there Margaret. She was at times very innocent and loving and the next moment really scary in a deranged kind of way. The supporting cast was large and all were fun, especially the dry Hightower (Conley) and the lovable Uncle Mitch (Gary Basaraba). Matt Damon is part scary and funny but sometimes over the top.
Where this film lost me was on parts of the story really that felt disjointed from other parts of the film. For instance another story line that is playing out during the film is that the Mayers’ family moves to Suburbicon on the same day that the break in at the Lodge’s. The Mayers are the first African American family to move into the area and they are instantly judged and discriminated against. As the movie continues and more craziness is happing at the Lodge home, which shares a back yard with the Mayers, there is an escalation in the persecution of the Mayers. I totally understand what point the film was attempting to make about how people were up in arms about a single family that just moving the town and ignoring, or rather too busy to even notice, the evil deeds being committed so close. I just believe that two stories never felt like they were truly tied together and in some points even part of the same film. I really believe an opportunity was missed. Also the comedy was at times really good but also times where it felt forced. When Matt Damon is riding a child bike with a blood soaked shirt down suburban streets you would think that would be funny, and it looked funny in the trailer, but it felt forced when put into the context of the scene.
Overall this is a film was good but really left me feeling like I just didn’t get it. It was definitely original and I would encourage people to watch it and come to their own conclusions.
This dark comedy, thriller, and mystery is directed by George Clooney (The Monuments Men, Leatherheads) and written by Joel and Ethan Coen (Fargo, The Big Lebowski). The film has some fun moments and interesting twists. I enjoyed how they made the film authentic to the 1950s era. The scenery and sets all give you the feel of the time period. The performances were are mostly well done. Julianne Moore’s performance was really good in both roles but especially as the out there Margaret. She was at times very innocent and loving and the next moment really scary in a deranged kind of way. The supporting cast was large and all were fun, especially the dry Hightower (Conley) and the lovable Uncle Mitch (Gary Basaraba). Matt Damon is part scary and funny but sometimes over the top.
Where this film lost me was on parts of the story really that felt disjointed from other parts of the film. For instance another story line that is playing out during the film is that the Mayers’ family moves to Suburbicon on the same day that the break in at the Lodge’s. The Mayers are the first African American family to move into the area and they are instantly judged and discriminated against. As the movie continues and more craziness is happing at the Lodge home, which shares a back yard with the Mayers, there is an escalation in the persecution of the Mayers. I totally understand what point the film was attempting to make about how people were up in arms about a single family that just moving the town and ignoring, or rather too busy to even notice, the evil deeds being committed so close. I just believe that two stories never felt like they were truly tied together and in some points even part of the same film. I really believe an opportunity was missed. Also the comedy was at times really good but also times where it felt forced. When Matt Damon is riding a child bike with a blood soaked shirt down suburban streets you would think that would be funny, and it looked funny in the trailer, but it felt forced when put into the context of the scene.
Overall this is a film was good but really left me feeling like I just didn’t get it. It was definitely original and I would encourage people to watch it and come to their own conclusions.
KalJ95 (25 KP) rated Star Wars: Episode IX - The Rise of Skywalker (2019) in Movies
May 5, 2020
Asks more questions than it answers. (3 more)
Fails to recover from the damages of The Last Jedi.
No sense to the narrative.
Some acting is appalling.
Goodbye, Star Wars.
Almost six months from its release, I finally sat down and treated myself to Episode IX: The Rise of Skywalker. Ever since Disney took over the Star Wars brand, I've been sceptical of their intentions with the property, and so far I've been massively disappointed. I enjoyed the Mandalorian, and still believe Rogue One: A Star Wars Story is easily as good as the original trilogy. Controversial, I know. But the newest trilogy has dropped my interest in Star Wars altogether, as they've so far been bogged down by awful writing, humongous plot holes, and the butchering of beloved characters to make way for wooden new ones. The Force Awakens was a step in the right direction, but the nostalgia factor was what drew me in. Eight years on, it hasn't aged well at all. The Last Jedi became my Stopping point in the Galaxy far, far away. Yes it has flair and popped visually, but the story was an insult to all the fans who had cherished Star Wars back in the days of the Original trilogy. After countless rewrites, multiple directors, and suspicions of actors within feeling disheartened with the over arc of their characters (looking at you, John Boyega), The Rise of Skywalker is finally here to cap of Disney's first trilogy.
What a disaster.
The Rise of Skywalker is an incoherent, messy and boring experience to chug through. Time and time again throughout the two and a half hours, I face palmed in absolute cringe and embarrassment at what Disney have done to this once celebrated franchise. The film feels rushed, on edge to get to the next destination for the newest plot point, without explaining or finishing the previous one, pointing even more towards those rewritten scripts. The film feels like multiple entries, crammed into one sprawling narrative that can't be resolved in the time given, this is especially the case with characters like Poe and Finn, who's arcs have been destroyed to make way for Rey, and that is the biggest issue. Rey has been written as the central moving force of this trilogy, but she never undergoes any development. Sure, she learns a few things about herself in this film, and challenges the idea of who she is for a brief moment, but she’s been made the perfect Jedi without trying. Its poor and lazy writing, and fans have began to feel an agenda is presenting itself. Whilst the women feel strong, wise, intelligent, the men are all morons, blundering their way through the story and often bickering with each other. Its an observation as a critic and fan, and its made me loath almost every character introduced since The Force Awakens. It became clear how little I cared about anything that was happening when a moment of embrace for the three main heroes once the final act ended. It should feel emotional, impactful, but it feels hollow, even forced. Much like most of the decision making of the film itself.
This brings me neatly onto the content of the film, if you can make any sense of it. If this is supposed to end the Skywalker saga once and for all, why add ridiculous plot threads and more pointless characters,that add no weight or purpose to the narrative? The ending is cut so quickly after the anti-climatic ending, that we don’t even have an idea of any characters finishing point. This is just one example of how badly things have spiralled into a mish mash of ideas from different writers and directors. If The Last Jedi was the franchise jumping into a well, this film is trying it's best to climb out. The two previous entries at least connected, but this feels a stand alone chapter, with no context or reason for what happens, and what does happen makes you scratch your head all the more.
I feel sorry for the hardcore fanbase, it genuinely feels like a slap in the face to history George Lucas has created. Once you lose the interest of your core audience, I feel its time to cut your losses. And yet again, another franchise has seen its demise. It feels like a symptomatic failure that the entertainment industry still don’t understand. You can buy any brand you want, but you can’t buy the fans love. Whatever direction Star Wars goes into next, I will not be tuning in.
What a disaster.
The Rise of Skywalker is an incoherent, messy and boring experience to chug through. Time and time again throughout the two and a half hours, I face palmed in absolute cringe and embarrassment at what Disney have done to this once celebrated franchise. The film feels rushed, on edge to get to the next destination for the newest plot point, without explaining or finishing the previous one, pointing even more towards those rewritten scripts. The film feels like multiple entries, crammed into one sprawling narrative that can't be resolved in the time given, this is especially the case with characters like Poe and Finn, who's arcs have been destroyed to make way for Rey, and that is the biggest issue. Rey has been written as the central moving force of this trilogy, but she never undergoes any development. Sure, she learns a few things about herself in this film, and challenges the idea of who she is for a brief moment, but she’s been made the perfect Jedi without trying. Its poor and lazy writing, and fans have began to feel an agenda is presenting itself. Whilst the women feel strong, wise, intelligent, the men are all morons, blundering their way through the story and often bickering with each other. Its an observation as a critic and fan, and its made me loath almost every character introduced since The Force Awakens. It became clear how little I cared about anything that was happening when a moment of embrace for the three main heroes once the final act ended. It should feel emotional, impactful, but it feels hollow, even forced. Much like most of the decision making of the film itself.
This brings me neatly onto the content of the film, if you can make any sense of it. If this is supposed to end the Skywalker saga once and for all, why add ridiculous plot threads and more pointless characters,that add no weight or purpose to the narrative? The ending is cut so quickly after the anti-climatic ending, that we don’t even have an idea of any characters finishing point. This is just one example of how badly things have spiralled into a mish mash of ideas from different writers and directors. If The Last Jedi was the franchise jumping into a well, this film is trying it's best to climb out. The two previous entries at least connected, but this feels a stand alone chapter, with no context or reason for what happens, and what does happen makes you scratch your head all the more.
I feel sorry for the hardcore fanbase, it genuinely feels like a slap in the face to history George Lucas has created. Once you lose the interest of your core audience, I feel its time to cut your losses. And yet again, another franchise has seen its demise. It feels like a symptomatic failure that the entertainment industry still don’t understand. You can buy any brand you want, but you can’t buy the fans love. Whatever direction Star Wars goes into next, I will not be tuning in.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Spielberg (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
On making Drew Barrymore cry.
“Spielberg” is an HBO-produced documentary by documentarian Susan Lacy. You’ll never guess who the subject is?!
Steven Spielberg is a product of one of the most surprising revolutions in Hollywood in the late 70’s: one of a set of wunderkind directors alongside such luminaries as George Lucas, Francis Ford Coppola, John Milius, Brian De Palma and Martin Scorcese. These men (only men, it should be noted!) were ready to cock a snook at Hollywood’s traditional studio system to break rules (case in point, Star Wars’ lack of opening credits) and move cinema into the format that would last to this day.
As this excellent documentary makes clear, Spielberg was one of the least rebellious of the movie-brats. Even though (astoundingly) he blagged himself a production office at Universal (after hiding during the Tram Tour toilet stop!), his path to the top was through hard graft on multiple Universal TV shows, after recognition of his talents by Universal exec Sidney Sheinberg who speaks in the film.
Before we get to that stage of his life, we cover his childhood back-story as a reluctant Jew living in a non-Jewish neighbourhood, driven to fill his time with tormenting his sisters and movie-making with a Super 8 camera. Scenes of home videos, photos and his early attempts at special effects are all fascinating. The impact of his Bohemian mother Leah and workaholic father Arnold, and particularly the very surprising relationship breakdown that happened between them, go a long way to explain the constant return to ‘father issues’ in many of his films such as “E.T.”, “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”, “Hook” and “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade”.
The majority of the film though settles down into a roughly chronological review of the highlights of his movie career, with particular emphasis justly being placed on some of the key watershed moments in that career. Most of his films get at least a mention, but “Jaws”, “E.T.”, “Schindler’s List”, “The Color Purple”, “Jurassic Park”, “Munich” and “Empire of the Sun” get more focus. It is such a wonderful trip down my cinematic memory lane. I also forget just what cinematic majesty and craftsmanship is present in these films: I just hope that at some point this will get a Blu-Ray or DVD release so it can be properly appreciated (rather than viewing it on a tiny airplane screen which is how I watched this): the combination of film clips in here is breathtaking.
As might be expected for a documentary about the great director, there is plenty of ‘behind the camera’ footage on show, some of which is fascinating. Spielberg could always get the very best performances out of the youngsters on set, from Cary Guffey (“Toys!!”) in “Close Encounters” to a heartbreaking scene where he reduces the young Drew Barrymore to howls of emotion in “E.T.”. A master at work.
All of the movie scenes are accompanied by new interview footage from Spielberg himself, as well as warm platitudes from many of the luminaries he has worked with in the past. Directors involved include many of the the directors referenced above, as well as those modern directors influenced by him such as J.J. Abrams; his go-to cinematographers Vilmos Zsigmond and Janusz Kaminski; his ‘go-to’ composer John Williams; and stars including his go-to ‘everyman’ Richard Dreyfuss, Tom Cruise, Harrison Ford, Bob Balaban, Tom Hanks, Opray Winfrey, Leonardo DiCaprio, Christian Bale, Dustin Hoffman and James Brolin. Some of these comments are useful and insightful; some are just fairly meaningless sound bites that add nothing to the film. What all the comments are though is almost all uniformly positive.
And that’s my only criticism of the film. Like me, Susan Lacy is clearly a big fan. It is probably quite hard to find anyone who isn’t…. but perhaps Ms Lacy should have tried a bit harder! There is only limited focus on his big comedy flop of 1979, “1941”, and no mention at all of his lowest WW grossing film “Always”. And there are only a few contributors – notably film critic Janet Maslin – who are willing to stick their head above the parapet and prod into Spielberg’s weaknesses; ostensibly his tendency to veer to the sentimental and away from harder issues: the omitted “Color Purple” ‘mirror scene’ being a case in point.
This is a recommended watch for Spielberg fans. On the eve of the launch of his latest – “Ready Player One”, a film that I am personally dubious about from the trailer – it’s a great insight into the life and works of the great man. It could though have cut a slightly harder and more critical edge.
Steven Spielberg is a product of one of the most surprising revolutions in Hollywood in the late 70’s: one of a set of wunderkind directors alongside such luminaries as George Lucas, Francis Ford Coppola, John Milius, Brian De Palma and Martin Scorcese. These men (only men, it should be noted!) were ready to cock a snook at Hollywood’s traditional studio system to break rules (case in point, Star Wars’ lack of opening credits) and move cinema into the format that would last to this day.
As this excellent documentary makes clear, Spielberg was one of the least rebellious of the movie-brats. Even though (astoundingly) he blagged himself a production office at Universal (after hiding during the Tram Tour toilet stop!), his path to the top was through hard graft on multiple Universal TV shows, after recognition of his talents by Universal exec Sidney Sheinberg who speaks in the film.
Before we get to that stage of his life, we cover his childhood back-story as a reluctant Jew living in a non-Jewish neighbourhood, driven to fill his time with tormenting his sisters and movie-making with a Super 8 camera. Scenes of home videos, photos and his early attempts at special effects are all fascinating. The impact of his Bohemian mother Leah and workaholic father Arnold, and particularly the very surprising relationship breakdown that happened between them, go a long way to explain the constant return to ‘father issues’ in many of his films such as “E.T.”, “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”, “Hook” and “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade”.
The majority of the film though settles down into a roughly chronological review of the highlights of his movie career, with particular emphasis justly being placed on some of the key watershed moments in that career. Most of his films get at least a mention, but “Jaws”, “E.T.”, “Schindler’s List”, “The Color Purple”, “Jurassic Park”, “Munich” and “Empire of the Sun” get more focus. It is such a wonderful trip down my cinematic memory lane. I also forget just what cinematic majesty and craftsmanship is present in these films: I just hope that at some point this will get a Blu-Ray or DVD release so it can be properly appreciated (rather than viewing it on a tiny airplane screen which is how I watched this): the combination of film clips in here is breathtaking.
As might be expected for a documentary about the great director, there is plenty of ‘behind the camera’ footage on show, some of which is fascinating. Spielberg could always get the very best performances out of the youngsters on set, from Cary Guffey (“Toys!!”) in “Close Encounters” to a heartbreaking scene where he reduces the young Drew Barrymore to howls of emotion in “E.T.”. A master at work.
All of the movie scenes are accompanied by new interview footage from Spielberg himself, as well as warm platitudes from many of the luminaries he has worked with in the past. Directors involved include many of the the directors referenced above, as well as those modern directors influenced by him such as J.J. Abrams; his go-to cinematographers Vilmos Zsigmond and Janusz Kaminski; his ‘go-to’ composer John Williams; and stars including his go-to ‘everyman’ Richard Dreyfuss, Tom Cruise, Harrison Ford, Bob Balaban, Tom Hanks, Opray Winfrey, Leonardo DiCaprio, Christian Bale, Dustin Hoffman and James Brolin. Some of these comments are useful and insightful; some are just fairly meaningless sound bites that add nothing to the film. What all the comments are though is almost all uniformly positive.
And that’s my only criticism of the film. Like me, Susan Lacy is clearly a big fan. It is probably quite hard to find anyone who isn’t…. but perhaps Ms Lacy should have tried a bit harder! There is only limited focus on his big comedy flop of 1979, “1941”, and no mention at all of his lowest WW grossing film “Always”. And there are only a few contributors – notably film critic Janet Maslin – who are willing to stick their head above the parapet and prod into Spielberg’s weaknesses; ostensibly his tendency to veer to the sentimental and away from harder issues: the omitted “Color Purple” ‘mirror scene’ being a case in point.
This is a recommended watch for Spielberg fans. On the eve of the launch of his latest – “Ready Player One”, a film that I am personally dubious about from the trailer – it’s a great insight into the life and works of the great man. It could though have cut a slightly harder and more critical edge.