Search
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.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Anatomy of a Murder (1959) in Movies
Nov 30, 2018
One of the Best Courtroom Dramas of all Time
I have to admit, that (at times) the fun part of going to "SECRET MOVIE NIGHT" is the anticipation of not knowing what the film is. Sometimes the film is "good, not great" (like THE BLUES BROTHERS, BODY HEAT and A FACE IN THE CROWD) and other times it is a CLASSIC (Like CITIZEN KANE, THE APARTMENT and NETWORK). I am happy to report that this month's installment IS a classic, our old pal Jimmy Stewart in 1959's ANATOMY OF MURDER.
Directed by the great Otto Preminger, AOM is often referred to as the finest courtroom drama ever filmed. While I need to give that some thought, I will say AOM is right up there as one of the finest examples of a courtroom drama.
Starring Jimmy Stewart as "country lawyer" Paul Biegler, who is brought in to defend Army Lieutenant Manion (Ben Gazzara). Manion is accused of murdering a man that raped his wife (Lee Remick). The central mystery isn't "did Manion kill the man" (he did), it is more of "did he kill his wife's rapist or lover" and "will Biegler get away with the temporary insanity plea".
This is the kind of plot that we've all seen a dozen times on standard TV shows, but back in 1959, this type of film - and trial - was quite new and fresh and this film was "scandalous" in it's use of frank language. Remember, this is 1959 in Eisenhower "Happy Days" Americana, so hearing words like "bitch, panties, penetration, slut, sperm, bitch and slut" was quite shocking and led to many protests of the film.
Those who were turned off by the language and frankhandling of the subject matter lost out on an intriguing, well-acted, well-written and well-directed courtroom drama, where the verdict is up in the air right up until the foreman of the jury says "We, the jury, find the defendant..."
Jimmy Stewart is perfectly cast in the lead role of Defense Attorney, Biegler. Stewart brings an instant likableness and every man integrity quality to the role. His Attorney is down-to-earth but whip-smart, able to crack a joke to lighten the mood or explode in rage at an affront at a moment's notice. He goes toe-to-toe with Prosecuting Attorney Claude Dancer (a VERY young George C. Scott). Dancer is everything that Biegler is not, crisp, well-polished and arrogant. While it would have been very easy to paint these two characters as good (Stewart) and bad (Scott), Director Preminger and screenwriter Wendell Mayes shy away from this and show these two as fierce competitors playing a very serious game of chess - and this works very well, indeed. Both Stewart and Scott were nominated for Oscars for their work as Best Actor and Supporting Actor respectively.
The Supporting cast is superb, featuring such 1950's/early 1960's stalwarts as Arthur O'Connell (also Oscar nominated as Stewarts's alcoholic law mentor), the always good Eve Arden, Orson Bean and Katherine Grant. It also features three character actors in small roles (witnesses in the trial) who you would recognize from other things - Murray Hamilton (the Mayor in Jaws), Howard McNear (Floyd the Barber from Mayberry) and Joseph Kearns (Mr. Wilson in Dennis the Menace).
Special notice needs to be made for Lee Remick as the sultry and flirtatious woman at the core of the film. Remick is superb in this role, and that is fortunate, for if she wasn't believable in the "would she or won't she" role that she is asked to play, then the film could have easily fallen apart. But the real bright spot in this film is the scene stealing Joseph N. Welch as the Judge in the case. His performance as the judge is the perfect "third leg" to the Stewart/Scott stool, balancing charm, folksiness and strength in even portions (depending on what is needed to balance the other two).
Otto Preminger (LAURA, STALAG 17) is a Director who's name is beginning to fade into the dust of the past - and that's too bad, for he is a strong director who knows how to frame a scene and pace a film. Even though AOM is 2 hours and 40 minutes of talking, it never feels long or slow.
Two other aspects of this film need to be mentioned - the "jazz" score by the great Duke Ellington (which won a grammy) is perfectly suited to the themes and mood of this film and the opening title sequence (and movie poster) is reminiscent of an Alfred Hitchock film - and that is because they are done by frequent Hitchock contributor Saul Bass.
Nominated for 7 Oscars (it won zero, falling to the juggernaut that was BEN HUR that year), ANATOMY OF A MURDER is an intriguing courtroom drama that also opens the door to performers of the past. Well worth the time investment, should you run across it (it is frequently shown on TCM).
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Directed by the great Otto Preminger, AOM is often referred to as the finest courtroom drama ever filmed. While I need to give that some thought, I will say AOM is right up there as one of the finest examples of a courtroom drama.
Starring Jimmy Stewart as "country lawyer" Paul Biegler, who is brought in to defend Army Lieutenant Manion (Ben Gazzara). Manion is accused of murdering a man that raped his wife (Lee Remick). The central mystery isn't "did Manion kill the man" (he did), it is more of "did he kill his wife's rapist or lover" and "will Biegler get away with the temporary insanity plea".
This is the kind of plot that we've all seen a dozen times on standard TV shows, but back in 1959, this type of film - and trial - was quite new and fresh and this film was "scandalous" in it's use of frank language. Remember, this is 1959 in Eisenhower "Happy Days" Americana, so hearing words like "bitch, panties, penetration, slut, sperm, bitch and slut" was quite shocking and led to many protests of the film.
Those who were turned off by the language and frankhandling of the subject matter lost out on an intriguing, well-acted, well-written and well-directed courtroom drama, where the verdict is up in the air right up until the foreman of the jury says "We, the jury, find the defendant..."
Jimmy Stewart is perfectly cast in the lead role of Defense Attorney, Biegler. Stewart brings an instant likableness and every man integrity quality to the role. His Attorney is down-to-earth but whip-smart, able to crack a joke to lighten the mood or explode in rage at an affront at a moment's notice. He goes toe-to-toe with Prosecuting Attorney Claude Dancer (a VERY young George C. Scott). Dancer is everything that Biegler is not, crisp, well-polished and arrogant. While it would have been very easy to paint these two characters as good (Stewart) and bad (Scott), Director Preminger and screenwriter Wendell Mayes shy away from this and show these two as fierce competitors playing a very serious game of chess - and this works very well, indeed. Both Stewart and Scott were nominated for Oscars for their work as Best Actor and Supporting Actor respectively.
The Supporting cast is superb, featuring such 1950's/early 1960's stalwarts as Arthur O'Connell (also Oscar nominated as Stewarts's alcoholic law mentor), the always good Eve Arden, Orson Bean and Katherine Grant. It also features three character actors in small roles (witnesses in the trial) who you would recognize from other things - Murray Hamilton (the Mayor in Jaws), Howard McNear (Floyd the Barber from Mayberry) and Joseph Kearns (Mr. Wilson in Dennis the Menace).
Special notice needs to be made for Lee Remick as the sultry and flirtatious woman at the core of the film. Remick is superb in this role, and that is fortunate, for if she wasn't believable in the "would she or won't she" role that she is asked to play, then the film could have easily fallen apart. But the real bright spot in this film is the scene stealing Joseph N. Welch as the Judge in the case. His performance as the judge is the perfect "third leg" to the Stewart/Scott stool, balancing charm, folksiness and strength in even portions (depending on what is needed to balance the other two).
Otto Preminger (LAURA, STALAG 17) is a Director who's name is beginning to fade into the dust of the past - and that's too bad, for he is a strong director who knows how to frame a scene and pace a film. Even though AOM is 2 hours and 40 minutes of talking, it never feels long or slow.
Two other aspects of this film need to be mentioned - the "jazz" score by the great Duke Ellington (which won a grammy) is perfectly suited to the themes and mood of this film and the opening title sequence (and movie poster) is reminiscent of an Alfred Hitchock film - and that is because they are done by frequent Hitchock contributor Saul Bass.
Nominated for 7 Oscars (it won zero, falling to the juggernaut that was BEN HUR that year), ANATOMY OF A MURDER is an intriguing courtroom drama that also opens the door to performers of the past. Well worth the time investment, should you run across it (it is frequently shown on TCM).
Letter Grade: A
9 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (974 KP) rated Gravity (2013) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
We’ve long been spoiled by depictions of space in most science fiction, or at least in popular science fiction. A frontier, a futuristic ocean of sorts for maritime-type traversal. It’s hardly ever depicted as a particularly dangerous place. That’s exactly why Alfanso Cuaron’s Gravity is so incredibly refreshing and surprisingly so at that. All he really had to do was set out to depict a story in space that highlights how dangerous it really is. And boy does he succeed. Gravity is not only intriguing in its science, but also an incredibly gripping thriller.
The premise is focused and simple for the betterment of the film. Sandra Bullock plays Ryan Stone, a scientist who is on her first space walk installing new components onto the Hubble telescope. She is accompanied by George Clooney’s character, Kowalski, an experienced astronaut who’s calm in crisis helps guide the frightened Bullock through the following events. A massive accident leaves the characters stranded in space with no way home, periled by the hazards that go with being stuck in the abyss.
At its core, Gravity is a survival thriller movie. There is no villain other than the environment, no schemes or whacky plot twists. It’s reminiscent of a film like Cast Away, albeit quicker in pace because survival is more immediately at stake. The film takes so much into account, impressively, about the kinds of hazards one might face in a crisis that leaves them stuck in orbit. Oxygen, debris, structural damage, even how objects interact with one another or move in zero gravity. Most films in space neglect the ‘no sound in space’ rule, largely because of how awkward it would be to watch a Star Wars battle with no sound. But this film follows the rule, for the most part, and just that tiny detail alone adds so much to the anxiety of the situation. Watching speeding debris silently obliterate an entire space station while only hearing the internal suit audio of the protagonist might be the most frightening and memorable moments of any science fiction thriller I have seen in years.
Alfonso Cuaron is no stranger to striking imagery and near masterful shooting of important scenes. He has done so in his previous works, like Children of Men and Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. He does so again through the action in Gravity. Although I will say a few visual metaphors in Gravity are a bit heavy handed in how they refer to the back story of the protagonist; yet nevertheless they end up having quite an impact despite arguable cheesiness.
The two leads do great in their roles; not hugely surprising considering Clooney and Bullock are established actors with great works under their belts. But at the same time both characters are light in their characterization, perhaps even ‘one-note’, particularly the case for Clooney. I do not necessarily think this is a bad thing, because it keeps the action of the film focused on the survival and the intensity of the situation. But, when those quieter scenes come by to pad the action, leaving the characters to mingle, I can’t help but feel like the drama is a little forced. There to give the audience someone to care about and desire to not die in space, and only for that purpose. Even if it’s forced, the personal struggle of Bullock’s character is admittedly compelling and you do want to see her make it out alive. Both the writing an acting for her character do an excellent job portraying her as someone overcoming an extremely difficult situation that she’s ill-equipped to deal with.
I’m not usually a fan of 3D, I think it’s often distracting and gimmicky. But this is one film that the 3D effect soars in. In the non-action moments it is nearly unnoticeable. And in those sequences where vessels are exploding spectacularly, space debris splintering in every direction, the 3D effect adds an extra layer of chaos and intensity around the characters’ fate. I seldom recommend going to see a film in 3D, but this is one I thoroughly recommend doing so.
Gravity is a pure focused thriller that tackles an environment so rich with possibility for great survival storytelling. Forget all the safe depictions of space like Star Wars and Star Trek, because this will make you as frightened of being stuck in space as Jaws did of being out in open water. It’s not perfect, certainly, as its drama ultimately draws too much attention to itself as a device of the plot, feeling a bit forced. Nevertheless, the superb acting on the parts of both leads ends up overcoming the potential shallowness of the characterization and makes you care about their survival – an absolute necessity in a film like this. The situations dealt with not only feel realistic, but are so excellently shot that the intensity is simply stunning.
http://sknr.net/2013/10/04/gravity/
The premise is focused and simple for the betterment of the film. Sandra Bullock plays Ryan Stone, a scientist who is on her first space walk installing new components onto the Hubble telescope. She is accompanied by George Clooney’s character, Kowalski, an experienced astronaut who’s calm in crisis helps guide the frightened Bullock through the following events. A massive accident leaves the characters stranded in space with no way home, periled by the hazards that go with being stuck in the abyss.
At its core, Gravity is a survival thriller movie. There is no villain other than the environment, no schemes or whacky plot twists. It’s reminiscent of a film like Cast Away, albeit quicker in pace because survival is more immediately at stake. The film takes so much into account, impressively, about the kinds of hazards one might face in a crisis that leaves them stuck in orbit. Oxygen, debris, structural damage, even how objects interact with one another or move in zero gravity. Most films in space neglect the ‘no sound in space’ rule, largely because of how awkward it would be to watch a Star Wars battle with no sound. But this film follows the rule, for the most part, and just that tiny detail alone adds so much to the anxiety of the situation. Watching speeding debris silently obliterate an entire space station while only hearing the internal suit audio of the protagonist might be the most frightening and memorable moments of any science fiction thriller I have seen in years.
Alfonso Cuaron is no stranger to striking imagery and near masterful shooting of important scenes. He has done so in his previous works, like Children of Men and Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. He does so again through the action in Gravity. Although I will say a few visual metaphors in Gravity are a bit heavy handed in how they refer to the back story of the protagonist; yet nevertheless they end up having quite an impact despite arguable cheesiness.
The two leads do great in their roles; not hugely surprising considering Clooney and Bullock are established actors with great works under their belts. But at the same time both characters are light in their characterization, perhaps even ‘one-note’, particularly the case for Clooney. I do not necessarily think this is a bad thing, because it keeps the action of the film focused on the survival and the intensity of the situation. But, when those quieter scenes come by to pad the action, leaving the characters to mingle, I can’t help but feel like the drama is a little forced. There to give the audience someone to care about and desire to not die in space, and only for that purpose. Even if it’s forced, the personal struggle of Bullock’s character is admittedly compelling and you do want to see her make it out alive. Both the writing an acting for her character do an excellent job portraying her as someone overcoming an extremely difficult situation that she’s ill-equipped to deal with.
I’m not usually a fan of 3D, I think it’s often distracting and gimmicky. But this is one film that the 3D effect soars in. In the non-action moments it is nearly unnoticeable. And in those sequences where vessels are exploding spectacularly, space debris splintering in every direction, the 3D effect adds an extra layer of chaos and intensity around the characters’ fate. I seldom recommend going to see a film in 3D, but this is one I thoroughly recommend doing so.
Gravity is a pure focused thriller that tackles an environment so rich with possibility for great survival storytelling. Forget all the safe depictions of space like Star Wars and Star Trek, because this will make you as frightened of being stuck in space as Jaws did of being out in open water. It’s not perfect, certainly, as its drama ultimately draws too much attention to itself as a device of the plot, feeling a bit forced. Nevertheless, the superb acting on the parts of both leads ends up overcoming the potential shallowness of the characterization and makes you care about their survival – an absolute necessity in a film like this. The situations dealt with not only feel realistic, but are so excellently shot that the intensity is simply stunning.
http://sknr.net/2013/10/04/gravity/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Last Christmas (2019) in Movies
Nov 25, 2019
Alas, Christmas
Oh Dear! Now I wouldn't go as far as saying I had "high hopes" for this film, but as a real fan of the goo-fest that is "Love Actually" I at least thought this might fill some seasonal void in the run up to the festive season. "Best Christmas film of the decade!!" screams the marketing. Er... no.
This review will be spoiler free.
The plot: Kate (Emilia Clarke) is an immigrant from the former-Yugoslavia now living in London. She has a dead-end job working for "Santa" (Michelle Yeoh) in a Christmas shop in Covent Garden. She is perennially lubricated both with drink and other bodily fluids thanks to her hedonistic lifestyle. And she really likes George Michael.
But life just seems vacuous and to have no purpose for her anymore. Her composure is not helped by her mother (Emma Thompson) constantly fussing about her health, since Kate has only recently recovered from a serious illness.
Dropping into her life then comes Tom (Henry Golding). Smartly dressed and calmly reassuring, Tom seems to have the potential to start turning Kate's life around. But is she prepared to listen?
There are startling similarities here with Phoebe Waller-Bridge's triumphant tribute to hedonistic 30-something sex-addicted females everywhere.... "Fleabag". Kate is similarly louche, hopping from bed to bed in a heartbeat. She has a dysfunctional family and - most strikingly - she has a particularly difficult relationship with her high-achieving sister. This is not helped by a remarkable similarity between the actress playing Marta (Lydia Leonard ) and Fleabag's Clare (Sian Clifford). But whereas Fleabag is both brilliantly written, heart-rending and hilarious, this simply is not.
There were a total of two laughs in the movie for me. Period. Both were lines delivered by Emma Thompson, and if you've seen the film you probably know the ones. Now, I'm aware that Thompson co-wrote the script and she is, of course, a national acting treasure. But here the script is clunky and all of the "comic" scenes are so laboured and forced that they land like leaden weights.
And some of it makes no sense whatsoever. There is some strange Danish sauerkraut salesman (Peter Mygind) with a crush on "Santa". He suddenly appears in the shop acting like some escaped mental patient. When he first appears, acting bizarrely, you think, "oh, there must be some fascinating backstory between these two - a murky past they are trying to rekindle". But no! This is the first time they have EVER met? It's completely bonkers!
Much was made of this being Michelle Yeoh's "first comedy". Sorry, but if she proves anything here it is that she is not a comic actress.
Emilia Clarke is still looking to land in a decent mainstream role outside "Game of Thrones", after a failed Terminator sequel, a half-decent weepie ("Me Before You") and the commercial failure that was "Solo". Here she certainly looks curvaciously cute as the Christmas elf. But unfortunately cute can't save her from the car-crash of a script.
Similarly Henry Golding is well-dressed eye-candy for the ladies, almost doing a re-tread of his cool and laid-back character from the excellent "Crazy Rich Asians". Without the same need to be "zany", he fairs slightly better from the script. But again, this feels like one to shuffle into a quiet corner of his CV.
What can I say that's even remotely good about this? Three things:
1) London. It looks glorious, decked out in lights like some chocolate-box-cover cum tourist-board publicity shot. London is one of the most photogenic cities on the planet, and I could relate to Tom's mantra to "look up" and see all of the architectural quirks and foibles that exist around every corner in that wonderful city;
2) The payoff. Exactly when you get the payoff will depend on how much you know going in (if you've managed to avoid the trailer... continue to avoid it!) and how attentive you are. There's an "aha!" moment. And it's nicely played out.
3) There's a topical xenophobic Brexit angle, that's a little clumsy in the exposition but - in my view - is good for the telling.
This is a movie desperately trying to blend "Love Actually" with another Christmas classic (no... not "Die Hard"... but to say more would introduce spoilers!) But in my view it misses badly.
The director is Paul Feig, famous for "Bridesmaids" and "Spy" and infamous for the female "Ghostbusters" reboot.
There are clearly lovers of this film. At the time of writing it has made an impressive $51M on its $25M budget. But I went with another three cinema-goers from my family, all of differing ages and sentiments: and we all universally agreed on the rating for this one.
(For the graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/11/25/one-manns-movies-film-review-last-christmas-2019/ . Thanks).
This review will be spoiler free.
The plot: Kate (Emilia Clarke) is an immigrant from the former-Yugoslavia now living in London. She has a dead-end job working for "Santa" (Michelle Yeoh) in a Christmas shop in Covent Garden. She is perennially lubricated both with drink and other bodily fluids thanks to her hedonistic lifestyle. And she really likes George Michael.
But life just seems vacuous and to have no purpose for her anymore. Her composure is not helped by her mother (Emma Thompson) constantly fussing about her health, since Kate has only recently recovered from a serious illness.
Dropping into her life then comes Tom (Henry Golding). Smartly dressed and calmly reassuring, Tom seems to have the potential to start turning Kate's life around. But is she prepared to listen?
There are startling similarities here with Phoebe Waller-Bridge's triumphant tribute to hedonistic 30-something sex-addicted females everywhere.... "Fleabag". Kate is similarly louche, hopping from bed to bed in a heartbeat. She has a dysfunctional family and - most strikingly - she has a particularly difficult relationship with her high-achieving sister. This is not helped by a remarkable similarity between the actress playing Marta (Lydia Leonard ) and Fleabag's Clare (Sian Clifford). But whereas Fleabag is both brilliantly written, heart-rending and hilarious, this simply is not.
There were a total of two laughs in the movie for me. Period. Both were lines delivered by Emma Thompson, and if you've seen the film you probably know the ones. Now, I'm aware that Thompson co-wrote the script and she is, of course, a national acting treasure. But here the script is clunky and all of the "comic" scenes are so laboured and forced that they land like leaden weights.
And some of it makes no sense whatsoever. There is some strange Danish sauerkraut salesman (Peter Mygind) with a crush on "Santa". He suddenly appears in the shop acting like some escaped mental patient. When he first appears, acting bizarrely, you think, "oh, there must be some fascinating backstory between these two - a murky past they are trying to rekindle". But no! This is the first time they have EVER met? It's completely bonkers!
Much was made of this being Michelle Yeoh's "first comedy". Sorry, but if she proves anything here it is that she is not a comic actress.
Emilia Clarke is still looking to land in a decent mainstream role outside "Game of Thrones", after a failed Terminator sequel, a half-decent weepie ("Me Before You") and the commercial failure that was "Solo". Here she certainly looks curvaciously cute as the Christmas elf. But unfortunately cute can't save her from the car-crash of a script.
Similarly Henry Golding is well-dressed eye-candy for the ladies, almost doing a re-tread of his cool and laid-back character from the excellent "Crazy Rich Asians". Without the same need to be "zany", he fairs slightly better from the script. But again, this feels like one to shuffle into a quiet corner of his CV.
What can I say that's even remotely good about this? Three things:
1) London. It looks glorious, decked out in lights like some chocolate-box-cover cum tourist-board publicity shot. London is one of the most photogenic cities on the planet, and I could relate to Tom's mantra to "look up" and see all of the architectural quirks and foibles that exist around every corner in that wonderful city;
2) The payoff. Exactly when you get the payoff will depend on how much you know going in (if you've managed to avoid the trailer... continue to avoid it!) and how attentive you are. There's an "aha!" moment. And it's nicely played out.
3) There's a topical xenophobic Brexit angle, that's a little clumsy in the exposition but - in my view - is good for the telling.
This is a movie desperately trying to blend "Love Actually" with another Christmas classic (no... not "Die Hard"... but to say more would introduce spoilers!) But in my view it misses badly.
The director is Paul Feig, famous for "Bridesmaids" and "Spy" and infamous for the female "Ghostbusters" reboot.
There are clearly lovers of this film. At the time of writing it has made an impressive $51M on its $25M budget. But I went with another three cinema-goers from my family, all of differing ages and sentiments: and we all universally agreed on the rating for this one.
(For the graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/11/25/one-manns-movies-film-review-last-christmas-2019/ . Thanks).
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Batman Begins (2005) in Movies
Jun 18, 2019
Before Ben Affleck, but after Adam West, Michael Keaton, Kevin Conroy, Val Kilmer, and George Clooney, Christian Bale was Batman for at least two of the best Batman films out there. With a screenplay by director Christopher Nolan and his brother Jonathan and a story by David S. Goyer, Batman Begins is an origin story. Gotham City is dying since criminals like Carmine Falcone (Tom Wilkinson) are able to get away with murder since, “he keeps the bad people rich and the good people scared,” as Rachel Dawes (Katie Holmes) puts it. Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) trains with Henri Ducard (Liam Neeson), the right hand of Ra’s Al Ghul (Ken Watanabe), and The League of Shadows.
But The League of Shadows has a skewed view of justice since they believe that more serious crimes should be punishable by death (usually by their hand) while Bruce believes in compassion and the right to a fair trial before passing judgment. Leaving The League of Shadows in shambles, Bruce makes his way back to Gotham after a seven year absence. In Bruce’s own words, “As a man, I’m flesh and blood. I can be ignored. I can be destroyed. But as a symbol I can be incorruptible. I can be everlasting.” This is the story of Batman’s uprising; how a young Bruce Wayne conquered his fear of bats and the death of his parents to become the ominous and fearsome dark knight.
Even when you look back at what Christopher Nolan accomplished in his Dark Knight Trilogy, Batman Begins still holds its own and should be considered one of the best Batman films to date. Before Batman v Superman took the dark and gritty aspects of serious superhero films too far, Batman Begins was the first Batman film since Tim Burton’s Batman to favor a more serious tone in comparison to the campiness that overloads the likes of Batman Forever and Batman & Robin. Christopher Nolan always had the intention of keeping Batman grounded in realism and that concept reflected in its incredibly well-written storyline. Batman Begins is a lot like the Year One comic book storyline with Bruce Wayne returning to Gotham City after training in martial arts and being gone for several years, the inclusion of Carmine Falcone, a blossoming relationship between Batman and Jim Gordon, and The Joker tease on the rooftop even ends the story in similar fashion.
The realistic quality Christopher Nolan was aiming for also translates into the dialogue as nothing seems forced or out of place and everything seems to take place in consistent and reasonable fashion. Aside from Christian Bale, the rest of the cast is far more impressive than it had any right to be with the likes of Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, Gary Oldman, Cillian Murphy, and Rutger Hauer. Caine adds a level of tenderness to the Alfred character we haven’t really seen before while Cillian Murphy is brilliantly sinister as Jonathan Crane/Scarecrow. Thanks to frequent Christopher Nolan collaborator, director of photography Wally Pfister, Batman Begins is beautifully shot. Colors are always bright and vibrant outside of the Batcave as the dark visuals of the film seem to slowly swallow their colorful surroundings piece by piece.
The inclusion of Liam Neeson in the film is an interesting one for statistical purposes. Prior to Taken, Neeson was known for taking on roles where his character died; Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace, Gangs of New York, Kingdom of Heaven, and The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe are all prime examples. Neeson’s character Ducard is also the main ingredient in the surprise Nolan often includes in the finale of his films. Neeson has this calm demeanor about him as Ducard that portrays just how in control he is of the training he’s passing onto Bruce. The cast to Batman films are usually packed with stars that are relevant to the time it’s released, but Batman Begins can boast that its supporting cast is just as strong as the leads in the film.
The reasoning behind Christian Bale’s Batman voice is legitimate and you certainly understand why it’s utilized, but the awkward transition between normal voice and rough and raspy vigilante takes some getting used to since you immediately think of the ridiculousness in The Lego Batman Movie or the handful of Deadpool 2 jokes whenever he’s Batman now. Katie Holmes is dull dishwater as an actress. She is the least memorable of the entire cast and is basically that person at a party that everyone knows that’s there but they don’t say anything to anybody before leaving when no one is looking. Maggie Gyllenhaal is able to add some depth with the Rachel Dawes character in The Dark Knight, but it’s as if you can still hear the sound of the Dawson’s Creek theme song echoing in your head whenever Gyllenhaal is on-screen; Katie Holmes is like a huge fart that is still smelt after she’s gone in the sequel she’s not even a part of. There was an overwhelming amount of complaints in the online community regarding how ugly Batman’s new Batmobile, The Tumblr, is in the film. While the vehicle is ugly, at least that ugliness is maintained throughout Nolan’s entire trilogy. Batman likes ugly things in this universe, but at least they’re functional and serve their purpose.
Even with how most individuals feel about The Dark Knight, Batman Begins is still an incredible superhero film that is more than capable as a standalone feature as well as the jumpstart to a new set of Batman films. Christopher Nolan practically reinvented the Batman franchise to a certain extent starting with this film. Depending on how you feel about Ben Affleck’s Batman, Christian Bale was the last satisfying Batman.
Batman Begins feels more like a crime film first and a superhero film second where Batman is an unstoppable force of nature. Stripping the film of its origin retelling, one would think this is what Todd McFarlane is going for with his new Spawn film only to an R-rated extent; a superhero that flourishes in the darkness and has a reputation as this spiritual incarnation of vengeance. Christopher Nolan made something special with his Batman films and it feels like Batman Begins is often overlooked due to the reputation of The Dark Knight. While that perspective isn’t necessarily wrong, fans should at least appreciate Batman Begins in a similar light if not a slightly brighter one.
Batman Begins is currently available to stream for $2.99 on Amazon Prime, YouTube, Vudu, and Google Play and for $3.99 on iTunes. The film is available for a variety of formats on Amazon including 4K/Blu-ray ($24.49), DVD ($9.43), and Multi-Format Blu-ray ($11.49). The Blu-ray is currently $5.22 (5% off its normal $5.50 price) in brand new condition and $3.42 pre-owned on eBay with free shipping on both. You can also get the film as part of a three-disc DVD trilogy pack with The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises or as The Dark Knight Trilogy box set on DVD or Blu-ray. Both options are available on both Amazon and eBay (DVD set is running $11.97 on eBay and $19.72 on Amazon while The Dark Knight Trilogy is available in a variety of formats (regular, ultimate, and special editions) on both sites between $12 and $18.99 unless you want the $69.99 ultimate set.
But The League of Shadows has a skewed view of justice since they believe that more serious crimes should be punishable by death (usually by their hand) while Bruce believes in compassion and the right to a fair trial before passing judgment. Leaving The League of Shadows in shambles, Bruce makes his way back to Gotham after a seven year absence. In Bruce’s own words, “As a man, I’m flesh and blood. I can be ignored. I can be destroyed. But as a symbol I can be incorruptible. I can be everlasting.” This is the story of Batman’s uprising; how a young Bruce Wayne conquered his fear of bats and the death of his parents to become the ominous and fearsome dark knight.
Even when you look back at what Christopher Nolan accomplished in his Dark Knight Trilogy, Batman Begins still holds its own and should be considered one of the best Batman films to date. Before Batman v Superman took the dark and gritty aspects of serious superhero films too far, Batman Begins was the first Batman film since Tim Burton’s Batman to favor a more serious tone in comparison to the campiness that overloads the likes of Batman Forever and Batman & Robin. Christopher Nolan always had the intention of keeping Batman grounded in realism and that concept reflected in its incredibly well-written storyline. Batman Begins is a lot like the Year One comic book storyline with Bruce Wayne returning to Gotham City after training in martial arts and being gone for several years, the inclusion of Carmine Falcone, a blossoming relationship between Batman and Jim Gordon, and The Joker tease on the rooftop even ends the story in similar fashion.
The realistic quality Christopher Nolan was aiming for also translates into the dialogue as nothing seems forced or out of place and everything seems to take place in consistent and reasonable fashion. Aside from Christian Bale, the rest of the cast is far more impressive than it had any right to be with the likes of Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, Gary Oldman, Cillian Murphy, and Rutger Hauer. Caine adds a level of tenderness to the Alfred character we haven’t really seen before while Cillian Murphy is brilliantly sinister as Jonathan Crane/Scarecrow. Thanks to frequent Christopher Nolan collaborator, director of photography Wally Pfister, Batman Begins is beautifully shot. Colors are always bright and vibrant outside of the Batcave as the dark visuals of the film seem to slowly swallow their colorful surroundings piece by piece.
The inclusion of Liam Neeson in the film is an interesting one for statistical purposes. Prior to Taken, Neeson was known for taking on roles where his character died; Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace, Gangs of New York, Kingdom of Heaven, and The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe are all prime examples. Neeson’s character Ducard is also the main ingredient in the surprise Nolan often includes in the finale of his films. Neeson has this calm demeanor about him as Ducard that portrays just how in control he is of the training he’s passing onto Bruce. The cast to Batman films are usually packed with stars that are relevant to the time it’s released, but Batman Begins can boast that its supporting cast is just as strong as the leads in the film.
The reasoning behind Christian Bale’s Batman voice is legitimate and you certainly understand why it’s utilized, but the awkward transition between normal voice and rough and raspy vigilante takes some getting used to since you immediately think of the ridiculousness in The Lego Batman Movie or the handful of Deadpool 2 jokes whenever he’s Batman now. Katie Holmes is dull dishwater as an actress. She is the least memorable of the entire cast and is basically that person at a party that everyone knows that’s there but they don’t say anything to anybody before leaving when no one is looking. Maggie Gyllenhaal is able to add some depth with the Rachel Dawes character in The Dark Knight, but it’s as if you can still hear the sound of the Dawson’s Creek theme song echoing in your head whenever Gyllenhaal is on-screen; Katie Holmes is like a huge fart that is still smelt after she’s gone in the sequel she’s not even a part of. There was an overwhelming amount of complaints in the online community regarding how ugly Batman’s new Batmobile, The Tumblr, is in the film. While the vehicle is ugly, at least that ugliness is maintained throughout Nolan’s entire trilogy. Batman likes ugly things in this universe, but at least they’re functional and serve their purpose.
Even with how most individuals feel about The Dark Knight, Batman Begins is still an incredible superhero film that is more than capable as a standalone feature as well as the jumpstart to a new set of Batman films. Christopher Nolan practically reinvented the Batman franchise to a certain extent starting with this film. Depending on how you feel about Ben Affleck’s Batman, Christian Bale was the last satisfying Batman.
Batman Begins feels more like a crime film first and a superhero film second where Batman is an unstoppable force of nature. Stripping the film of its origin retelling, one would think this is what Todd McFarlane is going for with his new Spawn film only to an R-rated extent; a superhero that flourishes in the darkness and has a reputation as this spiritual incarnation of vengeance. Christopher Nolan made something special with his Batman films and it feels like Batman Begins is often overlooked due to the reputation of The Dark Knight. While that perspective isn’t necessarily wrong, fans should at least appreciate Batman Begins in a similar light if not a slightly brighter one.
Batman Begins is currently available to stream for $2.99 on Amazon Prime, YouTube, Vudu, and Google Play and for $3.99 on iTunes. The film is available for a variety of formats on Amazon including 4K/Blu-ray ($24.49), DVD ($9.43), and Multi-Format Blu-ray ($11.49). The Blu-ray is currently $5.22 (5% off its normal $5.50 price) in brand new condition and $3.42 pre-owned on eBay with free shipping on both. You can also get the film as part of a three-disc DVD trilogy pack with The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises or as The Dark Knight Trilogy box set on DVD or Blu-ray. Both options are available on both Amazon and eBay (DVD set is running $11.97 on eBay and $19.72 on Amazon while The Dark Knight Trilogy is available in a variety of formats (regular, ultimate, and special editions) on both sites between $12 and $18.99 unless you want the $69.99 ultimate set.
Andy Meakin (5 KP) rated Star Wars: Episode VIII - The Last Jedi (2017) in Movies
Jan 8, 2018
Great visuals let down by meandering story
For those who are unaware, The Jast Jedi is the latest instalment in the core Star Wars series, and picks up from where Force Awakens left off. Rey (played by the decidedly average Daisy Ridley) is on an island with Mark Hamill (playing himself it seems as the mannerisms of the character bore no similarity to the one we saw in Episodes 4, 5 and 6). Chewbacca is also there, but you wouldn’t really tell aside from a few “comedy” moments with the creatures of the island shoehorned in to seemingly ignore the trauma of losing his blood-oath life companion in the last film (Han Solo….keep up people) and instead have him there to just growl at “The Most Annoying and Unnecessary Additions To Film Since Jar Jar”™ from time to time. Whilst there she seeks to recruit Mark to aid Carrie Fisher’s rebellion (again…something not quite right about the character, and another who seems to have gotten over a traumatic murder of a loved one….by a loved one…quite rapidly) and also train her up in the way of the Super-Jedi (seriously, the powers are far beyond anything we have come to know from Jedi before).
Meanwhile Finn wakes up so he can perform comedy pratfalls a lot, Poe has become a one-man-army who could possibly defeat the whole Empire if Carrie would just stop demoting him, and BB8 seems to have more internal mechanical abilities than Cyborg in the DC comics. Remember how much the paring of Rey and Finn worked in the previous film? Yeah, that’s not here. How about Poe and Finn…that bromance? Nope. Okay…what about….ah forget it.
So, on the flip-side Kylo Ren (Adam Driver who I genuinely don’t get the obsession some folk have with) is acting all emo at how Supreme Leader Snoke is seemingly in love with General Hux (Domhall Gleeson, who acts like he’s in a Carry On film). Snoke is no longer a huge hologram, but is now a physical entity in the film, played (rather excellently I must add) by CGI mo-cap legend Andy Serkis. Strange that a CGI character feels more real than any of the rest of the cast, but hey-ho. With his mighty fleet, Snoke leads the battle to wipe the last remnants of the Rebellion….
The film opens with a spectacular space battle, and certainly doesn’t skimp on set-pieces throughout, with land and space being covered in glory. But story wise there isn’t much going on, even though Rian Johnson clearly thinks there is. Not really a spoiler, but when the Rebel fleet are on the run, trying to stay out of reach of the First Order craft, you do wonder why a few of the first order fleet didn’t just jump to a short hyperdrive to pen the Rebels in, rather than just following behind like sheep. That minor niggle is the smallest of the film’s story problems.
The issue seems to be that many moments have been engineered purely to pull the rug out from under the fan-theorists, rather than being included to actually serve the story on offer. None of the reveals are particularly clever, and one moment in particular resonated in the same manner the “Martha!” moment did in Batman v Superman, so poorly presented that it was almost hilarious in the reveal. Shoehorn in a few cameos, and contrived scene set ups and the whole thing feels like it is trying to pack two films into one, and in order to do so decided to cut out all the bits that make sense to make room for ‘action…fights….explosions…and…..’
…PORGS! Damn those things to Hades! Absolutely unnecessary, irritating, and jarring enough when on screen to make you stop actually caring about the action going on. They are used at the most inopportune moments in a poor attempt to generate laughs! I’ve seen people argue that, “Star Wars is for kids, so of course some things would be childish!” A poor excuse, and it’s the same one George Lucas used for Jar Jar Binks. Still feel it’s a good excuse? They are a marketing ploy to sell cuddly merchandise, and they are awful!
It’s not entirely bad, though. As mentioned the action and effects work is stunning, and there are some marvellous visual feasts on offer. The score is, as expected from music maestro John Williams, enchanting, thrilling, and with plenty of echoes of previous themes morphed into the mix. It’s just that, overall, this feels less like part of the Star Wars series, and more like a fan-fiction. It’s a shame as Rian Johnson has a strong pedigree with Brick and Looper, and hearing he has been granted a new trilogy of films of his own design was exciting news. After this, however, all I can say is that I’m glad JJ Abrams is coming back for the final part – maybe the magic will return with him.
Better than the prequels, including Rogue One, but the weaker of the rest, The Last Jedi is overlong for no real reason, and not as sharp as it wants to be. All gloss and style, but with very little substance.
Meanwhile Finn wakes up so he can perform comedy pratfalls a lot, Poe has become a one-man-army who could possibly defeat the whole Empire if Carrie would just stop demoting him, and BB8 seems to have more internal mechanical abilities than Cyborg in the DC comics. Remember how much the paring of Rey and Finn worked in the previous film? Yeah, that’s not here. How about Poe and Finn…that bromance? Nope. Okay…what about….ah forget it.
So, on the flip-side Kylo Ren (Adam Driver who I genuinely don’t get the obsession some folk have with) is acting all emo at how Supreme Leader Snoke is seemingly in love with General Hux (Domhall Gleeson, who acts like he’s in a Carry On film). Snoke is no longer a huge hologram, but is now a physical entity in the film, played (rather excellently I must add) by CGI mo-cap legend Andy Serkis. Strange that a CGI character feels more real than any of the rest of the cast, but hey-ho. With his mighty fleet, Snoke leads the battle to wipe the last remnants of the Rebellion….
The film opens with a spectacular space battle, and certainly doesn’t skimp on set-pieces throughout, with land and space being covered in glory. But story wise there isn’t much going on, even though Rian Johnson clearly thinks there is. Not really a spoiler, but when the Rebel fleet are on the run, trying to stay out of reach of the First Order craft, you do wonder why a few of the first order fleet didn’t just jump to a short hyperdrive to pen the Rebels in, rather than just following behind like sheep. That minor niggle is the smallest of the film’s story problems.
The issue seems to be that many moments have been engineered purely to pull the rug out from under the fan-theorists, rather than being included to actually serve the story on offer. None of the reveals are particularly clever, and one moment in particular resonated in the same manner the “Martha!” moment did in Batman v Superman, so poorly presented that it was almost hilarious in the reveal. Shoehorn in a few cameos, and contrived scene set ups and the whole thing feels like it is trying to pack two films into one, and in order to do so decided to cut out all the bits that make sense to make room for ‘action…fights….explosions…and…..’
…PORGS! Damn those things to Hades! Absolutely unnecessary, irritating, and jarring enough when on screen to make you stop actually caring about the action going on. They are used at the most inopportune moments in a poor attempt to generate laughs! I’ve seen people argue that, “Star Wars is for kids, so of course some things would be childish!” A poor excuse, and it’s the same one George Lucas used for Jar Jar Binks. Still feel it’s a good excuse? They are a marketing ploy to sell cuddly merchandise, and they are awful!
It’s not entirely bad, though. As mentioned the action and effects work is stunning, and there are some marvellous visual feasts on offer. The score is, as expected from music maestro John Williams, enchanting, thrilling, and with plenty of echoes of previous themes morphed into the mix. It’s just that, overall, this feels less like part of the Star Wars series, and more like a fan-fiction. It’s a shame as Rian Johnson has a strong pedigree with Brick and Looper, and hearing he has been granted a new trilogy of films of his own design was exciting news. After this, however, all I can say is that I’m glad JJ Abrams is coming back for the final part – maybe the magic will return with him.
Better than the prequels, including Rogue One, but the weaker of the rest, The Last Jedi is overlong for no real reason, and not as sharp as it wants to be. All gloss and style, but with very little substance.