Search
Darren (64 KP) rated Any Which Way You Can (1980) in Movies
Nov 1, 2019
Right Turn Clyde
Contains spoilers, click to show
This was the first film i ever rented as a kid from the video shop. I was 5 at the time and the cover just drew me to it. My mum bless her let me have this and The Snowman. That was way back in 1985 and i have never lost any love for it.
Clint stars as Philo Bedo a bare knuckle brawler who has decided after his last fight (Which he easily wins) Enough is enough and he no longer wants to fight as, He is getting to enjoy the pain a little too much. When he is offered $25,000 by Patrick Scarfe ( Michael Cavanaugh) to fight Jack Wilson played by B movie great William Smith, Philo finds the offer to tempting to resist and accepts. Meanwhile, Lynn Halsey Taylor (Sondra Locke) returns to town and plays at the local bar in an attempt to reconcile with Philo, who she betrayed in the first film. Add to this, The Black Widows, the notorious and bumbling local biker gang, plan revenge on Philo for previous misdeeds from the first film.
When circumstances lead Philo to reconcile with Lynn, She and Philo's half brother Orville (Geoffrey Lewis) find out that Jack has killed a guy in his previous fight leading no one wanting to fight him. After much pressure, Philo decides not to fight and attempts to give the money back but Scarfe and his partner James Beekman ( Harry Guardino) won't take no for an answer and have Lynn kidnapped so that Philo has no choice but to fight.
Wilson finds out about this and helps Philo get Lynn back with both of them taking down a Beekmans mob guys.. When the fight is called off again because of the under handed tactics of Scarfe and Beekman, Pride between Philo and Wilson makes them wonder who would of won the fight?
Knowing it can't end how it is, Bedo and Wilson have a wild fight through the streets of Jackson to find out, Just who is the best between them.
Clint stars as Philo Bedo a bare knuckle brawler who has decided after his last fight (Which he easily wins) Enough is enough and he no longer wants to fight as, He is getting to enjoy the pain a little too much. When he is offered $25,000 by Patrick Scarfe ( Michael Cavanaugh) to fight Jack Wilson played by B movie great William Smith, Philo finds the offer to tempting to resist and accepts. Meanwhile, Lynn Halsey Taylor (Sondra Locke) returns to town and plays at the local bar in an attempt to reconcile with Philo, who she betrayed in the first film. Add to this, The Black Widows, the notorious and bumbling local biker gang, plan revenge on Philo for previous misdeeds from the first film.
When circumstances lead Philo to reconcile with Lynn, She and Philo's half brother Orville (Geoffrey Lewis) find out that Jack has killed a guy in his previous fight leading no one wanting to fight him. After much pressure, Philo decides not to fight and attempts to give the money back but Scarfe and his partner James Beekman ( Harry Guardino) won't take no for an answer and have Lynn kidnapped so that Philo has no choice but to fight.
Wilson finds out about this and helps Philo get Lynn back with both of them taking down a Beekmans mob guys.. When the fight is called off again because of the under handed tactics of Scarfe and Beekman, Pride between Philo and Wilson makes them wonder who would of won the fight?
Knowing it can't end how it is, Bedo and Wilson have a wild fight through the streets of Jackson to find out, Just who is the best between them.
Heroes and Landmarks of British Aviation: from Airships to the Jet Age
Peter J. Edwards and Richard Edwards
Book
Heroes and Landmarks of British Aviation tells the dramatic story of a world leading aviation...
Darren (1599 KP) rated 2:HRS (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Verdict: Fun Family Film
Story: 2: Hrs starts as we meet teenage slacker Tim (Jarvis) who spends his time painting London with graffiti with his best friends Vic (Smith) and Alf (Fofana). While on the school trip to a museum, the three sneak off and interrupt a science conference being hosted by conman Groad (Allen) who has created a machine that can tell when the living object inside will die.
Tim goes in the machine only to learn that he only has 2 hours left to live, left shocked, Tim sets out a small bucket list of achievable targets and while the friends target these goals, they are being chased down by the people behind the experiment who want to research and make sure Tim dies on time.
Thoughts on 2: Hrs
Characters – Tim is a school slacker with a talent for graffiti, he has been acting out because of the death of his father, which has changed him, his friends see this and his rebellious ways puts his life in danger when he learns he only has 2 hours to leave from spending time in a machine which can perform a prediction of when someone will die. He must go through a life lesson as this film unfolds. Vic and Alf are the two supportive friends, that join him on the adventure, we don’t learn too much about them without giving away spoilers. Groad is the businessman/conman that is running the operation, he hides in his apartment with fake backdrops as he conducts meetings. He is always looking to create a good face story for any PR situation. We also have the younger sister Shona to Tim that wants to look up to him only to be left disappointed most of the time and the two bumbling idiots trying to catch the teenagers.
Performances – Harry Jarvis in the leading role does a very good job, we see how his character must change over the course of the film ad he shows us this in his performance. Ella-Rae Smith and Alhaji Fofana are both good in their supporting roles while Keith Allen gives us a good performance as the shady character we see behind the curtain about.
Story – The story follows three friends that decide to ditch a school trip and end up on there on adventure after being caught in the middle of an adventure when one of them learns they only have two hours to live. This does sound like a simple fun adventure family film, which it is, though it does have deeper meaning for Tim who must learn to life lessons in this time while dealing with his own personal tragedy after not doing so when it happened.
Family – This film keeps the films moments all around the family problems Tim is facing, it keeps everything PG even with jokes adults will understand.
Settings – The film is set around London, which is good because it shows how difficult losing a parent can be in the busy city and how easy it is to rebel.
Scene of the Movie – Poetry competition.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – That pet, what was that?
Final Thoughts – This is a family film that can be enjoyed by everyone, it has good laughs, a smart character development story and a nice adventure.
Overall: Family film for all to enjoy.
https://moviesreview101.com/2018/07/05/2-hrs-2018/
Story: 2: Hrs starts as we meet teenage slacker Tim (Jarvis) who spends his time painting London with graffiti with his best friends Vic (Smith) and Alf (Fofana). While on the school trip to a museum, the three sneak off and interrupt a science conference being hosted by conman Groad (Allen) who has created a machine that can tell when the living object inside will die.
Tim goes in the machine only to learn that he only has 2 hours left to live, left shocked, Tim sets out a small bucket list of achievable targets and while the friends target these goals, they are being chased down by the people behind the experiment who want to research and make sure Tim dies on time.
Thoughts on 2: Hrs
Characters – Tim is a school slacker with a talent for graffiti, he has been acting out because of the death of his father, which has changed him, his friends see this and his rebellious ways puts his life in danger when he learns he only has 2 hours to leave from spending time in a machine which can perform a prediction of when someone will die. He must go through a life lesson as this film unfolds. Vic and Alf are the two supportive friends, that join him on the adventure, we don’t learn too much about them without giving away spoilers. Groad is the businessman/conman that is running the operation, he hides in his apartment with fake backdrops as he conducts meetings. He is always looking to create a good face story for any PR situation. We also have the younger sister Shona to Tim that wants to look up to him only to be left disappointed most of the time and the two bumbling idiots trying to catch the teenagers.
Performances – Harry Jarvis in the leading role does a very good job, we see how his character must change over the course of the film ad he shows us this in his performance. Ella-Rae Smith and Alhaji Fofana are both good in their supporting roles while Keith Allen gives us a good performance as the shady character we see behind the curtain about.
Story – The story follows three friends that decide to ditch a school trip and end up on there on adventure after being caught in the middle of an adventure when one of them learns they only have two hours to live. This does sound like a simple fun adventure family film, which it is, though it does have deeper meaning for Tim who must learn to life lessons in this time while dealing with his own personal tragedy after not doing so when it happened.
Family – This film keeps the films moments all around the family problems Tim is facing, it keeps everything PG even with jokes adults will understand.
Settings – The film is set around London, which is good because it shows how difficult losing a parent can be in the busy city and how easy it is to rebel.
Scene of the Movie – Poetry competition.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – That pet, what was that?
Final Thoughts – This is a family film that can be enjoyed by everyone, it has good laughs, a smart character development story and a nice adventure.
Overall: Family film for all to enjoy.
https://moviesreview101.com/2018/07/05/2-hrs-2018/
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Last Night in Soho (2021) in Movies
Oct 15, 2021
I was on the fence about this one. On the one hand, Edgar Wright, on the other, a cast that didn’t inspire confidence. But, if nothing else, it was going to be a spectacle.
Eloise dreams of being a fashion designer, and when she gets accepted to study fashion in London she thinks her dreams have come true. But London life isn’t quite what she hoped. When life in halls becomes too much, she finds herself an attic room to rent. Noisy roommates might have been the easier option when suddenly, every night, Eloise is transported to the 60s where the life of Sandie unfolds in front of her. Swept away in the glamour, the tables turn when Sandie’s life beings to twist into a new stark reality.
The start of Last Night in Soho pulled me in, the music had me, if nothing else I knew I’d be able to enjoy myself with the soundtrack. It’s a very nostalgic bit of listening for me having been brought up in a household that’s listening was a little more retro.
As the story develops, and Eloise along with it, you’re eager for answers. But that process feels drawn out and at some point it’s easy to see where it’s going to go before it’s properly alluded to, which took away some of the impact for me.
Our main character Eloise (played by Thomasin McKenzie), definitely has the right look and demeanour for this part. While in the end it’s a good performance though, I feel like the role would have been better suited to someone a little less on the nose. They've conveyed the mental health portion of the role nicely (the depiction of her mother felt a little Harry Potter but did get the point across), and she managed to encapsulate some of the terror, but again, it felt… cheesy? Maybe not the right word, but it was close to not giving it enough impact in the story, and I could see this working more on the horror side of things with some changes.
Ahh, Anya. Another from my list of people on the credits that make me go “meh”. I was sold with this performance though. I'm not fully on the Joy train, but I very much enjoyed this performance. Her attitude and behaviour the whole way through sold the character and… that’s it… really great. (So many things I want to say and so many that constitute spoilers.)
The supporting cast has some big names. Diana Rigg in her last performance gave a much needed edge to the scenes she was in. Matt Smith was cockney Matt Smith. My only particular call out would be for the character rather than the actor. The role of Eloise’s “boyfriend” was verging on problematic, both from a boyfriend and a writing point of view. A wet blanket of a character that seemed to be too close to comic relief without committing one way or the other. Even allowing for some sort of “support” for Eloise, this role could have been divvied out to a selection of other characters.
Last Night in Soho is stylish. The homely naive Eloise meeting glam forward Sandie really came together, and seeing Sandie’s influence seeping into the present day in the fashion and demeanour was interesting. The colours, the sets, the costumes, you can’t fault any of it.
Not being an expert in cinematic mastery behind the scenes, some of these things can escape me, but even I couldn’t miss the stunning editing and effects. Everything is seamless, and when you see some of those scenes I’m sure you’ll be blown away too.
On the technical side, this film is probably very close to a 5 star film, but with the character issues I had and the feeling that there was something missing from the ending, I’m even now not sure what my score for Last Night in Soho is going to be...
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/10/last-night-in-soho-movie-review.html
Eloise dreams of being a fashion designer, and when she gets accepted to study fashion in London she thinks her dreams have come true. But London life isn’t quite what she hoped. When life in halls becomes too much, she finds herself an attic room to rent. Noisy roommates might have been the easier option when suddenly, every night, Eloise is transported to the 60s where the life of Sandie unfolds in front of her. Swept away in the glamour, the tables turn when Sandie’s life beings to twist into a new stark reality.
The start of Last Night in Soho pulled me in, the music had me, if nothing else I knew I’d be able to enjoy myself with the soundtrack. It’s a very nostalgic bit of listening for me having been brought up in a household that’s listening was a little more retro.
As the story develops, and Eloise along with it, you’re eager for answers. But that process feels drawn out and at some point it’s easy to see where it’s going to go before it’s properly alluded to, which took away some of the impact for me.
Our main character Eloise (played by Thomasin McKenzie), definitely has the right look and demeanour for this part. While in the end it’s a good performance though, I feel like the role would have been better suited to someone a little less on the nose. They've conveyed the mental health portion of the role nicely (the depiction of her mother felt a little Harry Potter but did get the point across), and she managed to encapsulate some of the terror, but again, it felt… cheesy? Maybe not the right word, but it was close to not giving it enough impact in the story, and I could see this working more on the horror side of things with some changes.
Ahh, Anya. Another from my list of people on the credits that make me go “meh”. I was sold with this performance though. I'm not fully on the Joy train, but I very much enjoyed this performance. Her attitude and behaviour the whole way through sold the character and… that’s it… really great. (So many things I want to say and so many that constitute spoilers.)
The supporting cast has some big names. Diana Rigg in her last performance gave a much needed edge to the scenes she was in. Matt Smith was cockney Matt Smith. My only particular call out would be for the character rather than the actor. The role of Eloise’s “boyfriend” was verging on problematic, both from a boyfriend and a writing point of view. A wet blanket of a character that seemed to be too close to comic relief without committing one way or the other. Even allowing for some sort of “support” for Eloise, this role could have been divvied out to a selection of other characters.
Last Night in Soho is stylish. The homely naive Eloise meeting glam forward Sandie really came together, and seeing Sandie’s influence seeping into the present day in the fashion and demeanour was interesting. The colours, the sets, the costumes, you can’t fault any of it.
Not being an expert in cinematic mastery behind the scenes, some of these things can escape me, but even I couldn’t miss the stunning editing and effects. Everything is seamless, and when you see some of those scenes I’m sure you’ll be blown away too.
On the technical side, this film is probably very close to a 5 star film, but with the character issues I had and the feeling that there was something missing from the ending, I’m even now not sure what my score for Last Night in Soho is going to be...
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/10/last-night-in-soho-movie-review.html
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Pokémon: Detective Pikachu (2019) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Totally Onix-pected
Before we begin, I must apologise for the bad pun, but if any franchise deserves a pun for their first live-action movie adaptation, it’s Pokémon. Growing up in 90s Britain, Pokémon was absolutely everywhere. You couldn’t turn a street corner without seeing Pikachu and his sidekick Ash (or should that be the other way around) emblazoned across every toy shop window or on every bus. It was a true phenomenon that took the world by storm like nothing else.
Fast forward to 2019 and perhaps even more impressively, Pokémon is still very much in people’s consciousness. The adorable Pocket Monsters, if we are referring to them with their full title, are still something of a cultural mainstay across the globe – yet true global box-office success has eluded them.
Enter Pokémon: Detective Pikachu. The first live-action movie from the universally loved series. It’s taken over 20 years to get to this point, but is the resulting film worth the wait? Or are we looking at yet another video game to move adaptation dud?
Ace detective Harry Goodman goes mysteriously missing, prompting his 21-year-old son, Tim (Justice Smith), to find out what happened. Aiding in the investigation is Harry’s former Pokémon partner, wise-cracking, adorable super-sleuth Detective Pikachu (Ryan Reynolds). Finding that they are uniquely equipped to work together, as Tim is the only human who can talk with Pikachu, they join forces to unravel the tangled mystery.
It was a peculiar choice for Warner Bros. and The Pokémon Company to adapt one of the lesser known video games in the franchise in which a talking Pikachu helps a young man solve the mystery of his missing father, but it ended up being a master stroke.
For those not familiar with Pokémon Red, Blue, Yellow etc, the film needs no introduction and no prerequisite of Pokémon knowledge, meaning it’s suitable for Pokémon fans and Pokémon novices.
What the movie does need however, is complete immersion. The central setting of Ryme City is a thriving metropolis in which Pocket Monster and human live alongside each other, free from the battles that brought the franchise universal success. It’s a bold move, putting aside what is essentially the main money-making aspect of the series, but it works well for the most part.
The creature designs are astounding, bringing these historically cartoon animals living and breathing into the 21stCentury
Director Rob Letterman (Goosebumps) creates a vibrant world that is as immersive as anything we’ve seen on the big screen in years. You feel a part of the adventure and to be frank, it took me back to my first experiences with the trading cards and the Gameboy games.
With charm, wit and heart on its side, Pokemon: Detective Pikachu is by far the best video game movie, although that’s not saying much. Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom’s Justice Smith plays the lead role of Tim with gusto and true emotion and his character arc throughout the film is pleasingly well-written for a film in the genre. Bill Nighy adds some class to proceedings as wealthy businessman Howard Clifford and Ken Watanabe pops up now and then as a detective inspector.
But the main star is of course, Detective Pikachu himself. Ryan Reynolds takes to the role like a Magikarp to water and brings a little of his Deadpool magnetism to the portrayal. It shouldn’t work, but it really does and the humorous little mouse is a delight to spend the film with.
The cinematography too is lovely. John Mathieson, who worked on Robin Hood with Ridley Scott and X-Men: First Class brings to life stunning locations, filled with mystery and magic – and that’s everything you could ask for in a Pokémon movie. The special effects are on the whole, very good. With a reported budget of $150million, you can see where the money has been spent. The creature designs are astounding, bringing these historically cartoon animals living and breathing into the 21stCentury. There are a couple of lapses here and there, but nothing to write home about.
It’s not all good news. The plot is both predictable and nonsensical at the same time, especially towards the film’s climax. The thrill here is definitely not in the story but rather in the exceptional world the film-makers have built. Rumour has it that a sequel is already on the cards, and with a confidently filmed, funny and emotive first outing, the Pokémon franchise continues to be in good health.
Your move Sonic.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/05/10/pokemon-detective-pikachu-review-totally-onix-pected/
Fast forward to 2019 and perhaps even more impressively, Pokémon is still very much in people’s consciousness. The adorable Pocket Monsters, if we are referring to them with their full title, are still something of a cultural mainstay across the globe – yet true global box-office success has eluded them.
Enter Pokémon: Detective Pikachu. The first live-action movie from the universally loved series. It’s taken over 20 years to get to this point, but is the resulting film worth the wait? Or are we looking at yet another video game to move adaptation dud?
Ace detective Harry Goodman goes mysteriously missing, prompting his 21-year-old son, Tim (Justice Smith), to find out what happened. Aiding in the investigation is Harry’s former Pokémon partner, wise-cracking, adorable super-sleuth Detective Pikachu (Ryan Reynolds). Finding that they are uniquely equipped to work together, as Tim is the only human who can talk with Pikachu, they join forces to unravel the tangled mystery.
It was a peculiar choice for Warner Bros. and The Pokémon Company to adapt one of the lesser known video games in the franchise in which a talking Pikachu helps a young man solve the mystery of his missing father, but it ended up being a master stroke.
For those not familiar with Pokémon Red, Blue, Yellow etc, the film needs no introduction and no prerequisite of Pokémon knowledge, meaning it’s suitable for Pokémon fans and Pokémon novices.
What the movie does need however, is complete immersion. The central setting of Ryme City is a thriving metropolis in which Pocket Monster and human live alongside each other, free from the battles that brought the franchise universal success. It’s a bold move, putting aside what is essentially the main money-making aspect of the series, but it works well for the most part.
The creature designs are astounding, bringing these historically cartoon animals living and breathing into the 21stCentury
Director Rob Letterman (Goosebumps) creates a vibrant world that is as immersive as anything we’ve seen on the big screen in years. You feel a part of the adventure and to be frank, it took me back to my first experiences with the trading cards and the Gameboy games.
With charm, wit and heart on its side, Pokemon: Detective Pikachu is by far the best video game movie, although that’s not saying much. Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom’s Justice Smith plays the lead role of Tim with gusto and true emotion and his character arc throughout the film is pleasingly well-written for a film in the genre. Bill Nighy adds some class to proceedings as wealthy businessman Howard Clifford and Ken Watanabe pops up now and then as a detective inspector.
But the main star is of course, Detective Pikachu himself. Ryan Reynolds takes to the role like a Magikarp to water and brings a little of his Deadpool magnetism to the portrayal. It shouldn’t work, but it really does and the humorous little mouse is a delight to spend the film with.
The cinematography too is lovely. John Mathieson, who worked on Robin Hood with Ridley Scott and X-Men: First Class brings to life stunning locations, filled with mystery and magic – and that’s everything you could ask for in a Pokémon movie. The special effects are on the whole, very good. With a reported budget of $150million, you can see where the money has been spent. The creature designs are astounding, bringing these historically cartoon animals living and breathing into the 21stCentury. There are a couple of lapses here and there, but nothing to write home about.
It’s not all good news. The plot is both predictable and nonsensical at the same time, especially towards the film’s climax. The thrill here is definitely not in the story but rather in the exceptional world the film-makers have built. Rumour has it that a sequel is already on the cards, and with a confidently filmed, funny and emotive first outing, the Pokémon franchise continues to be in good health.
Your move Sonic.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/05/10/pokemon-detective-pikachu-review-totally-onix-pected/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Huntsman: Winter's War (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Hemsworth and Chastain Disappoint
Snow White & the Huntsman was a film that garnered much more attention than it deserved, purely because of the goings on behind the scenes between Twilight starlet, Kristen Stewart and director Rupert Sanders. The film itself was a hollow take on the classic fairy-tale that lacked the magic and sparkle of Disney’s wonderful animation.
It’s fair to say then that it never really deserved any kind of follow up, despite a charismatic performance from the wonderful Charlize Theron. Nevertheless, Universal Studios approved another film soon after its release. But is The Huntsman: Winter’s War better than what came before it?
Taking place before and directly alongside the events of its predecessor, Winter’s War follows Emily Blunt’s Ice Queen, Freya, as she struggles to come to terms with the death of her baby. She becomes so consumed by rage and guilt that she banishes herself to an ice castle, much like Elsa from Frozen, training an army of kidnapped children to pass her time.
Chris Hemsworth and Jessica Chastain star as two of these warriors, taken from their families at a young age and taught how to fight and how to block out any feelings of love – as per the Queen’s orders. Naturally, this becomes increasingly difficult and provides the film with its romantic subplot.
Unfortunately, the usually excellent Hemsworth and former Oscar-winner Chastain have next-to-no chemistry and their truly dreadful Celtic accents stop the film dead in its tracks. It’s a shame that Winter’s War relies so heavily on these two when Emily Blunt and a sorely underused Charlize Theron are much, much better.
So much better in fact that the screen comes alive whenever they are on screen, whether that is together or flying solo. Blunt suffers slightly due to the nature of her role, after all, she is known to be a bubbly and happy-go-lucky person, but her Ice Queen is mesmerising and heart-breaking to watch nonetheless.
Theron steals the show yet again, despite her lack of screen time and as she did in its predecessor, lifts Winter’s War well above its average plot and dialogue. Elsewhere, British favourite Sheridan Smith is a pleasant comedic break as a foul-mouthed dwarf.
The cinematography is on the whole very good, with pleasant landscapes, reminiscent of Harry Potter dotted alongside CGI castles, polar bears and goblins. The use of practical effects by first-time director Cedric Nicolas-Troyan is also a pleasure to see in this day and age.
Alas, the plot and dialogue of Winter’s War leaves much to be desired and the lack of screen time for Blunt and Theron hampers what could have been an interesting and unique backstory for this particular duo of films.
Overall, The Huntsman: Winter’s War is an average film hampered further by its two leading stars. Fortunately, the inclusion of Blunt and Theron manages to lift it slightly above the standard of its predecessor, but not by enough for it to warrant another follow up. However, the signposts throughout the 115 minute running time confess a sequel is more than likely.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/04/07/hemsworth-and-chastain-disappoint-the-huntsman-review/
It’s fair to say then that it never really deserved any kind of follow up, despite a charismatic performance from the wonderful Charlize Theron. Nevertheless, Universal Studios approved another film soon after its release. But is The Huntsman: Winter’s War better than what came before it?
Taking place before and directly alongside the events of its predecessor, Winter’s War follows Emily Blunt’s Ice Queen, Freya, as she struggles to come to terms with the death of her baby. She becomes so consumed by rage and guilt that she banishes herself to an ice castle, much like Elsa from Frozen, training an army of kidnapped children to pass her time.
Chris Hemsworth and Jessica Chastain star as two of these warriors, taken from their families at a young age and taught how to fight and how to block out any feelings of love – as per the Queen’s orders. Naturally, this becomes increasingly difficult and provides the film with its romantic subplot.
Unfortunately, the usually excellent Hemsworth and former Oscar-winner Chastain have next-to-no chemistry and their truly dreadful Celtic accents stop the film dead in its tracks. It’s a shame that Winter’s War relies so heavily on these two when Emily Blunt and a sorely underused Charlize Theron are much, much better.
So much better in fact that the screen comes alive whenever they are on screen, whether that is together or flying solo. Blunt suffers slightly due to the nature of her role, after all, she is known to be a bubbly and happy-go-lucky person, but her Ice Queen is mesmerising and heart-breaking to watch nonetheless.
Theron steals the show yet again, despite her lack of screen time and as she did in its predecessor, lifts Winter’s War well above its average plot and dialogue. Elsewhere, British favourite Sheridan Smith is a pleasant comedic break as a foul-mouthed dwarf.
The cinematography is on the whole very good, with pleasant landscapes, reminiscent of Harry Potter dotted alongside CGI castles, polar bears and goblins. The use of practical effects by first-time director Cedric Nicolas-Troyan is also a pleasure to see in this day and age.
Alas, the plot and dialogue of Winter’s War leaves much to be desired and the lack of screen time for Blunt and Theron hampers what could have been an interesting and unique backstory for this particular duo of films.
Overall, The Huntsman: Winter’s War is an average film hampered further by its two leading stars. Fortunately, the inclusion of Blunt and Theron manages to lift it slightly above the standard of its predecessor, but not by enough for it to warrant another follow up. However, the signposts throughout the 115 minute running time confess a sequel is more than likely.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/04/07/hemsworth-and-chastain-disappoint-the-huntsman-review/
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Pokémon: Detective Pikachu (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
The answer to the above is "yes" by the way... it's always yes.
When Tim gets to Ryme City and finds Pikachu, who was presumed dead along with his father, a mystery presents itself. Where is Harry Goodman? And why can Tim understand Pikachu? With an accidental encounter with a substance called R, and a reporter/intern sniffing around for a story, the sleuthing duo realise there's something bigger going on.
This really is a kids' version of Deadpool. I was even abbreviating "DP" in my notes.
I don't quite know where to start. My knowledge of Pokémon is very limited and as such, it hadn't occurred to me that Pokémon don't generally speak English. Had I remembered that fact then I probably would have guessed the ending very quickly. (Also, there's a point on this that is a spoiler that has since wound me up.)
It's not a great film, but it's an amusing one. I'm stumped as to who it is actually aimed at, it's not a kids films and it's not a adults film. It hovers somewhere overhead trying to get a slice of all the action. The kids were entertained but it was generally cooing at the animated characters when they appeared or laughing at physical humour. I was actually quite surprised that Pikachu's script has bad language in it considering it was a PG and always going to attract family viewers.
One of the many things that didn't fit for me was the very beginning of the film. While I love Karan Soni, I would have cut out the whole first scenes for a shorter and slightly more logical lead into the film. It felt a little forced as it's the only sighting of a Pokéball. I get it, you think Pokémon you see the ball, but with the city's introduction as a place where humans and Pokémon co-exist without battles you really didn't need to jam it in there.
Pikachu's animation was really good, particularly when we see him with wet fur. Consistency with the characters was a little hit and miss though and occasionally I felt like some scenes had missed a step compared to the rest of the film.
Generally the animation to real life interactions were good, generally. I can't get over how bad the full bar scene is that we see in the trailer. When Pikachu turns and his tail slaps Tim in the face... if you can't line it up well then why do it? I also found it very frustrating that Justice Smith never seemed to be looking at him properly, and it was more than just the ignoring him as was established earlier in the scene.
Kathryn Newton as Lucy Stevens... Now, I know there is always someone hyperactive in these things, but oh my. She also seemed a little surplus to requirements. Her only real purpose seemed to be as an awkward (sort of) love interest. Everything she brought to the story could easily have been achieved in other more relevant ways.
My absolute favourite part of the film is again, something that was slightly covered in a trailer, but the whole cut is wonderful if a little extreme if you over think it. Tim, Pikachu and Mr Mime. The interrogation scene is so funny... slightly sinister at the end but fun. I won't go on anymore because I don't want to spoil it for you.
I genuinely don't know how much the acting in this actually affects the overall film. Had you replaced any of the on-screen actors then you probably would have come out with the same film, without Ryan Reynolds, I'm not so sure.
As I said at the beginning, I don't know a massive about Pokémon, but even to me it doesn't seem like it matches with the franchise, perhaps that's the point. Will there be another? I don't know, but I suspect there's scope for it even though [SPOILER].
What you should do
It's amusing and I'm sure it'll be on for a while so perhaps see it when the hype has passed.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Well obviously I want a Pokémon, but do I want a Pikachu or a Growlithe?
When Tim gets to Ryme City and finds Pikachu, who was presumed dead along with his father, a mystery presents itself. Where is Harry Goodman? And why can Tim understand Pikachu? With an accidental encounter with a substance called R, and a reporter/intern sniffing around for a story, the sleuthing duo realise there's something bigger going on.
This really is a kids' version of Deadpool. I was even abbreviating "DP" in my notes.
I don't quite know where to start. My knowledge of Pokémon is very limited and as such, it hadn't occurred to me that Pokémon don't generally speak English. Had I remembered that fact then I probably would have guessed the ending very quickly. (Also, there's a point on this that is a spoiler that has since wound me up.)
It's not a great film, but it's an amusing one. I'm stumped as to who it is actually aimed at, it's not a kids films and it's not a adults film. It hovers somewhere overhead trying to get a slice of all the action. The kids were entertained but it was generally cooing at the animated characters when they appeared or laughing at physical humour. I was actually quite surprised that Pikachu's script has bad language in it considering it was a PG and always going to attract family viewers.
One of the many things that didn't fit for me was the very beginning of the film. While I love Karan Soni, I would have cut out the whole first scenes for a shorter and slightly more logical lead into the film. It felt a little forced as it's the only sighting of a Pokéball. I get it, you think Pokémon you see the ball, but with the city's introduction as a place where humans and Pokémon co-exist without battles you really didn't need to jam it in there.
Pikachu's animation was really good, particularly when we see him with wet fur. Consistency with the characters was a little hit and miss though and occasionally I felt like some scenes had missed a step compared to the rest of the film.
Generally the animation to real life interactions were good, generally. I can't get over how bad the full bar scene is that we see in the trailer. When Pikachu turns and his tail slaps Tim in the face... if you can't line it up well then why do it? I also found it very frustrating that Justice Smith never seemed to be looking at him properly, and it was more than just the ignoring him as was established earlier in the scene.
Kathryn Newton as Lucy Stevens... Now, I know there is always someone hyperactive in these things, but oh my. She also seemed a little surplus to requirements. Her only real purpose seemed to be as an awkward (sort of) love interest. Everything she brought to the story could easily have been achieved in other more relevant ways.
My absolute favourite part of the film is again, something that was slightly covered in a trailer, but the whole cut is wonderful if a little extreme if you over think it. Tim, Pikachu and Mr Mime. The interrogation scene is so funny... slightly sinister at the end but fun. I won't go on anymore because I don't want to spoil it for you.
I genuinely don't know how much the acting in this actually affects the overall film. Had you replaced any of the on-screen actors then you probably would have come out with the same film, without Ryan Reynolds, I'm not so sure.
As I said at the beginning, I don't know a massive about Pokémon, but even to me it doesn't seem like it matches with the franchise, perhaps that's the point. Will there be another? I don't know, but I suspect there's scope for it even though [SPOILER].
What you should do
It's amusing and I'm sure it'll be on for a while so perhaps see it when the hype has passed.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Well obviously I want a Pokémon, but do I want a Pikachu or a Growlithe?
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Viceroy's House (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
The 80:20 Rule.
India, 1947. Churchill’s government has sent Lord Grantham – – sorry — Lord Louis Mountbatten of Burma (Hugh Bonneville, “The Monuments Men“) as the new Viceroy. His mission is to make sure he is the last ever Viceroy, for India is to be returned to independence. But racial tensions between the Hindu and minority Muslim populations are brittle and deteriorating fast. Can India survive as a single country, or will Mountbatten be forced to partition the country along religious lines to avoid civil-war and countless deaths?
Of course, there is little tension in this plot line since we know Pakistan was indeed founded by Muhammad Ali Jinnah (played by Denzil Smith) on August 14th 1947. (In reality, Jinnah’s victory was short lived as he died of TB the following year). The rest of India went on to be ruled by Jawaharlal Nehru (played by Tanveer Ghani). What the film does remind this generation of is the extreme cost of that partition, with riots, mass abductions and rapes, over a million estimated deaths and one of the biggest migrations of populations ever seen. (All of this is largely shown through original newsreel footage, which is effectively inter-weaved with the film).
So as an educational documentary it is useful. However, as an entertaining movie night out? Not so much. After coming out of the film we needed to buy some milk at Tesco and I was put on the spot by the checkout lady to sum-up the film: “Worthy but dull” was what I came up with, which with further time to reflect still seems a good summary.
This shouldn’t have been the case, since the film is directed by the well-respected Gurinder Chadha (“Bend it like Beckham) and boasts a stellar cast, with Bonneville supported by Gillian Anderson (“The X Files”) as Lady Mountbatten; Michael Gambon (“Harry Potter”) as General Ismay (Mountbatten’s chief of staff); Simon Callow (“Four Weddings and a Funeral”) as Radcliffe (the drawer of ‘the new map’); and Om Puri (“The Hundred Foot Journey“) as former political prisoner Ali Rahim Noor. Playing Mountbatten’s daughter is Lily Travers (“Kingsman: The Secret Service“): Virginia McKenna’s granddaughter.
But unfortunately, for me at least, the film lumbers from scene to scene, seldom engaging with me. Bonneville’s Mountbatten, whilst perfectly sound, was just a re-tread of Downton with added humidity and curry; Anderson’s (probably extremely accurate) crystal-glass English accent quickly becomes tiresome; and elsewhere a lot of the acting of the broader Indian cast is, I’m sorry to comment, rather sub-par. For me, only Om Puri, who sadly died in January, delivers an effective and moving performance as the blind father (literally) unable to see that the arranged marriage for his daughter Aalia (Huma Qureshi) is heading for trouble thanks to Mountbatten’s man-servant. And no, that isn’t a euphemism…. I’m talking about his real manservant, Jeet Kumar (Manish Dayal)!!
As an aside, the late Puri (probably most famous in western cinema for “East is East”) has made over 270 feature films in his prolific career, over and above his many appearances on Indian TV. And he still has another 6 films to be released! May he rest in peace.
Probably realising that the historical plot is not enough to sustain the film, the screenwriters Paul Mayeda Berges (“Bend it like Beckham”), Moira Buffini (“Tamara Drewe”) and Gurinder Chadha try to add more substance with the illicit romance between the Hindu Jeet and the Muslim Aalia. Unfortunately this is clunky at best, with an incessant 30 minutes-worth of longing looks before anything of substance happens. Even the “Lion“-style denouement (also with a railway train connection) is unconvincing.
After that, the film just tends to peter out, with a ‘real-life photograph’ segue delivering a rather tenuous connection between a character not even featured in the film and the director!
Mrs. Chadha has clearly corralled an army of extras to deliver some of the scenes in the film, in the hope of delivering a historical epic of the scale of Attenborough’s “Gandhi”. For me, she misses by a considerable margin. But that’s just my view….. if you like historical dramas, its a film you might enjoy: as the great man himself said “Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress”.
Of course, there is little tension in this plot line since we know Pakistan was indeed founded by Muhammad Ali Jinnah (played by Denzil Smith) on August 14th 1947. (In reality, Jinnah’s victory was short lived as he died of TB the following year). The rest of India went on to be ruled by Jawaharlal Nehru (played by Tanveer Ghani). What the film does remind this generation of is the extreme cost of that partition, with riots, mass abductions and rapes, over a million estimated deaths and one of the biggest migrations of populations ever seen. (All of this is largely shown through original newsreel footage, which is effectively inter-weaved with the film).
So as an educational documentary it is useful. However, as an entertaining movie night out? Not so much. After coming out of the film we needed to buy some milk at Tesco and I was put on the spot by the checkout lady to sum-up the film: “Worthy but dull” was what I came up with, which with further time to reflect still seems a good summary.
This shouldn’t have been the case, since the film is directed by the well-respected Gurinder Chadha (“Bend it like Beckham) and boasts a stellar cast, with Bonneville supported by Gillian Anderson (“The X Files”) as Lady Mountbatten; Michael Gambon (“Harry Potter”) as General Ismay (Mountbatten’s chief of staff); Simon Callow (“Four Weddings and a Funeral”) as Radcliffe (the drawer of ‘the new map’); and Om Puri (“The Hundred Foot Journey“) as former political prisoner Ali Rahim Noor. Playing Mountbatten’s daughter is Lily Travers (“Kingsman: The Secret Service“): Virginia McKenna’s granddaughter.
But unfortunately, for me at least, the film lumbers from scene to scene, seldom engaging with me. Bonneville’s Mountbatten, whilst perfectly sound, was just a re-tread of Downton with added humidity and curry; Anderson’s (probably extremely accurate) crystal-glass English accent quickly becomes tiresome; and elsewhere a lot of the acting of the broader Indian cast is, I’m sorry to comment, rather sub-par. For me, only Om Puri, who sadly died in January, delivers an effective and moving performance as the blind father (literally) unable to see that the arranged marriage for his daughter Aalia (Huma Qureshi) is heading for trouble thanks to Mountbatten’s man-servant. And no, that isn’t a euphemism…. I’m talking about his real manservant, Jeet Kumar (Manish Dayal)!!
As an aside, the late Puri (probably most famous in western cinema for “East is East”) has made over 270 feature films in his prolific career, over and above his many appearances on Indian TV. And he still has another 6 films to be released! May he rest in peace.
Probably realising that the historical plot is not enough to sustain the film, the screenwriters Paul Mayeda Berges (“Bend it like Beckham”), Moira Buffini (“Tamara Drewe”) and Gurinder Chadha try to add more substance with the illicit romance between the Hindu Jeet and the Muslim Aalia. Unfortunately this is clunky at best, with an incessant 30 minutes-worth of longing looks before anything of substance happens. Even the “Lion“-style denouement (also with a railway train connection) is unconvincing.
After that, the film just tends to peter out, with a ‘real-life photograph’ segue delivering a rather tenuous connection between a character not even featured in the film and the director!
Mrs. Chadha has clearly corralled an army of extras to deliver some of the scenes in the film, in the hope of delivering a historical epic of the scale of Attenborough’s “Gandhi”. For me, she misses by a considerable margin. But that’s just my view….. if you like historical dramas, its a film you might enjoy: as the great man himself said “Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress”.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Aladdin (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
Oh. My. This was always going to be a tough one for me, and I've been thinking long and hard about how on earth I was going to review this. I love the original, anyone who even remotely enjoys it would be able to sing you at least one of the songs, and therein lies one of the problems. Would I have had a different opinion about some of the elements had I not seen the original so many times? After a lot of contemplating I think the answer in most cases is no.
Note: I went to see this for a second time so I'm going to edit what I previously wrote up as I go because on second viewing it was better. Once the initial shock and annoyance had passed after seeing it the first time it was much easier to watch for the second time.
Remaking something that's peak Disney has so many issues, recasting roles, changing social views and cultural sensitivities, are probably the biggest ones.
Let's talk about the (blue) elephant in the room... although I guess that phrase isn't really accurate as we all want to talk about it. Oh Genie, my Genie. I don't think anyone would have been able to fill that lamp the way Robin Williams did, he was larger than life and brought such a sense of fun whenever he did roles like this. The man is a comedic legend. Recasting this was always going to be difficult, and honestly, I don't know if there's anyone I would have been happy with taking over the mantle.
When I found out that Will Smith was on board I wasn't completely put off. On paper he's got everything you'd need for this role. He had one of two choices, stick to the original faithfully or take it your own way. I just don't think Smith actually had a choice though, he was going to have to do a reinterpretation of the role, but how could you ever follow Williams?
The thing I'm most surprised about with Genie is just how bad the CGI is. It's not like this is something Disney are unfamiliar with. Why did some of it even need to be CGId? I obviously don't know the ins and outs of these techniques or options, but if people can make Robbie Coltrane look larger than life in Harry Potter without mucking it up then why aren't they smurfing Will Smith up and doing the same?
Casting across the rest of the film wasn't such an epic task, Mena Massoud as Aladdin and Navid Negahban as the Sultan hit exactly the right spot. I had issues with Jafar, that's nothing to do with Marwan Kenzari's acting which was very good, but it was the fact that in my head Jafar should have been older. (Dream casting: Ben Kingsley.) I'm sure I won't be popular saying this but I didn't really like Naomi Scott as Jasmine, I don't think she brought enough sass to the role, I also felt that some of the new inclusions into the film around Jasmine negatively affected my view of her.
By far and away my favourite from the live action cast was Nasim Pedrad as Dalia, Jasmine's lady in waiting. I don't know why they felt the need to bring this character in, but I'm really glad they did. She's funny and a welcome break in some scenes. She completely outshines Jasmine as almost every point in the film... actually, I retract the word "almost". While I might not be happy about part of her character's story (ask me for the spoilers) she was definitely the best added extra in the film.
Our group of sidekicks, Abu, Iago, Rajah and Carpet all come out with varying degrees of success. Abu wasn't entirely lucky with the CGI and didn't get such a fun part as before. Iago was much more bird-like than previously which meant less actual talking so I have to wonder why they hired Alan Tudyk if they weren't going to use him properly. Rajah while less quizzical than in the original was entertaining and luckily wasn't mutilated by the CGI. Carpet though, I loved Carpet. He was super cute and absolutely adorable with Abu.
I'm not going to go over every change they made to the original, but one tweak particularly bugged me. They change the way that Aladdin gets out of the cave of wonders. The verbal trickery that Aladdin uses in the original is gone and they switch it out for a much more deceitful moment. The idea isn't as clever as its predecessor and also means that later in the film when Aladdin tricks Jafar you don't get that same connection, watching Genie working out what was going on was painful viewing.
I can't really put off talking about the songs anymore.
As trailers and sneak peeks appeared online I became increasingly nervous about the songs. Prince Ali seemed to be less upbeat than before, and while the sequence looked like it had potential all of it together didn't feel as vibrant. I appreciate that they tried to keep all those little Genie added extra in but it felt like they went with a "safe" option.
I enjoy Will Smith's singing, but I'm not a fan of it in this. I don't think the change in style is suited to these songs. I've seen people saying about how he's rapping in it... but I wouldn't have identified it as rapping. If anything it felt like they went "you should get some rapping in there, but we're Disney so tone it down... a lot."
We get a new offering on the soundtrack in the shape of Speechless, Jasmine's empowering song. I like the song, it certainly has the Disney vibe, and Scott sings it beautifully... but it didn't give me those goosebumps that I expect from power songs. I probably would have given the song a pass had it not been for the way it was included in the film. The frozen scenes with Jasmine dramatically moving in and out of the cast and set... ugh... that just didn't work for me.
Massoud had originally given me so much hope for the music when I heard One Jump Ahead at the beginning. It was excellent, and throughout the film I loved his singing.
Here's where my opinion changed a bit after my second visit... the songs weren't all as bad as I'd felt after the first viewing. I still didn't enjoy Genie's offering, but Aladdin and Jasmine both felt like an excellent choice. The main thing that didn't change was the fact that I didn't feel the songs fit well into the scenes. Part of the draw of Disney is the toe-tapping singalong vibe you get from the music, and there was a lack of pizzaz in most of the sequences that left my toes untapped.
I could probably go on for a very long time about this film. (I already have.) Ultimately, I don't think it's an improvement on the original, I don't think these modern rehashes really add a lot when you have to adjust for the modern culture. I'm not saying that you shouldn't take the changing times into consideration, I just think you should do it in a way that doesn't just come across as trying to score points with the audience to prove how "with it" you are. I also don't think that coming up with 30 minutes of extra footage is ever a sensible idea. If that's what you want to do then perhaps you need to really mix things up and come up with a whole new concept for the story.
What you should do
You're either a Disney nut or you're not. Personally, I would recommend staying at home and having a binge of old Disney classics, starting with the one true Genie.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Could I get Genie powers without the itty-bitty living space?
Note: I went to see this for a second time so I'm going to edit what I previously wrote up as I go because on second viewing it was better. Once the initial shock and annoyance had passed after seeing it the first time it was much easier to watch for the second time.
Remaking something that's peak Disney has so many issues, recasting roles, changing social views and cultural sensitivities, are probably the biggest ones.
Let's talk about the (blue) elephant in the room... although I guess that phrase isn't really accurate as we all want to talk about it. Oh Genie, my Genie. I don't think anyone would have been able to fill that lamp the way Robin Williams did, he was larger than life and brought such a sense of fun whenever he did roles like this. The man is a comedic legend. Recasting this was always going to be difficult, and honestly, I don't know if there's anyone I would have been happy with taking over the mantle.
When I found out that Will Smith was on board I wasn't completely put off. On paper he's got everything you'd need for this role. He had one of two choices, stick to the original faithfully or take it your own way. I just don't think Smith actually had a choice though, he was going to have to do a reinterpretation of the role, but how could you ever follow Williams?
The thing I'm most surprised about with Genie is just how bad the CGI is. It's not like this is something Disney are unfamiliar with. Why did some of it even need to be CGId? I obviously don't know the ins and outs of these techniques or options, but if people can make Robbie Coltrane look larger than life in Harry Potter without mucking it up then why aren't they smurfing Will Smith up and doing the same?
Casting across the rest of the film wasn't such an epic task, Mena Massoud as Aladdin and Navid Negahban as the Sultan hit exactly the right spot. I had issues with Jafar, that's nothing to do with Marwan Kenzari's acting which was very good, but it was the fact that in my head Jafar should have been older. (Dream casting: Ben Kingsley.) I'm sure I won't be popular saying this but I didn't really like Naomi Scott as Jasmine, I don't think she brought enough sass to the role, I also felt that some of the new inclusions into the film around Jasmine negatively affected my view of her.
By far and away my favourite from the live action cast was Nasim Pedrad as Dalia, Jasmine's lady in waiting. I don't know why they felt the need to bring this character in, but I'm really glad they did. She's funny and a welcome break in some scenes. She completely outshines Jasmine as almost every point in the film... actually, I retract the word "almost". While I might not be happy about part of her character's story (ask me for the spoilers) she was definitely the best added extra in the film.
Our group of sidekicks, Abu, Iago, Rajah and Carpet all come out with varying degrees of success. Abu wasn't entirely lucky with the CGI and didn't get such a fun part as before. Iago was much more bird-like than previously which meant less actual talking so I have to wonder why they hired Alan Tudyk if they weren't going to use him properly. Rajah while less quizzical than in the original was entertaining and luckily wasn't mutilated by the CGI. Carpet though, I loved Carpet. He was super cute and absolutely adorable with Abu.
I'm not going to go over every change they made to the original, but one tweak particularly bugged me. They change the way that Aladdin gets out of the cave of wonders. The verbal trickery that Aladdin uses in the original is gone and they switch it out for a much more deceitful moment. The idea isn't as clever as its predecessor and also means that later in the film when Aladdin tricks Jafar you don't get that same connection, watching Genie working out what was going on was painful viewing.
I can't really put off talking about the songs anymore.
As trailers and sneak peeks appeared online I became increasingly nervous about the songs. Prince Ali seemed to be less upbeat than before, and while the sequence looked like it had potential all of it together didn't feel as vibrant. I appreciate that they tried to keep all those little Genie added extra in but it felt like they went with a "safe" option.
I enjoy Will Smith's singing, but I'm not a fan of it in this. I don't think the change in style is suited to these songs. I've seen people saying about how he's rapping in it... but I wouldn't have identified it as rapping. If anything it felt like they went "you should get some rapping in there, but we're Disney so tone it down... a lot."
We get a new offering on the soundtrack in the shape of Speechless, Jasmine's empowering song. I like the song, it certainly has the Disney vibe, and Scott sings it beautifully... but it didn't give me those goosebumps that I expect from power songs. I probably would have given the song a pass had it not been for the way it was included in the film. The frozen scenes with Jasmine dramatically moving in and out of the cast and set... ugh... that just didn't work for me.
Massoud had originally given me so much hope for the music when I heard One Jump Ahead at the beginning. It was excellent, and throughout the film I loved his singing.
Here's where my opinion changed a bit after my second visit... the songs weren't all as bad as I'd felt after the first viewing. I still didn't enjoy Genie's offering, but Aladdin and Jasmine both felt like an excellent choice. The main thing that didn't change was the fact that I didn't feel the songs fit well into the scenes. Part of the draw of Disney is the toe-tapping singalong vibe you get from the music, and there was a lack of pizzaz in most of the sequences that left my toes untapped.
I could probably go on for a very long time about this film. (I already have.) Ultimately, I don't think it's an improvement on the original, I don't think these modern rehashes really add a lot when you have to adjust for the modern culture. I'm not saying that you shouldn't take the changing times into consideration, I just think you should do it in a way that doesn't just come across as trying to score points with the audience to prove how "with it" you are. I also don't think that coming up with 30 minutes of extra footage is ever a sensible idea. If that's what you want to do then perhaps you need to really mix things up and come up with a whole new concept for the story.
What you should do
You're either a Disney nut or you're not. Personally, I would recommend staying at home and having a binge of old Disney classics, starting with the one true Genie.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Could I get Genie powers without the itty-bitty living space?
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Their Finest (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Keep Calm and Carry on Writing.
In a well-mined category, “Their Finest” is a World War 2 comedy/drama telling a tale I haven’t seen told before: the story behind the British Ministry of Information and their drive to produce propaganda films that support morale and promote positive messages in a time of national crisis. For it is 1940 and London is under nightly attack by the Luftwaffe during the time known as “The Blitz”. Unfortunately the Ministry is run by a bunch of toffs, and their output is laughably misaligned with the working class population, and especially the female population: with their husbands fighting overseas, these two groups are fast becoming one and the same. For women are finding and enjoying new empowerment and freedom in being socially unshackled from the kitchen sink.
The brave crew of the Nancy Starling. Bill Nighy as Uncle Frank, with twins Lily and Francesca Knight as the Starling sisters.
Enter Catrin Cole (Gemma Arterton, “The Girl with all the Gifts“) who is one such woman arriving to a dangerous London from South Wales to live with struggling disabled artist Ellis (Jack Huston, grandson of John Huston). Catrin, stretching the truth a little, brings a stirring ‘true’ tale of derring-do about the Dunkirk evacuation to the Ministry’s attention. She is then employed to “write the slop” (the woman’s dialogue) in the writing team headed by spiky Tom Buckley (Sam Claflin, “Me Before You“).
One of the stars of the film within the film is ‘Uncle Frank’ played by the aging but charismatic actor Ambrose Hilliard (Bill Nighy, “Dad’s Army“, “Love Actually”). Catrin proves her worth by pouring oil on troubled waters as the army insist on the introduction of an American airman (Jake Lacy, “Carol“) to the stressful mix. An attraction builds between Catrin and Tom, but how will the love triangle resolve itself? (For a significant clue see the “Spoiler Section” below the trailer, but be warned that this is a major spoiler!).
As you might expect if you’ve seen the trailer the film is, in the main, warm and funny with Gemma Arterton just gorgeously huggable as the determined young lady trying to make it in a misogynistic 40’s world of work. Arterton is just the perfect “girl next door”: (sigh… if I was only 20 years younger and unattached!) But mixed in with the humour and the romantic storyline is a harsh sprinkling of the trials of war and not a little heartbreak occurs. This is at least a 5 tissue movie.
Claflin, who is having a strong year with appearances in a wide range of films, is also eminently watchable. One of his best scenes is a speech with Arterton about “why people love the movies”, a theory that the film merrily and memorably drives a stake through the heart of!
Elsewhere Lacy is hilarious as the hapless airman with zero acting ability; Helen McCrory (“Harry Potter”) as Sophie Smith vamps it up wonderfully as the potential Polish love interest for Hilliard; Richard E Grant (“Logan“) and Jeremy Irons (“The Lion King”, “Die Hard: with a Vengeance”) pop up in useful cameos and Eddie Marsan (“Sherlock Holmes”) is also touching as Hilliard’s long-suffering agent.
But it is Bill Nighy’s Hilliard who carries most of the wit and humour of the film with his pompous thespian persona, basking in the dwindling glory of a much loved series of “Inspector Lynley” films. With his pomposity progressively warming under the thawing effect of Sophie and Catrin, you have to love him! Bill Nighy is, well, Bill Nighy. Hugh Grant gets it (unfairly) in the neck for “being Hugh Grant” in every film, but this pales in comparison with Nighy’s performances! But who cares: his kooky delivery is just delightful and he is a national treasure!
Slightly less convincing for me was Rachael Stirling’s role as a butch ministry busybody with more than a hint of the lesbian about her. Stirling’s performance in the role is fine, but would this really have been so blatant in 1940’s Britain? This didn’t really ring true for me.
While the film gamely tries to pull off London in the Blitz the film’s limited budget (around £25m) makes everything feel a little underpowered and ’empty’: a few hundred more extras in the Underground/Blitz scenes for example would have helped no end. However, the special effects crew do their best and the cinematography by Sebastian Blenkov (“The Riot Club”) suitably conveys the mood: a scene where Catrin gets caught in a bomb blast outside a clothes shop is particularly moving.
As with all comedy dramas, sometimes the bedfellows lie uncomfortably with each other, and a couple of plot twists: one highly predictable; one shockingly unpredictable make this a non-linear watch. This rollercoaster of a script by Gaby Chiappe, in an excellent feature film debut (she actually also has a cameo in the propaganda “carrot film”!), undeniably adds interest and makes the film more memorable. However (I know from personal experience) that the twist did not please everyone in the audience!
Despite its occasionally uneven tone, this is a really enjoyable watch (particularly for more mature audiences) and Danish director Lone Scherfig finally has a vehicle that matches the quality of her much praised Carey Mulligan vehicle “An Education”.
The brave crew of the Nancy Starling. Bill Nighy as Uncle Frank, with twins Lily and Francesca Knight as the Starling sisters.
Enter Catrin Cole (Gemma Arterton, “The Girl with all the Gifts“) who is one such woman arriving to a dangerous London from South Wales to live with struggling disabled artist Ellis (Jack Huston, grandson of John Huston). Catrin, stretching the truth a little, brings a stirring ‘true’ tale of derring-do about the Dunkirk evacuation to the Ministry’s attention. She is then employed to “write the slop” (the woman’s dialogue) in the writing team headed by spiky Tom Buckley (Sam Claflin, “Me Before You“).
One of the stars of the film within the film is ‘Uncle Frank’ played by the aging but charismatic actor Ambrose Hilliard (Bill Nighy, “Dad’s Army“, “Love Actually”). Catrin proves her worth by pouring oil on troubled waters as the army insist on the introduction of an American airman (Jake Lacy, “Carol“) to the stressful mix. An attraction builds between Catrin and Tom, but how will the love triangle resolve itself? (For a significant clue see the “Spoiler Section” below the trailer, but be warned that this is a major spoiler!).
As you might expect if you’ve seen the trailer the film is, in the main, warm and funny with Gemma Arterton just gorgeously huggable as the determined young lady trying to make it in a misogynistic 40’s world of work. Arterton is just the perfect “girl next door”: (sigh… if I was only 20 years younger and unattached!) But mixed in with the humour and the romantic storyline is a harsh sprinkling of the trials of war and not a little heartbreak occurs. This is at least a 5 tissue movie.
Claflin, who is having a strong year with appearances in a wide range of films, is also eminently watchable. One of his best scenes is a speech with Arterton about “why people love the movies”, a theory that the film merrily and memorably drives a stake through the heart of!
Elsewhere Lacy is hilarious as the hapless airman with zero acting ability; Helen McCrory (“Harry Potter”) as Sophie Smith vamps it up wonderfully as the potential Polish love interest for Hilliard; Richard E Grant (“Logan“) and Jeremy Irons (“The Lion King”, “Die Hard: with a Vengeance”) pop up in useful cameos and Eddie Marsan (“Sherlock Holmes”) is also touching as Hilliard’s long-suffering agent.
But it is Bill Nighy’s Hilliard who carries most of the wit and humour of the film with his pompous thespian persona, basking in the dwindling glory of a much loved series of “Inspector Lynley” films. With his pomposity progressively warming under the thawing effect of Sophie and Catrin, you have to love him! Bill Nighy is, well, Bill Nighy. Hugh Grant gets it (unfairly) in the neck for “being Hugh Grant” in every film, but this pales in comparison with Nighy’s performances! But who cares: his kooky delivery is just delightful and he is a national treasure!
Slightly less convincing for me was Rachael Stirling’s role as a butch ministry busybody with more than a hint of the lesbian about her. Stirling’s performance in the role is fine, but would this really have been so blatant in 1940’s Britain? This didn’t really ring true for me.
While the film gamely tries to pull off London in the Blitz the film’s limited budget (around £25m) makes everything feel a little underpowered and ’empty’: a few hundred more extras in the Underground/Blitz scenes for example would have helped no end. However, the special effects crew do their best and the cinematography by Sebastian Blenkov (“The Riot Club”) suitably conveys the mood: a scene where Catrin gets caught in a bomb blast outside a clothes shop is particularly moving.
As with all comedy dramas, sometimes the bedfellows lie uncomfortably with each other, and a couple of plot twists: one highly predictable; one shockingly unpredictable make this a non-linear watch. This rollercoaster of a script by Gaby Chiappe, in an excellent feature film debut (she actually also has a cameo in the propaganda “carrot film”!), undeniably adds interest and makes the film more memorable. However (I know from personal experience) that the twist did not please everyone in the audience!
Despite its occasionally uneven tone, this is a really enjoyable watch (particularly for more mature audiences) and Danish director Lone Scherfig finally has a vehicle that matches the quality of her much praised Carey Mulligan vehicle “An Education”.