Search
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated 1917 (2020) in Movies
Aug 16, 2020
1917 is a remarkable film through and through, and I can't praise it enough.
The cast, the cinematography, the set pieces, the music score are all outstanding.
The plot revolves around Lance Corporals Schofield (George McKay) and Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) embarking on a seemingly impossible mission across no man's land in Northern France, deep into enemy territory to deliver a message to a fellow regiment, with the aim of preventing them from walking into a trap and potentially losing 1600 soldiers.
The two lead actors are fantastic, portraying two soldiers leaning on each other to achieve their goal.
The journey that takes place is tough and harrowing at times. There's a point about half way through the movie where the pace just doesn't slow down once. It's extremely intense, and bolstered infinitely by the shooting style.
The film is shot in a way that gives the viewer the impression of a one take movie. It's edited together so well that it appears seamless, and allows for some truly breathtaking moments, and never lets you break away from events unfolding. It caught my attention immediately and never lost it for one second.
This method allows for a very stylish looking experience, but it's a kind of style that never detracts or takes away from the horror of war. It's a perfect combination, ensuring that scenes of action feel relentless, whilst sadder moments are suitably poignant and perfectly executed. The emotional beats in 1917 are something else and took me by surprise. I have no shame in saying that I was fighting back tears a couple of times.
By the times the credits rolled, I was just sat in stunned silence, something that has only happened to me a few times before when it comes to movies.
1917 is pretty much perfect. A great war film, a great drama, and en effective exploration of what friendship and duty really mean.
Make the time to watch it if you haven't already!
The cast, the cinematography, the set pieces, the music score are all outstanding.
The plot revolves around Lance Corporals Schofield (George McKay) and Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) embarking on a seemingly impossible mission across no man's land in Northern France, deep into enemy territory to deliver a message to a fellow regiment, with the aim of preventing them from walking into a trap and potentially losing 1600 soldiers.
The two lead actors are fantastic, portraying two soldiers leaning on each other to achieve their goal.
The journey that takes place is tough and harrowing at times. There's a point about half way through the movie where the pace just doesn't slow down once. It's extremely intense, and bolstered infinitely by the shooting style.
The film is shot in a way that gives the viewer the impression of a one take movie. It's edited together so well that it appears seamless, and allows for some truly breathtaking moments, and never lets you break away from events unfolding. It caught my attention immediately and never lost it for one second.
This method allows for a very stylish looking experience, but it's a kind of style that never detracts or takes away from the horror of war. It's a perfect combination, ensuring that scenes of action feel relentless, whilst sadder moments are suitably poignant and perfectly executed. The emotional beats in 1917 are something else and took me by surprise. I have no shame in saying that I was fighting back tears a couple of times.
By the times the credits rolled, I was just sat in stunned silence, something that has only happened to me a few times before when it comes to movies.
1917 is pretty much perfect. A great war film, a great drama, and en effective exploration of what friendship and duty really mean.
Make the time to watch it if you haven't already!
The Mad, Bad Duke (Nvengaria, #2)
10.0
Rate It
Book
London, 1820 Miss Meagan Tavistock doesn’t believe the talisman her friend purchases from a...
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Tomorrowland (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
A CGI disaster
Disney has an intriguing track record when it comes to movies. The multi-billion dollar company has produced some incredible films and some absolute stinkers, with its live-action department bearing the brunt of this misfortune.
Here, The Incredibles director Brad Bird is hoping to add another great film to his CV with Tomorrowland: A World Beyond, but does this George Clooney fantasy adventure tick all the right boxes?
Tomorrowland is based on Disney’s adventure ride of the same name and like The Pirates of the Caribbean franchise, requires a completely original story to ensure it translates well onto the big screen.
George Clooney, Hugh Laurie and Britt Robertson star in a film that is visually stunning but horrifically uneven with a story that doesn’t make much sense. Its vague environmental message is one of the only things to take away from it.
Clooney stars as Frank Walker, a disgruntled inventor who transports Robertson’s Casey Newton to a place in time and space known only as Tomorrowland. Once there, they must change the past in order to secure their future.
Bird’s direction is as usual, supremely confident with stunning CGI landscapes of the metropolis being beautifully juxtaposed with the Earth we know and love. There are scenes here that look like something from an art installation.
Clooney is as dynamic as ever in between all the special effects and Robertson channels Jennifer Lawrence in her role as the plucky teenager, but Tomorrowland showcases Hugh Laurie the best. His David Nix is an intriguing character who is sorely underused with the CGI being the main focus here.
Unfortunately, as countless blockbusters have proved time and time again, brilliant special effects don’t equal a brilliant film and Tomorrowland falls head first into that trap. Yes, the other dimension is on the whole, breath-taking but there’s such a lack of detail anywhere else that it feels decidedly hollow.
This isn’t to say that we have a film like Transformers: Age of Extinction on our hands but it doesn’t reach the heights of Saving Mr Banks or even the Narnia films.
Being stuck in the middle isn’t the best place to be for a movie with a rumoured production cost of $200m and it’s this lack of identity that may hold Tomorrowland back when it comes to box-office performance.
There’s also some debate over the target audience. With a 12A rating, you’d expect a similar tone to The Hunger Games or even The Amazing Spider-Man 2, but what the audience gets is a PG movie with a couple of scenes of violence, pushing it over into the coveted ‘teen market’.
Overall, Tomorrowland is a fun if entirely forgetful fantasy adventure brimming with CGI and unfortunately not much else. Hugh Laurie is an eccentric and painfully underused presence and that pretty much sums up the entire production.
Everything feels a little underdone, like there was something else under the surface waiting to break free that just didn’t come to fruition.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/05/24/a-cgi-disaster-tomorrowland-review/
Here, The Incredibles director Brad Bird is hoping to add another great film to his CV with Tomorrowland: A World Beyond, but does this George Clooney fantasy adventure tick all the right boxes?
Tomorrowland is based on Disney’s adventure ride of the same name and like The Pirates of the Caribbean franchise, requires a completely original story to ensure it translates well onto the big screen.
George Clooney, Hugh Laurie and Britt Robertson star in a film that is visually stunning but horrifically uneven with a story that doesn’t make much sense. Its vague environmental message is one of the only things to take away from it.
Clooney stars as Frank Walker, a disgruntled inventor who transports Robertson’s Casey Newton to a place in time and space known only as Tomorrowland. Once there, they must change the past in order to secure their future.
Bird’s direction is as usual, supremely confident with stunning CGI landscapes of the metropolis being beautifully juxtaposed with the Earth we know and love. There are scenes here that look like something from an art installation.
Clooney is as dynamic as ever in between all the special effects and Robertson channels Jennifer Lawrence in her role as the plucky teenager, but Tomorrowland showcases Hugh Laurie the best. His David Nix is an intriguing character who is sorely underused with the CGI being the main focus here.
Unfortunately, as countless blockbusters have proved time and time again, brilliant special effects don’t equal a brilliant film and Tomorrowland falls head first into that trap. Yes, the other dimension is on the whole, breath-taking but there’s such a lack of detail anywhere else that it feels decidedly hollow.
This isn’t to say that we have a film like Transformers: Age of Extinction on our hands but it doesn’t reach the heights of Saving Mr Banks or even the Narnia films.
Being stuck in the middle isn’t the best place to be for a movie with a rumoured production cost of $200m and it’s this lack of identity that may hold Tomorrowland back when it comes to box-office performance.
There’s also some debate over the target audience. With a 12A rating, you’d expect a similar tone to The Hunger Games or even The Amazing Spider-Man 2, but what the audience gets is a PG movie with a couple of scenes of violence, pushing it over into the coveted ‘teen market’.
Overall, Tomorrowland is a fun if entirely forgetful fantasy adventure brimming with CGI and unfortunately not much else. Hugh Laurie is an eccentric and painfully underused presence and that pretty much sums up the entire production.
Everything feels a little underdone, like there was something else under the surface waiting to break free that just didn’t come to fruition.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/05/24/a-cgi-disaster-tomorrowland-review/
Hazel (1853 KP) rated The Screaming Staircase: Lockwood & Co. #1 in Books
Dec 7, 2018
<i>This eBook was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest</i>
Fantasy author Jonathan Stroud is widely known for the <i>Bartimaeus</i> trilogy, a children’s series about magicians, however none of his other works seem to be much talked about. This includes his latest paranormal series <i>Lockwood & Co</i>. It is about time that the world became aware of this clever, exciting adventure.
<i>The Screaming Staircase</i> is the first of four books set in a version of London that has suddenly become plagued by ghosts of the past. It is unclear why the dead have come back to haunt the living, but something must be done about them. Unfortunately adults are unable to see these ghastly phantoms and rely on trained psychic investigators, i.e. children, to dispatch the dead.
<i>Lockwood & Co</i> is comprised of three young teenagers with the ability to hunt and destroy these eerie Visitors: Anthony Lockwood, Lucy Carlyle and their friend George. Unfortunately, despite having the right skills, something always seems to go wrong on their jobs. So, when a prestigious gentleman offers them a very dangerous task, they jump at the chance to prove themselves a competent agency, if not one of the best. Conversely, they find themselves in a lot more trouble than they bargained for.
Although there is a central plot, <i>The Screaming Staircase</i> is made up of several events that combine to create a mind-blowing conclusion. But it is not solely the ghost fighting, heart stopping scenes that make this story a success. Even without the sinister setting this series would be enjoyable due to the hilarious three main characters. Not once are the ages of Lockwood, Lucy and George mentioned, however it can be presumed that are around thirteen years old. Their relationship takes on a form similar to a brotherly, sisterly bond complete with bickering, threats and sharp, witty comebacks. Despite the dangerous atmosphere there is always the opportunity for at least one of the characters to get in a quick insult that is bound to make the reader laugh out loud.
<i>Lockwood & Co</i> is primarily targeted at readers between the ages of ten and fifteen, although there is nothing to prevent anyone else from enjoying it too. Thankfully no romantic relationships are formed, leaving Lucy to become as independent and strong as the boys, thus making this a suitable series for both genders. While there is a lot of humour, there is mild horror too, so perhaps young children should wait until they are a bit older to join in with the entertainment this series provides.
When I was younger I attempted to read the <i>Bartemaeus</i> trilogy and found it rather dull, so I was not expecting all that much with this series. However, <i>The Screaming Staircase</i> was fantastic in comparison. It is fast paced, amusing, thrilling, and never a boring moment. I guarantee once you’ve read this book you will immediately want to read the sequel. <i>Lockwood & Co</i> is a series that definitely needs more attention that it is getting.
Fantasy author Jonathan Stroud is widely known for the <i>Bartimaeus</i> trilogy, a children’s series about magicians, however none of his other works seem to be much talked about. This includes his latest paranormal series <i>Lockwood & Co</i>. It is about time that the world became aware of this clever, exciting adventure.
<i>The Screaming Staircase</i> is the first of four books set in a version of London that has suddenly become plagued by ghosts of the past. It is unclear why the dead have come back to haunt the living, but something must be done about them. Unfortunately adults are unable to see these ghastly phantoms and rely on trained psychic investigators, i.e. children, to dispatch the dead.
<i>Lockwood & Co</i> is comprised of three young teenagers with the ability to hunt and destroy these eerie Visitors: Anthony Lockwood, Lucy Carlyle and their friend George. Unfortunately, despite having the right skills, something always seems to go wrong on their jobs. So, when a prestigious gentleman offers them a very dangerous task, they jump at the chance to prove themselves a competent agency, if not one of the best. Conversely, they find themselves in a lot more trouble than they bargained for.
Although there is a central plot, <i>The Screaming Staircase</i> is made up of several events that combine to create a mind-blowing conclusion. But it is not solely the ghost fighting, heart stopping scenes that make this story a success. Even without the sinister setting this series would be enjoyable due to the hilarious three main characters. Not once are the ages of Lockwood, Lucy and George mentioned, however it can be presumed that are around thirteen years old. Their relationship takes on a form similar to a brotherly, sisterly bond complete with bickering, threats and sharp, witty comebacks. Despite the dangerous atmosphere there is always the opportunity for at least one of the characters to get in a quick insult that is bound to make the reader laugh out loud.
<i>Lockwood & Co</i> is primarily targeted at readers between the ages of ten and fifteen, although there is nothing to prevent anyone else from enjoying it too. Thankfully no romantic relationships are formed, leaving Lucy to become as independent and strong as the boys, thus making this a suitable series for both genders. While there is a lot of humour, there is mild horror too, so perhaps young children should wait until they are a bit older to join in with the entertainment this series provides.
When I was younger I attempted to read the <i>Bartemaeus</i> trilogy and found it rather dull, so I was not expecting all that much with this series. However, <i>The Screaming Staircase</i> was fantastic in comparison. It is fast paced, amusing, thrilling, and never a boring moment. I guarantee once you’ve read this book you will immediately want to read the sequel. <i>Lockwood & Co</i> is a series that definitely needs more attention that it is getting.
Lilyn G - Sci-Fi & Scary (91 KP) rated Earth Abides in Books
Jun 2, 2018
Truly a classic, and a must read.
Earth Abides is not an entertaining book. It is not perfect. It is a tad long-winded at some points, sometimes decidedly dated feeling, and has a serious lack of everything that generally entertains me. It is, at it’s base, a look at the post-apocalyptic world through one man’s eyes. It was first published in 1949, and according to Goodreads, currently has 55 editions. It is considered a sci-fi book, but there’s nothing science fiction about the book. A disease hits, wipes out most of the world’s population, and the few that survive are left to pick up the pieces. That’s it. But that’s not all there is to it. A lot happens, but it’s over the life of one man. There’s no grand battles, no good versus evil in the ruins of the old world, just the quiet puttering of one of the last embers of humanity as it strives to not die out completely. And yet it won’t let you alone until you finish it.
I think this book had to have made some waves when people first started reading in. Published in 1949 and it features an interracial union and espouses a life better without God in it? Yowzers.
I frequently disliked the main character. Isherwood Williams is the type of man that – while I might admire his mind – I would frequently want to thump. He’s full of himself. He’s so cynical about the ‘simplicity’ of the people around him. And, of course, he’s completely human, and there’s the rub. We look for a ‘hero’ in these types of books. Ish is no hero. He’s someone who had the ‘luck’ to survive the end of the world, and now he’s got to live in it. But the world changes – doesn’t it always? And Ish isn’t a King of old. He’s just the head of his Tribe.
Earth Abides feels timeless. I have read many post-apocalyptic books, and they’ve grown tiresome. I approached this book with some caution, because I was afraid of more of the same drivel that is wonderful the first few times you read it, and then swiftly approaches “Been there done that” with disturbing ease. I didn’t want to dislike this book because I was bone-weary of the sub-genre. Thankfully, that wasn’t the case. Because, for all the post-apocalyptic books I’ve read, I don’t think that I’ve ever read a novel like Earth Abides. It also feels the most real. This is how the world goes on; earth abides while humanity fumbles along.
I won’t deny that the main reason I’m making the connection between the two is because I just recently read it, but I could not help but think of McCammon’s Boy’s Life when I finished Earth Abides. I am not someone who self-describes as liking ‘literary fiction’. I’m happy with my genre jollies, thankyouverymuch. I’ll admit to even wrinkling my nose at the idea of reading ‘literature’. However, I think both Earth Abides and Boy’s Life are perfect examples of books that show the appeal of that type of book. They’re not 600 pages long and packed with five dollar words, yet they don’t fit into any particular genre, and they make you think far more than they entertain you.
Here are a few of my favorite quotes:
“If there is a God who made us and we did wrong before His eyes—as George says—at least we did wrong only because we were as God made us, and I do not think that He should set traps. Oh, you should know better than George! Let us not bring all that back into the world again—the angry God, the mean God—the one who does not tell us the rules of the game, and then strikes us when we break them. Let us not bring Him back.”
“Man has been growing more stupid for several thousand years; I myself shall waste no tears at his demise.”
“During ten thousand years his numbers have been on the upgrade in spite of wars, pestilences, and famines. This increase in population has become more and more rapid. Biologically, man has for too long a time been rolling an uninterrupted run of sevens.”
Earth Abides really does deserve it’s spot on the “Must Read” list folks. Its hard to talk about but easy to read. You’ll need some quiet to be able to really appreciate it. Take as long as you need to take with it. I actually walked away from it for a week or so because I have an attention span the length of a gnat, but was drawn back to it, and able to pick up right where I left off.
I think this book had to have made some waves when people first started reading in. Published in 1949 and it features an interracial union and espouses a life better without God in it? Yowzers.
I frequently disliked the main character. Isherwood Williams is the type of man that – while I might admire his mind – I would frequently want to thump. He’s full of himself. He’s so cynical about the ‘simplicity’ of the people around him. And, of course, he’s completely human, and there’s the rub. We look for a ‘hero’ in these types of books. Ish is no hero. He’s someone who had the ‘luck’ to survive the end of the world, and now he’s got to live in it. But the world changes – doesn’t it always? And Ish isn’t a King of old. He’s just the head of his Tribe.
Earth Abides feels timeless. I have read many post-apocalyptic books, and they’ve grown tiresome. I approached this book with some caution, because I was afraid of more of the same drivel that is wonderful the first few times you read it, and then swiftly approaches “Been there done that” with disturbing ease. I didn’t want to dislike this book because I was bone-weary of the sub-genre. Thankfully, that wasn’t the case. Because, for all the post-apocalyptic books I’ve read, I don’t think that I’ve ever read a novel like Earth Abides. It also feels the most real. This is how the world goes on; earth abides while humanity fumbles along.
I won’t deny that the main reason I’m making the connection between the two is because I just recently read it, but I could not help but think of McCammon’s Boy’s Life when I finished Earth Abides. I am not someone who self-describes as liking ‘literary fiction’. I’m happy with my genre jollies, thankyouverymuch. I’ll admit to even wrinkling my nose at the idea of reading ‘literature’. However, I think both Earth Abides and Boy’s Life are perfect examples of books that show the appeal of that type of book. They’re not 600 pages long and packed with five dollar words, yet they don’t fit into any particular genre, and they make you think far more than they entertain you.
Here are a few of my favorite quotes:
“If there is a God who made us and we did wrong before His eyes—as George says—at least we did wrong only because we were as God made us, and I do not think that He should set traps. Oh, you should know better than George! Let us not bring all that back into the world again—the angry God, the mean God—the one who does not tell us the rules of the game, and then strikes us when we break them. Let us not bring Him back.”
“Man has been growing more stupid for several thousand years; I myself shall waste no tears at his demise.”
“During ten thousand years his numbers have been on the upgrade in spite of wars, pestilences, and famines. This increase in population has become more and more rapid. Biologically, man has for too long a time been rolling an uninterrupted run of sevens.”
Earth Abides really does deserve it’s spot on the “Must Read” list folks. Its hard to talk about but easy to read. You’ll need some quiet to be able to really appreciate it. Take as long as you need to take with it. I actually walked away from it for a week or so because I have an attention span the length of a gnat, but was drawn back to it, and able to pick up right where I left off.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Let Him Go (2020) in Movies
Dec 23, 2020
Feud for Thought
After a family tragedy for the Blackledge family, grandparents George (Kevin Costner) and Margaret (Diane Lane) are left to bring up baby Jimmy (Bram and Otto Hornung) with mother/daughter-in-law Lorna (Kayli Carter). But a few years later, Lorna marries bad-un Donnie Weboy (Will Brittain) and disappears back to Donnie's hillbilly extended family in the wilds of North Dakota, led by the fearsome Blanche Weboy (Lesley Manville). Fearing for the child's wellbeing, Margaret drags retired Sheriff George on a dangerous journey to rescue the child.
There are strong similarities in this story with a sub-plot of the excellent "Ozark", where the psychopathic Darlene Snell (Lisa Emery) is intent on having a child to grow up with on her remote ranch. The sense of tension there is recreated here, exacerbated by the movie's extremely slow (read "glacial") pace in its early stages. It's the same sort of rising dread that I felt with "Nocturnal Animals". This reaches its peak at a tense standoff over lamb chops at the Weboy ranch, but we are probably half-way into the film by then.
The slow pace however is broken by a couple of extremely violent scenes that earn the movie its UK-15 certificate. One (no spoilers here!) harks back to another Kevin Costner blockbuster where he was a bit luckier! And the finale turns a slightly sleepy tale of "two old folks" into an 'all guns blazing' action western that's highly unexpected. Although you could argue that this is tonally extremely uneven, it works and makes the movie a lot more memorable than it otherwise would be.
The standout leading performance here is the one from Diane Lane as the mentally tortured Granny pursuing her convictions across the country. Here writer/director Thomas Bezucha gives the character full rein. It's a memorable 'strong female' part, that would have been dominated by the male lead in the writing of films a few years back. Lane delivers a dramatic and rock-solid performance that has Oscar nomination written all over it.
I'm also a big fan of Kevin Costner, not just because he's a solid and reliable actor over many years. I always remember him gamely appearing as "The Postman"/'propeller-guy' in Billy Crystal's hilarious montage opening for the 70th Academy Awards. Anyhow, here he has his meatiest dramatic role in many years, and delivers fully on it. Top job, although I suspect this may not be his year for his elusive Best Actor award.
Finally, rounding out the Oscar hopefuls is the brilliant Lesley Manville as Blanche Weboy. It's a dream of a role for the Brighton-born star, nominated of course for the Best Supporting Actress two years ago for "Phantom Thread". And she is genuinely chilling here, firing on all cylinders like some sort of deranged Bette Davis on speed. She's used sparingly in the movie, but that makes her scenes all the more memorable. Another nomination perhaps? I'd predict so, yes.
I found this to be an uncomfortable watch, since I found myself in a moral quandary with the storyline. It's clear that Margaret is genuinely concerned for the safety of Jimmy (and less so, Lorna). Yet, what she is ultimately prepared to do is consider child abduction, when the law if probably on the side of the other party. Sure, the lifestyle and attitudes of the Weboys are alien to this more traditional "Granny". But although Blanche rules with a Victorian-level of grit, isn't she - at least before any of her more vicious tendencies emerge - entitled to do that? The film firmly roots itself behind the Blackledge's as "the good guys", but the script cleverly has you questioning that at various points,
Two technical categories in "Let Him Go" are also worthy of note. The cinematography is by Guy Godfree, and the sweeping vistas of Montana and North Dakota (actually Alberta in Canada!) are gloriously delivered. And the music by Michael Giacchino - one of my favourite composers - is cello-heavy and fitting for the sombre storyline. I always assess the quality of a score by whether I annoy the cinema cleaners by sitting until the last of the end credits have rolled, and this is one I did that to.
As the last movie I see before Christmas, "Let Him Go" is not exactly a feelgood festive offering. It's a well-crafted and thoughtful story, but not one to make you feel good inside, for the reasons outlined above. If you are a movie-lover though, then it's an interesting watch, if only for the fine acting performances on offer.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the "Bob the Movie Man" review on the web here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/12/23/let-him-go-is-not-a-joyous-affair-but-delivers-oscar-worthy-performances/. Thanks.)
There are strong similarities in this story with a sub-plot of the excellent "Ozark", where the psychopathic Darlene Snell (Lisa Emery) is intent on having a child to grow up with on her remote ranch. The sense of tension there is recreated here, exacerbated by the movie's extremely slow (read "glacial") pace in its early stages. It's the same sort of rising dread that I felt with "Nocturnal Animals". This reaches its peak at a tense standoff over lamb chops at the Weboy ranch, but we are probably half-way into the film by then.
The slow pace however is broken by a couple of extremely violent scenes that earn the movie its UK-15 certificate. One (no spoilers here!) harks back to another Kevin Costner blockbuster where he was a bit luckier! And the finale turns a slightly sleepy tale of "two old folks" into an 'all guns blazing' action western that's highly unexpected. Although you could argue that this is tonally extremely uneven, it works and makes the movie a lot more memorable than it otherwise would be.
The standout leading performance here is the one from Diane Lane as the mentally tortured Granny pursuing her convictions across the country. Here writer/director Thomas Bezucha gives the character full rein. It's a memorable 'strong female' part, that would have been dominated by the male lead in the writing of films a few years back. Lane delivers a dramatic and rock-solid performance that has Oscar nomination written all over it.
I'm also a big fan of Kevin Costner, not just because he's a solid and reliable actor over many years. I always remember him gamely appearing as "The Postman"/'propeller-guy' in Billy Crystal's hilarious montage opening for the 70th Academy Awards. Anyhow, here he has his meatiest dramatic role in many years, and delivers fully on it. Top job, although I suspect this may not be his year for his elusive Best Actor award.
Finally, rounding out the Oscar hopefuls is the brilliant Lesley Manville as Blanche Weboy. It's a dream of a role for the Brighton-born star, nominated of course for the Best Supporting Actress two years ago for "Phantom Thread". And she is genuinely chilling here, firing on all cylinders like some sort of deranged Bette Davis on speed. She's used sparingly in the movie, but that makes her scenes all the more memorable. Another nomination perhaps? I'd predict so, yes.
I found this to be an uncomfortable watch, since I found myself in a moral quandary with the storyline. It's clear that Margaret is genuinely concerned for the safety of Jimmy (and less so, Lorna). Yet, what she is ultimately prepared to do is consider child abduction, when the law if probably on the side of the other party. Sure, the lifestyle and attitudes of the Weboys are alien to this more traditional "Granny". But although Blanche rules with a Victorian-level of grit, isn't she - at least before any of her more vicious tendencies emerge - entitled to do that? The film firmly roots itself behind the Blackledge's as "the good guys", but the script cleverly has you questioning that at various points,
Two technical categories in "Let Him Go" are also worthy of note. The cinematography is by Guy Godfree, and the sweeping vistas of Montana and North Dakota (actually Alberta in Canada!) are gloriously delivered. And the music by Michael Giacchino - one of my favourite composers - is cello-heavy and fitting for the sombre storyline. I always assess the quality of a score by whether I annoy the cinema cleaners by sitting until the last of the end credits have rolled, and this is one I did that to.
As the last movie I see before Christmas, "Let Him Go" is not exactly a feelgood festive offering. It's a well-crafted and thoughtful story, but not one to make you feel good inside, for the reasons outlined above. If you are a movie-lover though, then it's an interesting watch, if only for the fine acting performances on offer.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the "Bob the Movie Man" review on the web here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/12/23/let-him-go-is-not-a-joyous-affair-but-delivers-oscar-worthy-performances/. Thanks.)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Vice (2018) in Movies
Jan 21, 2019
Good movie with 2 GREAT performances
Writer/Director Adam McKay was known for years as the writing partner/director of Will Ferrell, having written and directed such comedy gems as ANCHORMAN, TALLADEGA NIGHTS and STEP BROTHERS and then, in 2015, he stepped out of Ferrell's shadow - and the comedy world - and delivered the multi-Oscar nominated film THE BIG SHORT, a fascinating, terrifying and (at times) funny look at the financial crisis of the mid-2000's.
His follow-up to this film is another fascinating, terrifying and (at times) funny look at a serious subject - the life and career of former Vice President Dick Cheney, an unassuming bureaucrat that wields much power in the George W. Bush White House. I thought THE BIG SHORT worked on every level so was looking forward to this follow-up and this one works on MOST levels.
So..what does work? Let's start with the acting of the top-notch cast. Steve Carrell, Sam Rockwell, Lily Rabe, Justin Kirk and Tyler Perry all are terrific in smaller, supporting roles that depict real people (like Donald Rumsfeld, George W. Bush, Liz Cheney, Scooter LIbbey and Colin Powell, respectively). They all bring the necessary level of gravitas and ironic humor to their parts.
But...make no mistake...this film stars and IS ABOUT Lynne and Dick Cheney (Amy Adams and Christian Bale) and both of these two stars SHINE BRIGHTLY in their portrayal of a a Washington DC power couple who are always calculating the political angle of any issue and how they can benefit from it. I expect both of these two actors to get Oscar nominations.
What also works is the pseduo-documentary style that McKay brings to the screen (similar to THE BIG SHORT), the characters, at times, speak directly to the camera to explain something or (at one time) breaks into a Shakespearean scene to emphasize what's going on.
So...what doesn't work? I'm going to start with the Narrator of this piece, Jesse Plemons. He is a solid actor who can bring a wry sense of humor - or gravitas - to the proceedings. But, to be plain about it, Plemons narrator character (who we come to find out has a VERY big role in Cheney's life) is just not interesting enough to follow or listen to. In THE BIG SHORT, this role was filled by the charm and charisma of Ryan Gosling and, I'm afraid, Plemons just doesn't have that same level of charm and charisma.
Secondly, what didn't work for me was the people/events that were unfolding in front of me. There was NOT ONE character to root for on the screen. Every politician seen upon the screen was just out for themselves and were willing to screw (or stab in the back) anyone that is no longer any use for them. These are not very likable characters and I longed for someone to root for, which made this film fall short of "GREAT" status for me. It is a very good film - strongly acted - but not a GREAT film.
If you haven't seen it, I would recommend VICE to all if, for nothing else, the performances of Adams and Bale, they are mesmerizing, just don't expect to root for anyone.
Letter Grade B+
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
His follow-up to this film is another fascinating, terrifying and (at times) funny look at a serious subject - the life and career of former Vice President Dick Cheney, an unassuming bureaucrat that wields much power in the George W. Bush White House. I thought THE BIG SHORT worked on every level so was looking forward to this follow-up and this one works on MOST levels.
So..what does work? Let's start with the acting of the top-notch cast. Steve Carrell, Sam Rockwell, Lily Rabe, Justin Kirk and Tyler Perry all are terrific in smaller, supporting roles that depict real people (like Donald Rumsfeld, George W. Bush, Liz Cheney, Scooter LIbbey and Colin Powell, respectively). They all bring the necessary level of gravitas and ironic humor to their parts.
But...make no mistake...this film stars and IS ABOUT Lynne and Dick Cheney (Amy Adams and Christian Bale) and both of these two stars SHINE BRIGHTLY in their portrayal of a a Washington DC power couple who are always calculating the political angle of any issue and how they can benefit from it. I expect both of these two actors to get Oscar nominations.
What also works is the pseduo-documentary style that McKay brings to the screen (similar to THE BIG SHORT), the characters, at times, speak directly to the camera to explain something or (at one time) breaks into a Shakespearean scene to emphasize what's going on.
So...what doesn't work? I'm going to start with the Narrator of this piece, Jesse Plemons. He is a solid actor who can bring a wry sense of humor - or gravitas - to the proceedings. But, to be plain about it, Plemons narrator character (who we come to find out has a VERY big role in Cheney's life) is just not interesting enough to follow or listen to. In THE BIG SHORT, this role was filled by the charm and charisma of Ryan Gosling and, I'm afraid, Plemons just doesn't have that same level of charm and charisma.
Secondly, what didn't work for me was the people/events that were unfolding in front of me. There was NOT ONE character to root for on the screen. Every politician seen upon the screen was just out for themselves and were willing to screw (or stab in the back) anyone that is no longer any use for them. These are not very likable characters and I longed for someone to root for, which made this film fall short of "GREAT" status for me. It is a very good film - strongly acted - but not a GREAT film.
If you haven't seen it, I would recommend VICE to all if, for nothing else, the performances of Adams and Bale, they are mesmerizing, just don't expect to root for anyone.
Letter Grade B+
8 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The Richest Man In Babylon Audiobook App by George Samuel Clason
Book and Lifestyle
App
Groundbreaking Audiobook summary App puts your learning of George Samuel Clason-Success Principles...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Power of the Dog (2021) in Movies
Dec 7, 2021
Deep and Layered
If the movie you are watching has a long shot of wheat blowing in the wind, then you are watching a character drama. If that same film also includes a 5 minute scene of someone braiding rope, then you have THE POWER OF THE DOG.
Written and Directed by Jane Campion (THE PIANO) and based on the best-selling novel by Thomas Savage, THE POWER OF THE DOG tells the tale of 2 brothers, talkative and charismatic Phil (Benedict Cumberbatch) and quiet and contemplative George (Jesse Plemons) who are tending their cattle ranch in Montana in the mid-1920’s. As horses give way to horseless carriages, George falls for a widow (Kirsten Dunst) who has an effeminate son (Kodi Smit-McPhee) and this relationship makes Phil face his own feelings - and a changing world.
In the hands of Campion, this film is a quiet, introspective look at how a hard-drinking, hard-living Cowboy deals with a changing world - and his own pent up emotions - and it works well. She weaves a fascinating story that takes its time unfurling it’s pages and the time that the audience takes in steeping themselves in the story and the characters is time well spent, indeed.
This is because the great Benedict Cumberbatch (TV’s SHERLOCK) is on-screen for 95% of the film as Phil and he commands the screen every moment that his presence is known. It is a bravura - though eerily quiet and introspective - performance by Cumberbatch. Campion and Cumberbatch create a memorable character that fills the screen not because he is wide or high or showy, but because he is deep and layered and the film spends most of its 2 hour and 6 minute running time peeling back the layers and digging deep into this character. It is an Oscar-worthy performance and is a shoo-in Oscar nominee and would not be surprising if Cumberbatch finally wins his Oscar for this role.
Plemons and Dunst (who played a couple in the first season of the TV series FARGO) are the catalyst that set the film - and the discoveries - in motion, but, though they are good, they have very little to do besides react to Cumberbatch’s characters’ moves.
Surprisingly, the character that does stand-out and the actor who does go toe-to-toe with Cumberbatch’s Phil is Peter, the son of Rose and played by Kodi Smit-McPhee (NIghtcrawler in X-MEN:APOCALYPSE) who is (at first) befriended by Phil as a joke and becomes closer and closer to him as the film progresses. It is through Peter that we dig through the layers of Phil - and it is a fascinating journey.
This is a gorgeous film to look at - Cinematographer Ari Wegner (THE GIRLFRIEND EXPERIENCE) is a shoo-in for an Oscar nomination as well - and this is good, because Phil (and the audience) spend long stretches looking out in the wilderness, contemplating the world - and change.
Not the fastest moving film you will ever encounter, but if you are in the mood for this sort of thing and can get caught up with discovering the layers of Phil, then you will be rewarded with a layered and deep experience.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Written and Directed by Jane Campion (THE PIANO) and based on the best-selling novel by Thomas Savage, THE POWER OF THE DOG tells the tale of 2 brothers, talkative and charismatic Phil (Benedict Cumberbatch) and quiet and contemplative George (Jesse Plemons) who are tending their cattle ranch in Montana in the mid-1920’s. As horses give way to horseless carriages, George falls for a widow (Kirsten Dunst) who has an effeminate son (Kodi Smit-McPhee) and this relationship makes Phil face his own feelings - and a changing world.
In the hands of Campion, this film is a quiet, introspective look at how a hard-drinking, hard-living Cowboy deals with a changing world - and his own pent up emotions - and it works well. She weaves a fascinating story that takes its time unfurling it’s pages and the time that the audience takes in steeping themselves in the story and the characters is time well spent, indeed.
This is because the great Benedict Cumberbatch (TV’s SHERLOCK) is on-screen for 95% of the film as Phil and he commands the screen every moment that his presence is known. It is a bravura - though eerily quiet and introspective - performance by Cumberbatch. Campion and Cumberbatch create a memorable character that fills the screen not because he is wide or high or showy, but because he is deep and layered and the film spends most of its 2 hour and 6 minute running time peeling back the layers and digging deep into this character. It is an Oscar-worthy performance and is a shoo-in Oscar nominee and would not be surprising if Cumberbatch finally wins his Oscar for this role.
Plemons and Dunst (who played a couple in the first season of the TV series FARGO) are the catalyst that set the film - and the discoveries - in motion, but, though they are good, they have very little to do besides react to Cumberbatch’s characters’ moves.
Surprisingly, the character that does stand-out and the actor who does go toe-to-toe with Cumberbatch’s Phil is Peter, the son of Rose and played by Kodi Smit-McPhee (NIghtcrawler in X-MEN:APOCALYPSE) who is (at first) befriended by Phil as a joke and becomes closer and closer to him as the film progresses. It is through Peter that we dig through the layers of Phil - and it is a fascinating journey.
This is a gorgeous film to look at - Cinematographer Ari Wegner (THE GIRLFRIEND EXPERIENCE) is a shoo-in for an Oscar nomination as well - and this is good, because Phil (and the audience) spend long stretches looking out in the wilderness, contemplating the world - and change.
Not the fastest moving film you will ever encounter, but if you are in the mood for this sort of thing and can get caught up with discovering the layers of Phil, then you will be rewarded with a layered and deep experience.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The Pigeon Tunnel: Stories from My Life
8.0
Rate It
Book
'Out of the secret world I once knew, I have tried to make a theatre for the larger worlds we...