Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Leatherheads (2008) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
The movie opens with John Krasinski’s character, “Carter Rutherford”, playing college-level football for Princeton at a bleacher-groaning, over-packed game chock full of screaming patrons and die-hard fans. The kid is a golden-child, a war hero, and the nation’s most promising young athlete in the good old year of 1925. Carter is dynamic, attractive, and exactly what the country needs at a time of World War I. It is little wonder his face plasters billboards across town, that his name is uttered with awe and adoration. In truth, how could you not? The kid had, after all, single-handedly forced a contingent of German soldiers to surrender without even shooting one bullet.
Cut to George Clooney’s character, the aging “Dodge Connelly”, playing pro-football in mire-like conditions; his audience a tangle of bored fans and uninspired locals. It is a far cry from the opulent circumstance of college-level football. Men, bedraggled and sweating under the promise of returning to work at the mines and fields if their football dreams go under, play with reckless abandon and forgotten morals in hopes of winning that next game. Yet, as fate will go, the Bulldogs lose their sponsorship and the team goes under, forcing men to return to their day-jobs and leaving Dodge without a future. The man has no marketable skills, no trade. He is a football player and is determined to see his team back in the game.
Of course, that isn’t the only bit of chaos. There has to be a girl; there is always a girl involved in stories like these. Enter Renée Zellweger’s character, the vivacious and equally tenacious “Lexie Littleton” – a news reporter for the Tribune. Lexie is on a mission to expose Carter Rutherford and get to the bottom of his infamous war story. It comes to no surprise that when Lexie and Dodge meet in a hotel lobby awaiting the arrival of Carter Rutherford and his manager, “CC Frazier” (played by Jonathan Pryce), that sparks immediately fly between them. Dodge has a proposal for CC and Carter: have Carter take a leave of absence from Princeton to play pro-football for the Bulldogs, thus saving pro-football and paying Carter for his efforts. Naturally, CC wants a cut from the profits and finds a way to do so to accommodate his own needs. Dodge, without any other alternative, agrees.
Meanwhile, Lexie is working her magic on Carter to try and weasel the true story out of him as best she can. Try as she might she cannot ignore Dodge, no matter how acid her tongue wags in his direction. In the end, Lexie gets her story yet realizes she must decide between exposing the truth or letting America bask in the glory of its self-proclaimed war-hero.
In review, there is a true chemistry between all of the main characters and both Zellweger and Clooney do a good job of conveying the vehement (and callous) emotion between Lexie and Dodge. However, no matter how funny the banter becomes between these three main characters or how well the scene plugs along, in the end the movie comes off as a passable but by no means memorable. Betimes it seems to stretch on and on and more then once I found myself looking at my clock. In truth, the movie didn’t need to be nearly two hours long. It felt two hours long which is never a good thing, especially when we’re talking about theatre seats.
That said, I thought the movie was a cute and enjoyable comedy. It won’t crack your funny bone but it will certainly tickle it more then once. All in all I give it 3.5 out of 5. It succeeded in making me laugh and did keep me entertained. Above all, I’m sure many will find it enjoyable to some extent.
Cut to George Clooney’s character, the aging “Dodge Connelly”, playing pro-football in mire-like conditions; his audience a tangle of bored fans and uninspired locals. It is a far cry from the opulent circumstance of college-level football. Men, bedraggled and sweating under the promise of returning to work at the mines and fields if their football dreams go under, play with reckless abandon and forgotten morals in hopes of winning that next game. Yet, as fate will go, the Bulldogs lose their sponsorship and the team goes under, forcing men to return to their day-jobs and leaving Dodge without a future. The man has no marketable skills, no trade. He is a football player and is determined to see his team back in the game.
Of course, that isn’t the only bit of chaos. There has to be a girl; there is always a girl involved in stories like these. Enter Renée Zellweger’s character, the vivacious and equally tenacious “Lexie Littleton” – a news reporter for the Tribune. Lexie is on a mission to expose Carter Rutherford and get to the bottom of his infamous war story. It comes to no surprise that when Lexie and Dodge meet in a hotel lobby awaiting the arrival of Carter Rutherford and his manager, “CC Frazier” (played by Jonathan Pryce), that sparks immediately fly between them. Dodge has a proposal for CC and Carter: have Carter take a leave of absence from Princeton to play pro-football for the Bulldogs, thus saving pro-football and paying Carter for his efforts. Naturally, CC wants a cut from the profits and finds a way to do so to accommodate his own needs. Dodge, without any other alternative, agrees.
Meanwhile, Lexie is working her magic on Carter to try and weasel the true story out of him as best she can. Try as she might she cannot ignore Dodge, no matter how acid her tongue wags in his direction. In the end, Lexie gets her story yet realizes she must decide between exposing the truth or letting America bask in the glory of its self-proclaimed war-hero.
In review, there is a true chemistry between all of the main characters and both Zellweger and Clooney do a good job of conveying the vehement (and callous) emotion between Lexie and Dodge. However, no matter how funny the banter becomes between these three main characters or how well the scene plugs along, in the end the movie comes off as a passable but by no means memorable. Betimes it seems to stretch on and on and more then once I found myself looking at my clock. In truth, the movie didn’t need to be nearly two hours long. It felt two hours long which is never a good thing, especially when we’re talking about theatre seats.
That said, I thought the movie was a cute and enjoyable comedy. It won’t crack your funny bone but it will certainly tickle it more then once. All in all I give it 3.5 out of 5. It succeeded in making me laugh and did keep me entertained. Above all, I’m sure many will find it enjoyable to some extent.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated 1917 (2020) in Movies
Jan 12, 2020
Tour-de-Force filmmaking
I have just viewed the film that WILL WIN the Oscars for Best Picture, Director and Cinematography (and probably many, many more).
Yes, 1917 is that good.
A tour-de-force presentation of a film, 1917 tells the tale of 2 soldiers in WW 1 that are tasked with bringing a message across "no man's land" to prevent a company of soldiers from walking into an ambush.
Director Sam Mendes (SKYFALL) chose to shoot this film in such a way as to give the impression that this film is just one long shot. While it is not (he shot it in about 8 minute bursts), the choreography of the action is staged in such a way that the cuts are seamless and unnoticeable. It is a master class in Directing from Mendes, for - though it is an interesting "gimmick" that puts us (literally) in the shoes (and steps) of the 2 young soldiers on their mission - this gimmick does not get in the way of the film. It helps and enhances the film, you can sit back in your chair and forget about "the gimmick" and just get wrapped up, emotionally, in the story that is being told.
And...getting wrapped up, emotionally, you will be. For the story, events, struggles and triumphs of these 2 soldiers are brilliantly brought to the screen from Director Mendes and Cinematograper-extraordinaire Roger Deakins (14 time Oscar nominee - from SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION to his win, finally, in BLADE RUNNER 2049). These 2 (and their crew) suck you into the action and tensions of the situation. You feel every step that these soldiers take.
Since you spend the entire movie with them, Mendes has done a tremendous job of casting 2 charismatic (but not overly so) actors as the 2 soldiers. Dean-Charles Chapman (Tommen Baratheon in GAME OF THRONES) is determined, focused and single-minded as the lead soldier on this trek - he has personal stakes in this mission - as his brother is in the invasion force that is going to be ambushed. Chapman does a nice job of finding the balance - and making a true person - out of a character that has a single, over-arching mission. It is strong subtle work.
But, to me, the standout in this film is George MacKay (CAPTAIN FANTASTIC) as the buddy who is "brought along". This could have been just another "reluctant war hero" character, but MacKay brings a sense of decency and vulnerability to the early scenes of his character (where he could have just as easily played the "reluctant companion"). These nuanced character dimensions take root later on in the film and elevate this actor - and this role - above the norm.
Mendes brings in a "who's who" of modern British acting stars to fill important extended cameo roles - Colin Firth, Andrew Scott, Mark Strong and Benedict Cumberbatch all bring gravitas and heft to their brief appearances on screen.
This is not the fastest paced film you will ever see - and I think that this serves the film well. It earns its pace and I was drawn in, emotionally, in a way that would not have worked had Mendes rushed the pace (especially early on).
But this film (and Mendes and Deakins) shines during the battle scenes. Even though we are following 2 foot soldiers, they set up the boundaries of these battles in such a way that you understand what is going on - and what is at stake - at least to the 2 soldiers we are following. It is in these scenes that this film really finds its footing. I was drawn even further into the intimate, emotional stakes of these characters at those moments.
A marvelous piece of film making that shows a Director and Cinematographer at the top of their games.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Yes, 1917 is that good.
A tour-de-force presentation of a film, 1917 tells the tale of 2 soldiers in WW 1 that are tasked with bringing a message across "no man's land" to prevent a company of soldiers from walking into an ambush.
Director Sam Mendes (SKYFALL) chose to shoot this film in such a way as to give the impression that this film is just one long shot. While it is not (he shot it in about 8 minute bursts), the choreography of the action is staged in such a way that the cuts are seamless and unnoticeable. It is a master class in Directing from Mendes, for - though it is an interesting "gimmick" that puts us (literally) in the shoes (and steps) of the 2 young soldiers on their mission - this gimmick does not get in the way of the film. It helps and enhances the film, you can sit back in your chair and forget about "the gimmick" and just get wrapped up, emotionally, in the story that is being told.
And...getting wrapped up, emotionally, you will be. For the story, events, struggles and triumphs of these 2 soldiers are brilliantly brought to the screen from Director Mendes and Cinematograper-extraordinaire Roger Deakins (14 time Oscar nominee - from SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION to his win, finally, in BLADE RUNNER 2049). These 2 (and their crew) suck you into the action and tensions of the situation. You feel every step that these soldiers take.
Since you spend the entire movie with them, Mendes has done a tremendous job of casting 2 charismatic (but not overly so) actors as the 2 soldiers. Dean-Charles Chapman (Tommen Baratheon in GAME OF THRONES) is determined, focused and single-minded as the lead soldier on this trek - he has personal stakes in this mission - as his brother is in the invasion force that is going to be ambushed. Chapman does a nice job of finding the balance - and making a true person - out of a character that has a single, over-arching mission. It is strong subtle work.
But, to me, the standout in this film is George MacKay (CAPTAIN FANTASTIC) as the buddy who is "brought along". This could have been just another "reluctant war hero" character, but MacKay brings a sense of decency and vulnerability to the early scenes of his character (where he could have just as easily played the "reluctant companion"). These nuanced character dimensions take root later on in the film and elevate this actor - and this role - above the norm.
Mendes brings in a "who's who" of modern British acting stars to fill important extended cameo roles - Colin Firth, Andrew Scott, Mark Strong and Benedict Cumberbatch all bring gravitas and heft to their brief appearances on screen.
This is not the fastest paced film you will ever see - and I think that this serves the film well. It earns its pace and I was drawn in, emotionally, in a way that would not have worked had Mendes rushed the pace (especially early on).
But this film (and Mendes and Deakins) shines during the battle scenes. Even though we are following 2 foot soldiers, they set up the boundaries of these battles in such a way that you understand what is going on - and what is at stake - at least to the 2 soldiers we are following. It is in these scenes that this film really finds its footing. I was drawn even further into the intimate, emotional stakes of these characters at those moments.
A marvelous piece of film making that shows a Director and Cinematographer at the top of their games.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Last Letter from Your Lover (2021) in Movies
Aug 9, 2021
Engaging love story (at least, the one in the 60's) (2 more)
Lush production values, especially production design and cinematography
Great cast - especially Shailene Woodley and Ben Cross
A proper old-fashioned love story that older viewers will appreciate.
Is "chick flick" a phrase that you can use these days? I guess not, since it infers that a movie is only of interest to a particular gender. Perhaps "Sunday afternoon film" is a better phrase. And "The Last Letter From Your Lover" is a real SAF.
Positives:
- "They don't make them like this any more" the saying goes. This is a love story cum melodrama that is well told by director Augustine Frizzell, in only her second feature. The film zips backwards and forwards between different time periods, trusting the audience to keep up with where we are. The dialogue is suitably soupy for a film of this type, based on a Jojo Moyes book (who wrote "Me Before You", also well-filmed). I've seen a critic review in "The Times" where they mocked the sentimentality of the love letters: but part of me would love to say "OK - let's hear what you would have written"!
- The story ticks all the boxes to keep you engaged. Although never moved to tears, a scene towards the end of the movie certainly generated a lump in the throat.
- All the leads are great. Shailene Woodley has been a personal favourite actress since her amazing turn in "The Descendants". And she certainly doesn't disappoint here.
- The production design is lush, particularly with the 60's scenes of London and the Riviera (reminiscent for me of the recent remake of "Rebecca"). This is nicely brought out by the cinematography (by George Steel), with some of the scenes being 'hang on the wall' beautiful to look at.
- It's wonderful to see the late Ben Cross in the movie, and he gives an excellent and touching performance. Cross died of cancer in August 2020 at the age of just 72. This is probably not his last movie, since he was in another - "The Devil's Light" - currently in post-production. Such a sad loss to the industry.
Negatives:
- The movie tries to construct a love story in the 60's and one in the present day 2020's, contrasting the different rules and values at play. The 60's one works; the 20's one really didn't for me. Ellie comes across as a very unlikeable person. The contrast between the lack of communications in the 60's (waiting at a station, not sure if someone will turn up or not) and today's chat/SMS rich 'always on' world could perhaps have been brought out more. With my Dr Bob directorial hat on, I would have ditched the present-day love story entirely and focused in on two professional detectives uncovering the past together: not everything needs to involve love and sex.
- The film has a couple of rain sequences that are highly unconvincing. One Riviera in-car scene particularly made me chuckle. "TURN FIRE HOSE ON!" You can almost see the blue sky and people cavorting on the beach behind them!
Summary Thoughts on "The Last Letter from Your Lover": There are actually few films around these days that feature love stories outside the teenage years. This is an 'old-fashioned' film that will appeal to an older age group, looking for style, romance and escapism. It reminded me in turns of movies like "The Two Faces of January" and "The Age of Adeline" in its mood and presentation. I'm probably not the target audience for this movie and I really enjoyed it. But the illustrious Mrs Movie Man probably is. And she declared that she absolutely loved it!
Ignore the sniffy newspaper and ex-newspaper critics. I'd declare this to be a "recommended".
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on the web, Facebook or Tiktok. Thanks.)
Positives:
- "They don't make them like this any more" the saying goes. This is a love story cum melodrama that is well told by director Augustine Frizzell, in only her second feature. The film zips backwards and forwards between different time periods, trusting the audience to keep up with where we are. The dialogue is suitably soupy for a film of this type, based on a Jojo Moyes book (who wrote "Me Before You", also well-filmed). I've seen a critic review in "The Times" where they mocked the sentimentality of the love letters: but part of me would love to say "OK - let's hear what you would have written"!
- The story ticks all the boxes to keep you engaged. Although never moved to tears, a scene towards the end of the movie certainly generated a lump in the throat.
- All the leads are great. Shailene Woodley has been a personal favourite actress since her amazing turn in "The Descendants". And she certainly doesn't disappoint here.
- The production design is lush, particularly with the 60's scenes of London and the Riviera (reminiscent for me of the recent remake of "Rebecca"). This is nicely brought out by the cinematography (by George Steel), with some of the scenes being 'hang on the wall' beautiful to look at.
- It's wonderful to see the late Ben Cross in the movie, and he gives an excellent and touching performance. Cross died of cancer in August 2020 at the age of just 72. This is probably not his last movie, since he was in another - "The Devil's Light" - currently in post-production. Such a sad loss to the industry.
Negatives:
- The movie tries to construct a love story in the 60's and one in the present day 2020's, contrasting the different rules and values at play. The 60's one works; the 20's one really didn't for me. Ellie comes across as a very unlikeable person. The contrast between the lack of communications in the 60's (waiting at a station, not sure if someone will turn up or not) and today's chat/SMS rich 'always on' world could perhaps have been brought out more. With my Dr Bob directorial hat on, I would have ditched the present-day love story entirely and focused in on two professional detectives uncovering the past together: not everything needs to involve love and sex.
- The film has a couple of rain sequences that are highly unconvincing. One Riviera in-car scene particularly made me chuckle. "TURN FIRE HOSE ON!" You can almost see the blue sky and people cavorting on the beach behind them!
Summary Thoughts on "The Last Letter from Your Lover": There are actually few films around these days that feature love stories outside the teenage years. This is an 'old-fashioned' film that will appeal to an older age group, looking for style, romance and escapism. It reminded me in turns of movies like "The Two Faces of January" and "The Age of Adeline" in its mood and presentation. I'm probably not the target audience for this movie and I really enjoyed it. But the illustrious Mrs Movie Man probably is. And she declared that she absolutely loved it!
Ignore the sniffy newspaper and ex-newspaper critics. I'd declare this to be a "recommended".
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on the web, Facebook or Tiktok. Thanks.)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Ocean’s 8 (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Can 8 women do the work of 11, 12 or even 13 men?
The female empowerment #SheToo implications of the title are clearly writ large for this movie! The answer of course…. is a major spoiler, so we won’t go there.
Debbie Ocean (Sandra Bullock, “Gravity“), the previously unreferenced sister of arch-scoundrel Danny Ocean (George Clooney) from the reboot trilogy, is released from prison after a 5 year stretch. This has given her plenty of time to plan her next job – a jewellry heist from the New York Met – in intricate detail. She recruits biker-chick Lou (Cate Blanchett , “Carol“) as her partner and they then proceed to recruit a team of expert crimimals: well… some are not criminals, but soon will be! Will they succeed, or will Debbie have an even longer time to plan her next heist?
Stiff as planks…. Sandra Bullock and Cate Blanchett.
The movie unfortunately is rather like watching paint dry. It’s very glossy and expensive paint, I grant you, but compared to certainly Ocean’s 11 and even Ocean’s 13 it’s not in the premier league. There’s virtually nothing about the plot that leaves you surprised. Even the twists are merely “oh”s rather than “OH!’s”.
Stylistically the film attempts to model the Soderbergh split-screen visuals of his films, doing it quite well, and is accompanied by a similar jazz-style soundtrack which works effectively. Arguably, the well-chosen music by Daniel Pemberton (“King Arthur: Legend of the Sword“) is the best thing in the film.
When they said they were stealing from the Met…. perhaps I misunderstood?
Otherwise though, that’s where most of the similarities end, with there being limited character development to make you really care all that much whether the team win or lose. The script, by director Gary Ross (“The Hunger Games”) and Olivia Milch had a few clever lines that made me smile: but it’s not laugh-out-loud territory. So the story had better be good. Unfortunately, here Gary Ross’s story has so many implausible coincidences and incredulous leaps of intuition – “yeah, I’m from the hood innit but I have a grasp of magnetic resonance couplings learnt the hard way, from the street up!” – that belief is less suspended and more hung, drawn and quartered. This is not saying that the Ocean’s trilogy was without a few similar issues – reaching its nadir with Julia Roberts pretending to be Julia Roberts in “Ocean’s 12” – but this film is more consistently bonkers.
Hang on… I only count seven here?
I have to admit that the build up to the heist through the first half of the film left me sufficiently entertained, but that momentum suddenly fizzles out and the final reel becomes quite tedious. I also expected something to happen at the end, cameo-wise, that never did!
Acting wise, the best turn comes from Anne Hathaway (“Colossal“, “Les Miserables”) as a vainglorious actress but Helena Bonham Carter (“Suffragette“, “Harry Potter”) is also good value as the quirky fashion expert, coming across like some sort of ditzy Fatima Blush.
Good value – Anne Hathaway and Helena Bonham Carter.
I also liked Rihanna’s ‘Nine Ball’ character. Less successful for me was Bullock, who I felt came across as very wooden, and Blanchett, slightly less so. There are also some ‘B-list’ celebrities attending the Met-gala that are fun to watch out for, as well as two members of the earlier films’ cast.
After Diamonds but with nowhere to store an Umbrella: Rihanna knocks them dead on the red carpet.
So, it’s a disappointing effort from Gary Ross. All glitz and glamour but with little substance.
Debbie Ocean (Sandra Bullock, “Gravity“), the previously unreferenced sister of arch-scoundrel Danny Ocean (George Clooney) from the reboot trilogy, is released from prison after a 5 year stretch. This has given her plenty of time to plan her next job – a jewellry heist from the New York Met – in intricate detail. She recruits biker-chick Lou (Cate Blanchett , “Carol“) as her partner and they then proceed to recruit a team of expert crimimals: well… some are not criminals, but soon will be! Will they succeed, or will Debbie have an even longer time to plan her next heist?
Stiff as planks…. Sandra Bullock and Cate Blanchett.
The movie unfortunately is rather like watching paint dry. It’s very glossy and expensive paint, I grant you, but compared to certainly Ocean’s 11 and even Ocean’s 13 it’s not in the premier league. There’s virtually nothing about the plot that leaves you surprised. Even the twists are merely “oh”s rather than “OH!’s”.
Stylistically the film attempts to model the Soderbergh split-screen visuals of his films, doing it quite well, and is accompanied by a similar jazz-style soundtrack which works effectively. Arguably, the well-chosen music by Daniel Pemberton (“King Arthur: Legend of the Sword“) is the best thing in the film.
When they said they were stealing from the Met…. perhaps I misunderstood?
Otherwise though, that’s where most of the similarities end, with there being limited character development to make you really care all that much whether the team win or lose. The script, by director Gary Ross (“The Hunger Games”) and Olivia Milch had a few clever lines that made me smile: but it’s not laugh-out-loud territory. So the story had better be good. Unfortunately, here Gary Ross’s story has so many implausible coincidences and incredulous leaps of intuition – “yeah, I’m from the hood innit but I have a grasp of magnetic resonance couplings learnt the hard way, from the street up!” – that belief is less suspended and more hung, drawn and quartered. This is not saying that the Ocean’s trilogy was without a few similar issues – reaching its nadir with Julia Roberts pretending to be Julia Roberts in “Ocean’s 12” – but this film is more consistently bonkers.
Hang on… I only count seven here?
I have to admit that the build up to the heist through the first half of the film left me sufficiently entertained, but that momentum suddenly fizzles out and the final reel becomes quite tedious. I also expected something to happen at the end, cameo-wise, that never did!
Acting wise, the best turn comes from Anne Hathaway (“Colossal“, “Les Miserables”) as a vainglorious actress but Helena Bonham Carter (“Suffragette“, “Harry Potter”) is also good value as the quirky fashion expert, coming across like some sort of ditzy Fatima Blush.
Good value – Anne Hathaway and Helena Bonham Carter.
I also liked Rihanna’s ‘Nine Ball’ character. Less successful for me was Bullock, who I felt came across as very wooden, and Blanchett, slightly less so. There are also some ‘B-list’ celebrities attending the Met-gala that are fun to watch out for, as well as two members of the earlier films’ cast.
After Diamonds but with nowhere to store an Umbrella: Rihanna knocks them dead on the red carpet.
So, it’s a disappointing effort from Gary Ross. All glitz and glamour but with little substance.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Star Wars: Episode VI – Return of the Jedi (1983) in Movies
Mar 7, 2019
The weakest...
Contains spoilers, click to show
This is often thought of as the weakest of the original trilogy, and whilst I would agree with that, that's not to say that it is bad. The phenomenon which had begun with"Star Wars", six years earlier was about to conclude, or so we thought, with Jedi.
The first film had pioneered the technology and concepts of which to present and achieve such a franchise in the 1970′s and '80′s, and "The Empire Strikes Back" is still the benchmark for part twos, but where this film falls down is that it has sacrificed narrative quality for Lucas' realisation that he could finally do what he wanted, without any hindrance from studios or production limitations.
He had the best of best in visual effects with his Industrial Light and Magic, and he had a vision which had remained unrealised in the previous two films, such as the so called failed Cantina scene in "Star Wars", which is presented here, only this time in the walls of Jabba's palace.
The first half I believe, is George Lucas' real film. Monsters and Muppets, pure fantasy as our heroes wrap up the events of the previous film, and make their daring escape from Jabba the Hutt. The second part is almost a separate film, focusing quite rightly on the Empire and the destruction of the second Death Star. But this plot is very matter of fact, and has no real charm or heart, just epic visuals and a theatrical sense.
Meanwhile, Han Solo and Princess Leia are leading a rebel assault on the forest moon of Endor, populated by the most annoying Muppets of all the dreaded Ewoks! The Ewoks must be one of cinema's greatest misjudgments, the first real misstep in Lucas' handling of the "Star Wars Saga"; but with the prequels and the constant tinkering with the originals, this was to be the thin end of the wedge.
Don't get me wrong, there are plot elements revolving around the Muppets which I liked, such as the nature vs. technology metaphor, but that doesn't excuse the Ewoks and nothing ever will! But elements such as the Speedbike chase and the final battle, all of it, the final Vader/Luke dual, the assault of the Death Star itself, and even the ludicrous Ewok assault, are excellent, visually stunning and exiting and it is enough to save this film from being bogged down by the bad.
And like I said, the money grabbing, almost narratively illiterate George Lucas has damaged and defamed his franchise with his constant tinkering, firstly with the Special Edition in 1997, and then with his Enhanced Special Edition in 2004 for the DVD release.
Lucas is a visionary and has done so much for the film industry and we should be grateful but in the end, he needs to stop milking this franchise, stop pretending that it is never finished, when he has finished it THREE times now and realise that the best of the original trilogy was directed and written by other people, all of which display more talent. Lucas is not a good director but he is a good producer and he has brought this franchise to the screen and the movie industry is better for it. But the Special Editions bring nothing important to the mix, with the exception of the finale, which does carry more scope that 1983 original.
Overall, the weakest of the "Star Wars Trilogy" is a fair assessment and at its worst, it's still leagues above any entry in the prequels, even the Episode III, which is the closest to this high standards of this series.
The first film had pioneered the technology and concepts of which to present and achieve such a franchise in the 1970′s and '80′s, and "The Empire Strikes Back" is still the benchmark for part twos, but where this film falls down is that it has sacrificed narrative quality for Lucas' realisation that he could finally do what he wanted, without any hindrance from studios or production limitations.
He had the best of best in visual effects with his Industrial Light and Magic, and he had a vision which had remained unrealised in the previous two films, such as the so called failed Cantina scene in "Star Wars", which is presented here, only this time in the walls of Jabba's palace.
The first half I believe, is George Lucas' real film. Monsters and Muppets, pure fantasy as our heroes wrap up the events of the previous film, and make their daring escape from Jabba the Hutt. The second part is almost a separate film, focusing quite rightly on the Empire and the destruction of the second Death Star. But this plot is very matter of fact, and has no real charm or heart, just epic visuals and a theatrical sense.
Meanwhile, Han Solo and Princess Leia are leading a rebel assault on the forest moon of Endor, populated by the most annoying Muppets of all the dreaded Ewoks! The Ewoks must be one of cinema's greatest misjudgments, the first real misstep in Lucas' handling of the "Star Wars Saga"; but with the prequels and the constant tinkering with the originals, this was to be the thin end of the wedge.
Don't get me wrong, there are plot elements revolving around the Muppets which I liked, such as the nature vs. technology metaphor, but that doesn't excuse the Ewoks and nothing ever will! But elements such as the Speedbike chase and the final battle, all of it, the final Vader/Luke dual, the assault of the Death Star itself, and even the ludicrous Ewok assault, are excellent, visually stunning and exiting and it is enough to save this film from being bogged down by the bad.
And like I said, the money grabbing, almost narratively illiterate George Lucas has damaged and defamed his franchise with his constant tinkering, firstly with the Special Edition in 1997, and then with his Enhanced Special Edition in 2004 for the DVD release.
Lucas is a visionary and has done so much for the film industry and we should be grateful but in the end, he needs to stop milking this franchise, stop pretending that it is never finished, when he has finished it THREE times now and realise that the best of the original trilogy was directed and written by other people, all of which display more talent. Lucas is not a good director but he is a good producer and he has brought this franchise to the screen and the movie industry is better for it. But the Special Editions bring nothing important to the mix, with the exception of the finale, which does carry more scope that 1983 original.
Overall, the weakest of the "Star Wars Trilogy" is a fair assessment and at its worst, it's still leagues above any entry in the prequels, even the Episode III, which is the closest to this high standards of this series.
Sarah (7800 KP) rated The Midnight Sky (2020) in Movies
Dec 27, 2020
Predictable and cliched
The Midnight Sky is a science fiction film directed by George Clooney, the latest in a long line of Netflix originals to hit our screens, based on the 2016 book ‘Good Morning, Midnight’ by Lily Brooks-Dalton. George Clooney plays Augustine, who encounters young girl Iris (the adorable Caoilinn Springall) after remaining on earth following a global apocalypse. Together they must travel across the Arctic to reach a weather station that will allow them to warn returning spaceship, the Aether, captained by Adewole (David Oyelowo) and crewed by Sully (Felicity Jones), Mitchell (Kyle Chandler), Sanchez (Demián Bichir) and Maya (Tiffany Boone).
The trailer for this had me concerned. It looked very similar to many other sci-fi/end of the world films (think Sunshine, Interstellar, even The Day After Tomorrow) and nothing about it looked particularly original. I had hoped that the trailer might be misleading, but I’m afraid to say that this is every bit as lacklustre and predictable as the trailer implied.
Visually this looks stunning, both the set design and the special effects have obviously had a decent amount of time and money invested in them. Alongside this, Alexandre Desplat’s score is beautifully ephemeral and haunting, and accompanies the story well, feeling very in keeping with both the Arctic and the space settings. And aside from a decent cast, I’m afraid these are the only good things I can say about this film. The main problem is the story itself, it’s entirely predictable and suffers from every space and sci-fi mishap you could ever think of, from unexplainable drifting off course to the destruction of important equipment (comms of course, would you expect any less?) due to an unpredicted meteor strike. And this cliched predictability just makes the story so dull and drawn out over its two hour runtime.
To be honest, the whole film itself and the actions of the characters just doesn’t make any sense. You have a pregnant astronaut, who has virtually no sexual chemistry with the man she’s having a baby with, and who’s allowed to go outside into space with little concern over her or her baby’s well-being. A scientist who falls into sub-zero Arctic water which appears to have little impact on his health. And a child walking around in a summer dress with bare legs in the Arctic climate. Admittedly this latter point is addressed towards the end of the film in a rather obvious and over used plot twist, which is still rather unsatisfying. There’s also the large number of unexplained plot points. I’m all for keeping the watcher guessing and hate films that feel the need to over explain every aspect of the plot, but The Midnight Sky takes the opposite approach and explains barely anything. If you go into this expecting to find out what caused the radiation apocalypse or what happened to the rest of earth’s population you’ll be sorely disappointed. It also makes references to a K-23 colony ship that the Aether hasn’t heard from, yet provides no explanation or background as to the outcome of said ship, and also gives us flashbacks to Augustine’s past yet with little reason other than to provide an “A-ha” moment for the aforementioned plot twist. And the decisions made by the astronauts on the Aether once they’ve found out about Earth’s fate are just laughably ridiculous especially considering the fate of the rest of the population.
Despite the promising cast and effects, The Midnight Sky is yet another disappointing Netflix original that is light years away from some of the more brilliant sci-fi stories that have come before it.
The trailer for this had me concerned. It looked very similar to many other sci-fi/end of the world films (think Sunshine, Interstellar, even The Day After Tomorrow) and nothing about it looked particularly original. I had hoped that the trailer might be misleading, but I’m afraid to say that this is every bit as lacklustre and predictable as the trailer implied.
Visually this looks stunning, both the set design and the special effects have obviously had a decent amount of time and money invested in them. Alongside this, Alexandre Desplat’s score is beautifully ephemeral and haunting, and accompanies the story well, feeling very in keeping with both the Arctic and the space settings. And aside from a decent cast, I’m afraid these are the only good things I can say about this film. The main problem is the story itself, it’s entirely predictable and suffers from every space and sci-fi mishap you could ever think of, from unexplainable drifting off course to the destruction of important equipment (comms of course, would you expect any less?) due to an unpredicted meteor strike. And this cliched predictability just makes the story so dull and drawn out over its two hour runtime.
To be honest, the whole film itself and the actions of the characters just doesn’t make any sense. You have a pregnant astronaut, who has virtually no sexual chemistry with the man she’s having a baby with, and who’s allowed to go outside into space with little concern over her or her baby’s well-being. A scientist who falls into sub-zero Arctic water which appears to have little impact on his health. And a child walking around in a summer dress with bare legs in the Arctic climate. Admittedly this latter point is addressed towards the end of the film in a rather obvious and over used plot twist, which is still rather unsatisfying. There’s also the large number of unexplained plot points. I’m all for keeping the watcher guessing and hate films that feel the need to over explain every aspect of the plot, but The Midnight Sky takes the opposite approach and explains barely anything. If you go into this expecting to find out what caused the radiation apocalypse or what happened to the rest of earth’s population you’ll be sorely disappointed. It also makes references to a K-23 colony ship that the Aether hasn’t heard from, yet provides no explanation or background as to the outcome of said ship, and also gives us flashbacks to Augustine’s past yet with little reason other than to provide an “A-ha” moment for the aforementioned plot twist. And the decisions made by the astronauts on the Aether once they’ve found out about Earth’s fate are just laughably ridiculous especially considering the fate of the rest of the population.
Despite the promising cast and effects, The Midnight Sky is yet another disappointing Netflix original that is light years away from some of the more brilliant sci-fi stories that have come before it.
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Deadpool 2 (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
A surprisingly heart-warming sequel
After the success of Deadpool, it’s natural to feel apprehensive about what comes next. Will it be as good as the first? Or will it fall flat? I was excited to see the Merc with a Mouth back again, but wasn’t entirely sure what to expect. I’d thankfully managed to avoid all spoilers online, so I was excited to see what the sequel would bring to the table.
Thankfully yes – it is absolutely on par with the first, if not better. In this film we get to see a more serious, empathetic version of Wade Wilson as he’s faced with some tough experiences and decisions. Ryan Reynolds does an amazing job of portraying Wilson’s sorrow, which is far removed from what we’re used to. It certainly doesn’t take away from the film’s humour, fourth wall breaking and sarcasm, but instead adds a more complex layer to the narrative. I was surprised to find myself crying at certain points in the film due to the emotional nature. The film also parodies a lot of other films, and I’m sure on a second viewing I’ll be able to spot them all, but the ones I did catch made me laugh out loud.
I adored some of the fight scenes, including Deadpool fighting someone to Skrillex’s “Bangarang” (which has to be one of my favourite cinematic moments of 2018… so far). The soundtrack is brilliant and the use of music plays a big part in this film, effectively setting the mood whether that’s humour or sorrow. An effective soundtrack really completes a film, and I am in love with Deadpool 2’s. Not to spoil anything too much, but you’ll be greeted with the likes of George Michael, Dolly Parton and AC/DC throughout the film which is a selling point if I do say so myself.
There are so many unexpected cameos in Deadpool 2 that I won’t ruin for you, but they all brought a smile to my face and I was excited to see what each actor brought to the table! Alongside these, we see familiar faces in Colossus, Negasonic Teenage Warhead, Dopinder and Weasel who all played a huge part in the first film and reciprocate this in the sequel, as well as brand new ones in vengeful cyborg Cable, ‘lucky’ Domino and out of control mutant Russell Collins.
I was so impressed with the new characters and the way they were acted, so huge praise has to be given to Josh Brolin, Zazie Beetz and Julian Dennison for bringing such complex characters to life on screen. The dynamics between characters, old and new, is a joy to watch and everything is so well scripted throughout the film.
Deadpool 2 is a strong successor to the first, with a heartwarming overall message to tie the film up in a nice little bow. Oh, and remember to sit tight whilst the credits roll… this is a Marvel film after all!
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/05/27/deadpool-2-a-surprisingly-heart-warming-sequel/
Thankfully yes – it is absolutely on par with the first, if not better. In this film we get to see a more serious, empathetic version of Wade Wilson as he’s faced with some tough experiences and decisions. Ryan Reynolds does an amazing job of portraying Wilson’s sorrow, which is far removed from what we’re used to. It certainly doesn’t take away from the film’s humour, fourth wall breaking and sarcasm, but instead adds a more complex layer to the narrative. I was surprised to find myself crying at certain points in the film due to the emotional nature. The film also parodies a lot of other films, and I’m sure on a second viewing I’ll be able to spot them all, but the ones I did catch made me laugh out loud.
I adored some of the fight scenes, including Deadpool fighting someone to Skrillex’s “Bangarang” (which has to be one of my favourite cinematic moments of 2018… so far). The soundtrack is brilliant and the use of music plays a big part in this film, effectively setting the mood whether that’s humour or sorrow. An effective soundtrack really completes a film, and I am in love with Deadpool 2’s. Not to spoil anything too much, but you’ll be greeted with the likes of George Michael, Dolly Parton and AC/DC throughout the film which is a selling point if I do say so myself.
There are so many unexpected cameos in Deadpool 2 that I won’t ruin for you, but they all brought a smile to my face and I was excited to see what each actor brought to the table! Alongside these, we see familiar faces in Colossus, Negasonic Teenage Warhead, Dopinder and Weasel who all played a huge part in the first film and reciprocate this in the sequel, as well as brand new ones in vengeful cyborg Cable, ‘lucky’ Domino and out of control mutant Russell Collins.
I was so impressed with the new characters and the way they were acted, so huge praise has to be given to Josh Brolin, Zazie Beetz and Julian Dennison for bringing such complex characters to life on screen. The dynamics between characters, old and new, is a joy to watch and everything is so well scripted throughout the film.
Deadpool 2 is a strong successor to the first, with a heartwarming overall message to tie the film up in a nice little bow. Oh, and remember to sit tight whilst the credits roll… this is a Marvel film after all!
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/05/27/deadpool-2-a-surprisingly-heart-warming-sequel/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Philadelphia Story (1940) in Movies
Sep 14, 2019
It's as good (maybe better) than you've heard
We all know of movies that you hear are considered a "classic", but you've never seen, and the few clips of the film you've seen does not, exactly, motivate you to check out the entire film. THE PHILADELPHIA STORY was one such film for me. This 1940 George Cukor production is lauded for it's dialogue, direction and the stellar performances of the cast - particularly the 3 leads, Katherine Hepburn, Cary Grant and Jimmy Stewart.
Recently, I attended our monthly "Secret Movie Night" where we pack the Willow Creek Movie Theater on the 2nd Thursday of every month and get treated to a "Classic" Film (made before 1970) or a "New Classic" (made after 1970), but we don't know what the film is until it starts playing on the screen.
So...imagine how much my eyes rolled back into my head when I saw that this month's film was the aforementioned THE PHILADELPHIA STORY. I sighed to myself and said "all right, time to endure this one all the way through."
And...I couldn't have been more wrong. Almost from the start the script, pacing and witty dialogue of this Broadway-Play-Turned-Movie swept me away. Most certainly aided by the fact that 3 of the best movie stars of all time - at the peak of their abilities - were letting this wonderful dialogue roll off their tongues. This film is a "classic" in every sense of the word.
The plot is...inconsequential. Basically...Philadelphia socialite Tracy Lord (Hepburn) is getting remarried. Her ex-husband (Cary Grant) enlists the aid of a Journalist (Jimmy Stewart) to create havoc at the wedding.
But...this is a film where the journey, not the destination, is the fun of the flick. The 3 leads banter back and forth with each other, arming and disarming (and charming) one another with their quick wit and biting criticism. The Broadway Stage play was written, specifically, for Hepburn and she exceeds in this role. Here is a newsflash - KATHERINE HEPBURN IS A VERY GOOD ACTRESS - and I think this is the very best performance of the very best actress of all time (with apologies to Meryl Streep). She was nominated (but did not win) the Oscar for Best Actress for her performance (losing to a very deserving Ginger Rogers in KITTY FOYLE, I would have voted for Hepburn, but gotta give Rogers her due, she is very good as the titular KITTY FOYLE).
Stepping up to the plate - and matching Hepburn blow for blow - is, surprisingly, Stewart. I didn't really know the story of this film, so I was surprised where Stewart's character-arc went, especially in relation to his relationship with Hepburn. Stewart lost the Oscar in 1939 for his bravura performance in MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON (inexplicably losing to Robert Donat in GOODBYE MR. CHIPS), so the Academy made up for it's mistake by awarding Stewart the Oscar for Best Actor of 1940. This most certainly was a worthy Oscar-winning performance, but (if I"m going to be honest), pales in comparison to his work in MR. SMITH...
Looming over these two (and Tracy's impeding marriage to another person) is Cary Grant as Tracy's ex-husband, C.K. Dexter Haven. While Grant's role is the least showy of the 3, he commands the screen just with his presence whenever he shows up and strengthens this triangle with his strength of character.
The supporting cast is just as strong - Ruth Hussy (Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actress) as a photographer, Roland Young (as the lecherous Uncle Willy) and, especially, 13 year old Virginia Weidler who is spunky, fun and smart as Tracy's kid sister. The only performer relegated to the back of the scenery is the bland John Howard as George Kittredge (the man Tracy is slated to marry). With Grant and Stewart on the scene, you know that Kittredge has no shot at getting Tracy Lord to the altar (or does he?).
All of these fine actors and the wonderful dialogue were put into the hands of the great Director George Cukor - who had 1 of his 5 Best Director Oscar Nominations for this film (he will win for MY FAIR LADY in 1964). He handles this film with skilled hands letting the actors (and the dialogue) "do their thing" without letting any of them overstay their welcome. It is a masterful job of directing and with strong actors (and off-screen personalities) like Hepburn, Grant and Stewart, he had his hands full.
Sure...it's a 1940's movie, so some of the "social situations" (mostly male/female dynamics) do not age particularly well, but Hepburn was a strong personality - certainly well ahead of the game in terms of equality of strength of the sexes, so these dynamics do not jump at us as strongly as it might have been in a lesser actress's hands.
If you haven't seen this film in sometime (or if you haven't seen it at all) - check out THE PHILADELPHIA STORY - you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Recently, I attended our monthly "Secret Movie Night" where we pack the Willow Creek Movie Theater on the 2nd Thursday of every month and get treated to a "Classic" Film (made before 1970) or a "New Classic" (made after 1970), but we don't know what the film is until it starts playing on the screen.
So...imagine how much my eyes rolled back into my head when I saw that this month's film was the aforementioned THE PHILADELPHIA STORY. I sighed to myself and said "all right, time to endure this one all the way through."
And...I couldn't have been more wrong. Almost from the start the script, pacing and witty dialogue of this Broadway-Play-Turned-Movie swept me away. Most certainly aided by the fact that 3 of the best movie stars of all time - at the peak of their abilities - were letting this wonderful dialogue roll off their tongues. This film is a "classic" in every sense of the word.
The plot is...inconsequential. Basically...Philadelphia socialite Tracy Lord (Hepburn) is getting remarried. Her ex-husband (Cary Grant) enlists the aid of a Journalist (Jimmy Stewart) to create havoc at the wedding.
But...this is a film where the journey, not the destination, is the fun of the flick. The 3 leads banter back and forth with each other, arming and disarming (and charming) one another with their quick wit and biting criticism. The Broadway Stage play was written, specifically, for Hepburn and she exceeds in this role. Here is a newsflash - KATHERINE HEPBURN IS A VERY GOOD ACTRESS - and I think this is the very best performance of the very best actress of all time (with apologies to Meryl Streep). She was nominated (but did not win) the Oscar for Best Actress for her performance (losing to a very deserving Ginger Rogers in KITTY FOYLE, I would have voted for Hepburn, but gotta give Rogers her due, she is very good as the titular KITTY FOYLE).
Stepping up to the plate - and matching Hepburn blow for blow - is, surprisingly, Stewart. I didn't really know the story of this film, so I was surprised where Stewart's character-arc went, especially in relation to his relationship with Hepburn. Stewart lost the Oscar in 1939 for his bravura performance in MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON (inexplicably losing to Robert Donat in GOODBYE MR. CHIPS), so the Academy made up for it's mistake by awarding Stewart the Oscar for Best Actor of 1940. This most certainly was a worthy Oscar-winning performance, but (if I"m going to be honest), pales in comparison to his work in MR. SMITH...
Looming over these two (and Tracy's impeding marriage to another person) is Cary Grant as Tracy's ex-husband, C.K. Dexter Haven. While Grant's role is the least showy of the 3, he commands the screen just with his presence whenever he shows up and strengthens this triangle with his strength of character.
The supporting cast is just as strong - Ruth Hussy (Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actress) as a photographer, Roland Young (as the lecherous Uncle Willy) and, especially, 13 year old Virginia Weidler who is spunky, fun and smart as Tracy's kid sister. The only performer relegated to the back of the scenery is the bland John Howard as George Kittredge (the man Tracy is slated to marry). With Grant and Stewart on the scene, you know that Kittredge has no shot at getting Tracy Lord to the altar (or does he?).
All of these fine actors and the wonderful dialogue were put into the hands of the great Director George Cukor - who had 1 of his 5 Best Director Oscar Nominations for this film (he will win for MY FAIR LADY in 1964). He handles this film with skilled hands letting the actors (and the dialogue) "do their thing" without letting any of them overstay their welcome. It is a masterful job of directing and with strong actors (and off-screen personalities) like Hepburn, Grant and Stewart, he had his hands full.
Sure...it's a 1940's movie, so some of the "social situations" (mostly male/female dynamics) do not age particularly well, but Hepburn was a strong personality - certainly well ahead of the game in terms of equality of strength of the sexes, so these dynamics do not jump at us as strongly as it might have been in a lesser actress's hands.
If you haven't seen this film in sometime (or if you haven't seen it at all) - check out THE PHILADELPHIA STORY - you'll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A+
10 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The original is better
I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.
Six bestselling authors have taken on the task of writing modern retellings of the complete works of Jane Austen. Alexander McCall Smith has successfully taken on the challenge of bringing Emma into the 21st century. Although the settings and characters remain the same the contemporary clothing, vehicles and ideas are something that the reader can relate to.
As fans of Jane Austen will already know, Emma is about rich, single Emma Woodhouse who, despite the disapproval of her good friend George Knightley, enjoys interfering in the lives of others, particularly where romance is concerned. Her meddling backfires when her plan to match her friend Harriet Smith with the boring Philip Elton has disastrous consequences.
Alexander McCall Smith’s version of Emma has more focus on the life of Mr. Woodhouse, Emma’s father, than the original did. He gives an account of Henry Woodhouse’s history and over emphasizes his anxieties about health and safety. Mr. Woodhouse’s concerns are constantly cropping up throughout the novel adding a little humour to the story.
One concern about this modern adaptation is that the writing style was overly formal. If it were not for the references to the current clothing fashions, motorcars and women attending university, the book could have been set during Jane Austen’s lifetime. Take, for example, the character Anne Taylor. Mr. Woodhouse hires Miss Taylor as a governess for his motherless daughters. Miss Taylor’s approach to the girls and her prim and proper use of language made her seem antiquated. She would not have looked out of place amongst other well-known governesses or nannies such as Mary Poppins or Nurse Matilda.
Occasionally it felt that Alexander McCall Smith was mocking the modern world, for example the activities of the younger generation or the way people speak. Whilst this may appeal to older readers who may disapprove of the recent developments and changes in the Western world; it alienates the teenagers and young adults who have grown up with modern technology.
There is no doubt that Alexander McCall Smith has done an excellent job at retelling such a famous novel, however to be a complete modern retelling I think everything needs to be brought into the 21st century. This would include all the characters and the style of language it is written in.
Six bestselling authors have taken on the task of writing modern retellings of the complete works of Jane Austen. Alexander McCall Smith has successfully taken on the challenge of bringing Emma into the 21st century. Although the settings and characters remain the same the contemporary clothing, vehicles and ideas are something that the reader can relate to.
As fans of Jane Austen will already know, Emma is about rich, single Emma Woodhouse who, despite the disapproval of her good friend George Knightley, enjoys interfering in the lives of others, particularly where romance is concerned. Her meddling backfires when her plan to match her friend Harriet Smith with the boring Philip Elton has disastrous consequences.
Alexander McCall Smith’s version of Emma has more focus on the life of Mr. Woodhouse, Emma’s father, than the original did. He gives an account of Henry Woodhouse’s history and over emphasizes his anxieties about health and safety. Mr. Woodhouse’s concerns are constantly cropping up throughout the novel adding a little humour to the story.
One concern about this modern adaptation is that the writing style was overly formal. If it were not for the references to the current clothing fashions, motorcars and women attending university, the book could have been set during Jane Austen’s lifetime. Take, for example, the character Anne Taylor. Mr. Woodhouse hires Miss Taylor as a governess for his motherless daughters. Miss Taylor’s approach to the girls and her prim and proper use of language made her seem antiquated. She would not have looked out of place amongst other well-known governesses or nannies such as Mary Poppins or Nurse Matilda.
Occasionally it felt that Alexander McCall Smith was mocking the modern world, for example the activities of the younger generation or the way people speak. Whilst this may appeal to older readers who may disapprove of the recent developments and changes in the Western world; it alienates the teenagers and young adults who have grown up with modern technology.
There is no doubt that Alexander McCall Smith has done an excellent job at retelling such a famous novel, however to be a complete modern retelling I think everything needs to be brought into the 21st century. This would include all the characters and the style of language it is written in.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Game Of Thrones - Season 7 in TV
Sep 5, 2017
Inconsistent characters (2 more)
Lazy writing
Huge plot holes
Who Wrote This?
Contains spoilers, click to show
Full disclosure, I wasn't a huge GoT fan to begin with, but this season takes the cake for the amount of nonsense it expected the viewer to accept without question. The show is ahead of the books at this point, so its no longer based on George RR Martin's books and it shows.
From this point on, I will be spoiling the events of the season, so if you haven't seen it and you care about spoilers, look away now.
If you are looking for a drinking game to play this season, drink every time Danyres is an entitled brat, drink every time Bran says something pretentious, drink every time John mentions the white walkers and drink when Tyrion screws up and I guarantee you that you won't be able to stand up by the end of the season.
There were two things in particular that got under my skin this season. First of all Littlefinger, (the supposed 'smartest character in the show,') got outsmarted by Arya and Sansa? Are you kidding? His death was so unsatisfying and ridiculous and in past seasons that character would have never have been stupid enough to get himself into that situation without working out a way to get himself away with his life.
The second thing is Bran. You can't have an all knowing character that doesn't know things. How is it that Sam has to be the one to tell Bran about John's parents being married when he was born? I've heard the excuse made that Bran has to choose to go to a period in history in order to see what happened at that time, but we have seen that he was back there last season when John was born in that tower! Also, why didn't he inform his brother that the Night King had a dragon, as soon as it happened? I realise that Bran is in Winterfell and John is with Danyres, but in the last episode, John sends Bran a note via carrier pigeon, so why couldn't he have sent one to John? Why didn't Bran see that Cersei was going to betray John and Danyres? If in the next season John and Dany are surprised when Cersei doesn't back them, then the writing for this show has well and truly fell off a cliff.
From this point on, I will be spoiling the events of the season, so if you haven't seen it and you care about spoilers, look away now.
If you are looking for a drinking game to play this season, drink every time Danyres is an entitled brat, drink every time Bran says something pretentious, drink every time John mentions the white walkers and drink when Tyrion screws up and I guarantee you that you won't be able to stand up by the end of the season.
There were two things in particular that got under my skin this season. First of all Littlefinger, (the supposed 'smartest character in the show,') got outsmarted by Arya and Sansa? Are you kidding? His death was so unsatisfying and ridiculous and in past seasons that character would have never have been stupid enough to get himself into that situation without working out a way to get himself away with his life.
The second thing is Bran. You can't have an all knowing character that doesn't know things. How is it that Sam has to be the one to tell Bran about John's parents being married when he was born? I've heard the excuse made that Bran has to choose to go to a period in history in order to see what happened at that time, but we have seen that he was back there last season when John was born in that tower! Also, why didn't he inform his brother that the Night King had a dragon, as soon as it happened? I realise that Bran is in Winterfell and John is with Danyres, but in the last episode, John sends Bran a note via carrier pigeon, so why couldn't he have sent one to John? Why didn't Bran see that Cersei was going to betray John and Danyres? If in the next season John and Dany are surprised when Cersei doesn't back them, then the writing for this show has well and truly fell off a cliff.