Search
Search results
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Fighting with My Family (2019) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
A biopic that’s not just for wrestling fans
Let me make something clear before I dive into my review: I don’t like wrestling. Actually, I hate wrestling. I could barely name another wrestler aside from The Rock and John Cena, so at a glance this film really isn’t marketed towards me. But when we go a little deeper, it becomes clear that this is an incredibly accessible film with a powerful message.
Fighting With My Family tells the story of Norwich-born Saraya “Paige” Bevis. Brought up in a family of wrestlers, Bevis spent her life wrestling alongside her parents, brother and the local community, drawing in small crowds on a regular basis. The family has dreams of making WWE and becoming professional wrestlers, even going as far as sending audition tapes to the company. When Saraya and her brother Zak “Zodiac” are called for an official audition, the family’s lives change for better and for worse.
With an all-star cast including The Rock (obviously), Vince Vaughn, Nick Frost, Lena Headey and Florence Pugh, it’s an incredibly appealing film. Everyone involved takes to their roles effortlessly, bringing all the charm and quirks of the characters to life. It’s so easy to like the Knight family, as they come across as a strange yet passionate family who’d do everything in their power to support the community around them. It’s refreshing to see a depiction of working-class life that doesn’t make the audience sneer or judge. I found myself rooting for the Knights all the way, and wishing them all the best. Pugh embodies Paige so well, to the point where it was easy to believe you were watching the woman herself. She’s so awkward, British and hugely likeable throughout.
I was also surprised to learn that Stephen Merchant (yes, that Stephen Merchant) was at the helm of this film. I adored his direction style and hilarious cameo, making this an unlikely project that worked like a charm. Based off the documentary of the same name, Merchant brings his own unique vision to the project, with the legendary Dwayne Johnson helping out as an an executive producer. It feels like an unlikely duo, but it seriously works.
Fighting With My Family has classic British humour and a familiar grittiness to it, reminding me why I adore British cinema so much. There are clear tonal shifts between the UK and US, emphasising the cultural differences and how out of her depth Bevis felt at first. This is where a lot of the humour comes into play too, as a pale, pierced Norwich girl sticks out like a sore thumb amongst blonde, bronzed models. As Saraya steps into the world of WWE with the ring name “Paige”, she has to face numerous obstacles that are both mentally and physically challenging. As it happens, her identity is one of them, and she soon becomes an outcast.
Yes, this film is about one girl’s rise to the top of the WWE ranks, but it’s also so much more than that. It’s about family, class divide, jealousy, among others. I particularly enjoyed the dynamic between Saraya and Zak, as there’s a clear case of sibling rivalry here. Whilst Saraya succeeds, Zak is dealing with a whole host of personal issues whilst wallowing in his own sadness. This is jealousy on a massive scale, causing a rift between the siblings, and in turn, the rest of the family.
I loved the overall message that the film delivers: that it’s important to always be true to yourself, and do what makes you great. Whether that’s big or small, you can make an impact. This is something that Zak eventually learns whilst he’s feeling jealous of his sister’s success. The familial bond is so strong in this film, and it’s a truly beautiful thing to witness. They might be slightly bonkers, dysfunctional and off the wall, but they’d do anything to support each other. Isn’t that wonderful?
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2019/03/21/a-biopic-thats-not-just-for-wrestling-fans-my-thoughts-on-fighting-with-my-family/
Fighting With My Family tells the story of Norwich-born Saraya “Paige” Bevis. Brought up in a family of wrestlers, Bevis spent her life wrestling alongside her parents, brother and the local community, drawing in small crowds on a regular basis. The family has dreams of making WWE and becoming professional wrestlers, even going as far as sending audition tapes to the company. When Saraya and her brother Zak “Zodiac” are called for an official audition, the family’s lives change for better and for worse.
With an all-star cast including The Rock (obviously), Vince Vaughn, Nick Frost, Lena Headey and Florence Pugh, it’s an incredibly appealing film. Everyone involved takes to their roles effortlessly, bringing all the charm and quirks of the characters to life. It’s so easy to like the Knight family, as they come across as a strange yet passionate family who’d do everything in their power to support the community around them. It’s refreshing to see a depiction of working-class life that doesn’t make the audience sneer or judge. I found myself rooting for the Knights all the way, and wishing them all the best. Pugh embodies Paige so well, to the point where it was easy to believe you were watching the woman herself. She’s so awkward, British and hugely likeable throughout.
I was also surprised to learn that Stephen Merchant (yes, that Stephen Merchant) was at the helm of this film. I adored his direction style and hilarious cameo, making this an unlikely project that worked like a charm. Based off the documentary of the same name, Merchant brings his own unique vision to the project, with the legendary Dwayne Johnson helping out as an an executive producer. It feels like an unlikely duo, but it seriously works.
Fighting With My Family has classic British humour and a familiar grittiness to it, reminding me why I adore British cinema so much. There are clear tonal shifts between the UK and US, emphasising the cultural differences and how out of her depth Bevis felt at first. This is where a lot of the humour comes into play too, as a pale, pierced Norwich girl sticks out like a sore thumb amongst blonde, bronzed models. As Saraya steps into the world of WWE with the ring name “Paige”, she has to face numerous obstacles that are both mentally and physically challenging. As it happens, her identity is one of them, and she soon becomes an outcast.
Yes, this film is about one girl’s rise to the top of the WWE ranks, but it’s also so much more than that. It’s about family, class divide, jealousy, among others. I particularly enjoyed the dynamic between Saraya and Zak, as there’s a clear case of sibling rivalry here. Whilst Saraya succeeds, Zak is dealing with a whole host of personal issues whilst wallowing in his own sadness. This is jealousy on a massive scale, causing a rift between the siblings, and in turn, the rest of the family.
I loved the overall message that the film delivers: that it’s important to always be true to yourself, and do what makes you great. Whether that’s big or small, you can make an impact. This is something that Zak eventually learns whilst he’s feeling jealous of his sister’s success. The familial bond is so strong in this film, and it’s a truly beautiful thing to witness. They might be slightly bonkers, dysfunctional and off the wall, but they’d do anything to support each other. Isn’t that wonderful?
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2019/03/21/a-biopic-thats-not-just-for-wrestling-fans-my-thoughts-on-fighting-with-my-family/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Zombieland: Double Tap (2019) in Movies
Oct 24, 2019
Ten years is a long time in Hollywood. Ten years ago, to this day Avatar was yet to be released to the unsuspecting masses, with Titanic still reigning supreme over the global box-office and debutant director Ruben Fleischer surprised the cinema-going public with Zombieland.
Made on a tiny budget of just over $20million, it went on to gross over $100million globally and received unanimous praise. A sequel was widely expected in the years that followed but never materialised. That’s probably down to a few things; one being Emma Stone’s meteoric rise to fame, Jesse Eisenberg starring in some of the biggest and most celebrated films of the decade that followed and Woody Harrelson, well, being Woody Harrelson (that’s not a dig, we love you Woody).
Fleischer meanwhile went on to direct 30 Minutes or Less, Gangster Squad and Venom among a couple of other projects. The time for a Zombieland sequel came and went with the film’s core fanbase hoping that one day they’d get what they desired.
That day is now here with the release of Zombieland: Double Tap. With a cast of returning characters and the original director at the helm, things certainly look promising from a technical point of view, but has the ship sailed on getting this franchise off the ground?
Zombie slayers Tallahassee (Harrelson), Columbus (Eisenberg), Wichita (Stone), and Little Rock (Abigail Breslin) square off against a newly evolved strain of the undead as well as combatting their own personal demons in an effort to survive the ongoing zombie apocalypse.
Despite the popularity of the film’s actors since its predecessor, it’s nice to see all of the lead cast slot back into their roles seamlessly. Granted they’re a little older than we last remember them, and a little wiser too, but these characters still retain the charm and humour that made the last movie such a success.
Harrelson remains the standout and that’s mainly down to a nicely written script, penned by Rhett Reese, Paul Wernick and Dave Callaham. Between them they’ve worked on films like Gareth Edwards’ Godzilla, Ant-Man, Deadpool and its sequel and Life. That’s a pretty impressive roster of films it has to be said.
Eisenberg and Stone are also nicely written with a good character arc that means we get to see opposing sides to their roles. Unfortunately, Breslin is underused throughout, reduced to a part that feels much more like a support role. Of the new characters introduced, Rosario Dawson and Zoey Deutch are thinly written but reasonably entertaining.
The movie makes a big deal out of introducing some new breeds of zombie flesh-eaters, but doesn’t really do anything with them
Thankfully, the script remains a real highlight over the brisk 99-minute run-time with some genuine hilarity. The screenplay’s attempts at emotion work reasonably well but fall flat on a couple of occasions – the basis of the previous film was its humour and no surprises, this is where the sequel excels.
It’s a nice film to look at too. While some of the landscapes look a little too artificial, the sweeping shots of desolate buildings and roads add a sense of scale that was sometimes lacking last time around. The opening sequence inside the White House is great to watch and sets up the rest of the film well.
Zombieland: Double Tap works best when our band of characters is bouncing off each other and it’s a good job as the zombie action is fleeting. Some action pieces are well choregraphed but for a film about the world being overrun by the undead, there’s a distinct lack of them. The movie makes a big deal out of introducing some new breeds of zombie flesh-eaters, but doesn’t really do anything with them until the final act and that’s a bit of a shame.
Nevertheless, Zombieland: Double Tap remains easy-to-watch and likeable throughout with a cracking cast of characters. Unfortunately, the world has moved on from 2009 and zombie films, TV shows and books are ten-a-penny nowadays (something nicely referenced at the beginning of the film) and while Zombieland 2 does an awful lot right, in the end it’s a decent sequel to a great film, and nothing more than that.
Stick around for a post-credits sequence that follows on from the predecessors “greatest cameo ever”.
Made on a tiny budget of just over $20million, it went on to gross over $100million globally and received unanimous praise. A sequel was widely expected in the years that followed but never materialised. That’s probably down to a few things; one being Emma Stone’s meteoric rise to fame, Jesse Eisenberg starring in some of the biggest and most celebrated films of the decade that followed and Woody Harrelson, well, being Woody Harrelson (that’s not a dig, we love you Woody).
Fleischer meanwhile went on to direct 30 Minutes or Less, Gangster Squad and Venom among a couple of other projects. The time for a Zombieland sequel came and went with the film’s core fanbase hoping that one day they’d get what they desired.
That day is now here with the release of Zombieland: Double Tap. With a cast of returning characters and the original director at the helm, things certainly look promising from a technical point of view, but has the ship sailed on getting this franchise off the ground?
Zombie slayers Tallahassee (Harrelson), Columbus (Eisenberg), Wichita (Stone), and Little Rock (Abigail Breslin) square off against a newly evolved strain of the undead as well as combatting their own personal demons in an effort to survive the ongoing zombie apocalypse.
Despite the popularity of the film’s actors since its predecessor, it’s nice to see all of the lead cast slot back into their roles seamlessly. Granted they’re a little older than we last remember them, and a little wiser too, but these characters still retain the charm and humour that made the last movie such a success.
Harrelson remains the standout and that’s mainly down to a nicely written script, penned by Rhett Reese, Paul Wernick and Dave Callaham. Between them they’ve worked on films like Gareth Edwards’ Godzilla, Ant-Man, Deadpool and its sequel and Life. That’s a pretty impressive roster of films it has to be said.
Eisenberg and Stone are also nicely written with a good character arc that means we get to see opposing sides to their roles. Unfortunately, Breslin is underused throughout, reduced to a part that feels much more like a support role. Of the new characters introduced, Rosario Dawson and Zoey Deutch are thinly written but reasonably entertaining.
The movie makes a big deal out of introducing some new breeds of zombie flesh-eaters, but doesn’t really do anything with them
Thankfully, the script remains a real highlight over the brisk 99-minute run-time with some genuine hilarity. The screenplay’s attempts at emotion work reasonably well but fall flat on a couple of occasions – the basis of the previous film was its humour and no surprises, this is where the sequel excels.
It’s a nice film to look at too. While some of the landscapes look a little too artificial, the sweeping shots of desolate buildings and roads add a sense of scale that was sometimes lacking last time around. The opening sequence inside the White House is great to watch and sets up the rest of the film well.
Zombieland: Double Tap works best when our band of characters is bouncing off each other and it’s a good job as the zombie action is fleeting. Some action pieces are well choregraphed but for a film about the world being overrun by the undead, there’s a distinct lack of them. The movie makes a big deal out of introducing some new breeds of zombie flesh-eaters, but doesn’t really do anything with them until the final act and that’s a bit of a shame.
Nevertheless, Zombieland: Double Tap remains easy-to-watch and likeable throughout with a cracking cast of characters. Unfortunately, the world has moved on from 2009 and zombie films, TV shows and books are ten-a-penny nowadays (something nicely referenced at the beginning of the film) and while Zombieland 2 does an awful lot right, in the end it’s a decent sequel to a great film, and nothing more than that.
Stick around for a post-credits sequence that follows on from the predecessors “greatest cameo ever”.
The Secret Diary of Hendrik Groen, 83 Years Old
Hendrik Groen and Hester Velmans
8.7
Rate It
Book
** THE INTERNATIONAL PHENOMENON ** 'There are many laughs in this book but it's so much more than...
Sarah (7798 KP) rated WandaVision in TV
Mar 7, 2021
A welcome return to the MCU
WandaVision is the latest Marvel series to hit the small screen, arriving in a flood of hype as the first official series to tie in with the rest of the MCU. Initially I hadn’t been interested in this after struggling to enjoy previous series, however after discovering that everyone I know was watching this, FOMO and the fact that we haven’t had a new MCU release since Phase 3 wrapped up with 2019’s Spider-Man: Far From Home, has prompted me to give this a go. And I’m rather glad I did.
WandaVision is set not long after the events of Endgame, and follows Wanda Maximoff (Elizabeth Olsen) and Vision (Paul Bettany) as they live an idyllic suburban life in the small town of Westview. However all is not as it seems; Wanda and Vision appear to be starring in their own 1950s style sitcom, as a odd couple with superpowers trying to blend in with the neighbours, including nosy Agnes (Kathryn Hahn) and committee leader Dotty (Emma Caulfield). Strange things soon start happening, and as Wanda and Vision become increasingly confused and suspicious about their new life, outside of Westfield agent Jimmy Woo (Randall Park), Dr Darcy Lewis (Kat Dennings) and Captain Monica Rambeau (Teyonah Parris) are also trying to figure out what’s going on.
Setting WandaVision in the style of various popular sitcoms from the 1950s onwards is a genius move. BeWitched, I Love Lucy, Malcolm in the Middle and Modern Family to name but a few of the obvious influences on show here, and this changing sitcom style really works and blends very well with the super powered action we know and love from the MCU. I’ll admit that I’m not a massive fan of sitcoms in general and my knowledge of older ones pre-1990 is limited at best, however even I could appreciate the love and care that has gone in to crafting this. It looks amazing and feels so authentic, from everything to the set design, costumes and change in aspect ratio.
It is of course helped by the stellar performances by Elizabeth Olsen. In the MCU so far Wanda has been rather sidelined and Olsen has been given little chance to shine. However she is undoubtedly the star of WandaVision and has been given ample opportunity to show off her versatility and talents, and she certainly does. We see a side of Wanda we’ve never seen before and Olsen’s ability to transform into each decade’s sitcom character is brilliant to watch. It’s a shame then that Bettany’s Vision doesn’t quite match up. No matter the decade, Vision never really seems to change much and while he is funny on occasion, I’m not entirely convinced that seeing more of Vision is a good thing. He’s always been the aloof synthezoid and this may have made him a little too ‘human’. However that said, it was still nice to see a lot more of Bettany than we have done in a while.
Once you get over the sitcom styling, the first couple of episodes are quite slow and had it continued in this vein I may have struggling to keep interested. However in typical Marvel style, it soon picks up and immerses us into the full MCU experience I was expecting. While I don’t want to say much about the plot, from episode 3 onwards I was hooked and the story never felt drawn out, and this wasn’t just due to the short half hour episodes. Unravelling the world of WandaVision was hugely enjoyable and one particular character reappearance in episode 5 had me almost squealing in geeky happiness. The only thing WandaVision is really lacking is the humour and camaraderie that have made the rest of the MCU films into what we love best. Yes there is humour and fun, but this mostly comes from Woo and Darcy, and I think it’s noticeable that the funnier Avengers are missing.
For me, WandaVision isn’t perfect however it was still hugely enjoyable and has definitely given me a new found appreciation for Wanda as a character. And mor important of all, it’s filled a rather large Marvel shaped hole brought on by coronavirus. Bring on The Falcon and the Winter Soldier.
WandaVision is set not long after the events of Endgame, and follows Wanda Maximoff (Elizabeth Olsen) and Vision (Paul Bettany) as they live an idyllic suburban life in the small town of Westview. However all is not as it seems; Wanda and Vision appear to be starring in their own 1950s style sitcom, as a odd couple with superpowers trying to blend in with the neighbours, including nosy Agnes (Kathryn Hahn) and committee leader Dotty (Emma Caulfield). Strange things soon start happening, and as Wanda and Vision become increasingly confused and suspicious about their new life, outside of Westfield agent Jimmy Woo (Randall Park), Dr Darcy Lewis (Kat Dennings) and Captain Monica Rambeau (Teyonah Parris) are also trying to figure out what’s going on.
Setting WandaVision in the style of various popular sitcoms from the 1950s onwards is a genius move. BeWitched, I Love Lucy, Malcolm in the Middle and Modern Family to name but a few of the obvious influences on show here, and this changing sitcom style really works and blends very well with the super powered action we know and love from the MCU. I’ll admit that I’m not a massive fan of sitcoms in general and my knowledge of older ones pre-1990 is limited at best, however even I could appreciate the love and care that has gone in to crafting this. It looks amazing and feels so authentic, from everything to the set design, costumes and change in aspect ratio.
It is of course helped by the stellar performances by Elizabeth Olsen. In the MCU so far Wanda has been rather sidelined and Olsen has been given little chance to shine. However she is undoubtedly the star of WandaVision and has been given ample opportunity to show off her versatility and talents, and she certainly does. We see a side of Wanda we’ve never seen before and Olsen’s ability to transform into each decade’s sitcom character is brilliant to watch. It’s a shame then that Bettany’s Vision doesn’t quite match up. No matter the decade, Vision never really seems to change much and while he is funny on occasion, I’m not entirely convinced that seeing more of Vision is a good thing. He’s always been the aloof synthezoid and this may have made him a little too ‘human’. However that said, it was still nice to see a lot more of Bettany than we have done in a while.
Once you get over the sitcom styling, the first couple of episodes are quite slow and had it continued in this vein I may have struggling to keep interested. However in typical Marvel style, it soon picks up and immerses us into the full MCU experience I was expecting. While I don’t want to say much about the plot, from episode 3 onwards I was hooked and the story never felt drawn out, and this wasn’t just due to the short half hour episodes. Unravelling the world of WandaVision was hugely enjoyable and one particular character reappearance in episode 5 had me almost squealing in geeky happiness. The only thing WandaVision is really lacking is the humour and camaraderie that have made the rest of the MCU films into what we love best. Yes there is humour and fun, but this mostly comes from Woo and Darcy, and I think it’s noticeable that the funnier Avengers are missing.
For me, WandaVision isn’t perfect however it was still hugely enjoyable and has definitely given me a new found appreciation for Wanda as a character. And mor important of all, it’s filled a rather large Marvel shaped hole brought on by coronavirus. Bring on The Falcon and the Winter Soldier.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Truth Seekers - Season 1 in TV
Nov 8, 2020
Enjoyably British
Truth Seekers is the latest collaboration from Nick Frost and Simon Pegg, and centres around employees of a network services provider who run a YouTube channel as amateur paranormal investigators.
The series follows Gus Roberts (Nick Frost), the top installation engineer for network provider Smyle. He lives with his dad (Malcolm McDowell) and investigates paranormal activities in his spare time, running his own YouTube channel as ‘The Truth Seeker’. His boss Dave (Simon Pegg) pairs Gus with a new employee Elton John (Samson Kayo), and Truth Seekers follows the pair as they increasingly encounter paranormal and mysterious entities as they go about their daily work, including a haunted young woman called Astrid (Emma D’Arcy).
Truth Seekers starts off as a case by episode series, with a new spooky encounter every time (think Supernatural but very British) and then mid-way works into a bigger overall plot involving Julian Barratt’s Dr Peter Toynbee that seems to tie all the earlier elements together. As a supernatural horror show, this works really well. It doesn’t rely on typical jump scares, and instead uses well known horror situations to be as creepy as possible. Admittedly this is a tad cliched – think of all the known supernatural experiences you’d expect to see (psychiatric hospitals, hotels, demons and satanic books to name a few) and you’ll definitely find them here. However this doesn’t matter as they’re done well and in such a smart, creepy and very British way. Even the special effects are impressive for something that looks like it should be fairly low budget.
Whilst this is made out to be a horror comedy, it’s the comedy side that appears to be a little lacking. Don’t get me wrong, this has its’s funny and witty moments and seems to relish all of the pop culture references it throws in at every opportunity, however it doesn’t seem quite as edgy and quick witted as Frost and Pegg’s previous collaborations. Frost delivers his usual deadpan style well and is ably supported by Samson Kayo’s Elton as his rather adorable and unwitting partner. The standout though is unsurprisingly Malcolm McDowell as Gus’ dad Richard. Right from the first episode McDowell shines and is an absolute riot. Every scene he’s in gives rise to so many laughs and in particular there’s one scene featuring him going upstairs on a stair lift so slowly that nearly had me crying with laughter. But despite this the humour is maybe a little lacking from what we’d expect. I also felt like some of the pop culture references were a little forced and unnatural, which is a shame as there were also a lot that worked quite well – nods to Aliens and The Shawshank Redemption were particularly appreciated.
Truth Seekers may be lacking a little in humour, but what is there is adeptly delivered by a rather stellar cast. Pegg takes a backseat as boss Dave with an atrocious hairpiece and there are some small roles for Kelly MacDonald, Susie Wokoma and Julian Barratt, but everyone puts in a great performance no matter the screen time. McDowell undoubtedly steals the show, but the main trio of Frost, Kayo and D’Arcy carry the show well between them.
What surprised me the most about Truth Seekers is how short it was. A mere eight episodes running at 30 minutes each doesn’t seem like enough – by the end of the eighth episode I was shocked to see there wasn’t any more, although the final scenes do at least set this up for a second series that will hopefully come to fruition. I was a little concerned about the main plot involving Toynbee as it did get a little convoluted towards the end, and the final scenes do nothing but add to this and hint at a much bigger story going on. This could end up being rather good, but it could also turn what is by and large a very enjoyable British supernatural series into something rather crazy and confused. Only series two will tell.
The series follows Gus Roberts (Nick Frost), the top installation engineer for network provider Smyle. He lives with his dad (Malcolm McDowell) and investigates paranormal activities in his spare time, running his own YouTube channel as ‘The Truth Seeker’. His boss Dave (Simon Pegg) pairs Gus with a new employee Elton John (Samson Kayo), and Truth Seekers follows the pair as they increasingly encounter paranormal and mysterious entities as they go about their daily work, including a haunted young woman called Astrid (Emma D’Arcy).
Truth Seekers starts off as a case by episode series, with a new spooky encounter every time (think Supernatural but very British) and then mid-way works into a bigger overall plot involving Julian Barratt’s Dr Peter Toynbee that seems to tie all the earlier elements together. As a supernatural horror show, this works really well. It doesn’t rely on typical jump scares, and instead uses well known horror situations to be as creepy as possible. Admittedly this is a tad cliched – think of all the known supernatural experiences you’d expect to see (psychiatric hospitals, hotels, demons and satanic books to name a few) and you’ll definitely find them here. However this doesn’t matter as they’re done well and in such a smart, creepy and very British way. Even the special effects are impressive for something that looks like it should be fairly low budget.
Whilst this is made out to be a horror comedy, it’s the comedy side that appears to be a little lacking. Don’t get me wrong, this has its’s funny and witty moments and seems to relish all of the pop culture references it throws in at every opportunity, however it doesn’t seem quite as edgy and quick witted as Frost and Pegg’s previous collaborations. Frost delivers his usual deadpan style well and is ably supported by Samson Kayo’s Elton as his rather adorable and unwitting partner. The standout though is unsurprisingly Malcolm McDowell as Gus’ dad Richard. Right from the first episode McDowell shines and is an absolute riot. Every scene he’s in gives rise to so many laughs and in particular there’s one scene featuring him going upstairs on a stair lift so slowly that nearly had me crying with laughter. But despite this the humour is maybe a little lacking from what we’d expect. I also felt like some of the pop culture references were a little forced and unnatural, which is a shame as there were also a lot that worked quite well – nods to Aliens and The Shawshank Redemption were particularly appreciated.
Truth Seekers may be lacking a little in humour, but what is there is adeptly delivered by a rather stellar cast. Pegg takes a backseat as boss Dave with an atrocious hairpiece and there are some small roles for Kelly MacDonald, Susie Wokoma and Julian Barratt, but everyone puts in a great performance no matter the screen time. McDowell undoubtedly steals the show, but the main trio of Frost, Kayo and D’Arcy carry the show well between them.
What surprised me the most about Truth Seekers is how short it was. A mere eight episodes running at 30 minutes each doesn’t seem like enough – by the end of the eighth episode I was shocked to see there wasn’t any more, although the final scenes do at least set this up for a second series that will hopefully come to fruition. I was a little concerned about the main plot involving Toynbee as it did get a little convoluted towards the end, and the final scenes do nothing but add to this and hint at a much bigger story going on. This could end up being rather good, but it could also turn what is by and large a very enjoyable British supernatural series into something rather crazy and confused. Only series two will tell.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Jojo Rabbit (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
Another favourite from the awards season that came with some strong acclaim from amongst friends and trusted reviewers, WWII satire Jojo Rabbit, from the likeable and unique mind of Taika Waititi, was always high on my list as a must see movie.
I have followed the Kiwi’s original output since way back, and always enjoyed his quirky sense of humour and childlike charm. Either Eagle vs Shark or The Flight of the Conchords would have been my first encounter; and by the time of Hunt for the Wilderpeople and Thor: Ragnarok I had become a tentative fan. Never entirely bowled over by his style and content in the same way as, say, Wes Anderson (to whom some compare his outlook on the creative world), and never rolling around on the floor in hysterics at his naivety and comedy of manners, nevertheless, I like the guy a lot.
So when I heard he had adapted a fantasy novel about Nazi Germany from the point of view of a child, and would be playing Hitler himself, I knew instantly where he would be pitching this. The idea of it being offensive in any way was not a concern or even a thought, and anyone that did react that way is just… ridiculous and deliberately missing the point for the sake of finding something to be outraged about.
Of course subjects of genocide, political repression and evil existing in the world should and must be treated with a sensitivity to a degree, and amongst the silly lampooning and most extreme moments of satire that care is evident. There are moments of real gravity and tenderness in the mix here, thanks in large to some wonderful performances from the adult actors, notably the ever reliable Sam Rockwell and the increasingly strong and impressive Scarlett Johansson, who picked up her second Oscar nomination for this, after Marriage Story ticked the box for true drama.
The film focuses and relies on young Roman Griffin Davis as the eponymous Jojo, a happy little boy who sees goodness and light in an ever darkening world around him. Waititi as director works well with kids, placing the idea of charm and likability above acting prowess per se. And that is both the strength and ultimate weakness of this premise. He is charming and likeable, and cute and sweet and very watchable, but his inexperience in front of the camera and ability to find a range of emotions is often tested beyond his tender years, and can therefore break the magic spell that is woven in the best scenes.
The humour itself also doesn’t always hit the mark. Sometimes it is merely amusing rather than something laugh out loud funny, much as an average Mel Brooks film always was. And that can lead to a feel of something uneven and rambling, as the story struggles to find what it really wants to say. In its final moments it does land on an overlying message that leaves you with a winning impression, and you leave feeling that you saw something you enjoyed, but not something you would unreservedly recommend to everyone. In fact if someone said they didn’t enjoy it, or get the joke at all, then I would respect that view.
Under a microscope of scrutiny it doesn’t hold up that well, and I wonder how a few years of distance will treat it, once our sensibilities shift again with time. There are a few moments when the heart of the film connects with it’s silly bone and resonates, but not nearly enough. I personally wanted more of that. But, sadly, whenever JoJo threatens to grow up it retreats back into childhood and shies away from commenting on anything serious or truly meaningful. But, of course, that is not the point. As an entertainment it is a wonderful, unique and lovely film. And that should really be all that it is judged by.
In conclusion, a curiosity I will look forward to watching again, but don’t think quite makes the grade as an instant classic. It only reinforced however how much I like Rockwell and Johansson, and will always be curious about what Waititi is up to next.
I have followed the Kiwi’s original output since way back, and always enjoyed his quirky sense of humour and childlike charm. Either Eagle vs Shark or The Flight of the Conchords would have been my first encounter; and by the time of Hunt for the Wilderpeople and Thor: Ragnarok I had become a tentative fan. Never entirely bowled over by his style and content in the same way as, say, Wes Anderson (to whom some compare his outlook on the creative world), and never rolling around on the floor in hysterics at his naivety and comedy of manners, nevertheless, I like the guy a lot.
So when I heard he had adapted a fantasy novel about Nazi Germany from the point of view of a child, and would be playing Hitler himself, I knew instantly where he would be pitching this. The idea of it being offensive in any way was not a concern or even a thought, and anyone that did react that way is just… ridiculous and deliberately missing the point for the sake of finding something to be outraged about.
Of course subjects of genocide, political repression and evil existing in the world should and must be treated with a sensitivity to a degree, and amongst the silly lampooning and most extreme moments of satire that care is evident. There are moments of real gravity and tenderness in the mix here, thanks in large to some wonderful performances from the adult actors, notably the ever reliable Sam Rockwell and the increasingly strong and impressive Scarlett Johansson, who picked up her second Oscar nomination for this, after Marriage Story ticked the box for true drama.
The film focuses and relies on young Roman Griffin Davis as the eponymous Jojo, a happy little boy who sees goodness and light in an ever darkening world around him. Waititi as director works well with kids, placing the idea of charm and likability above acting prowess per se. And that is both the strength and ultimate weakness of this premise. He is charming and likeable, and cute and sweet and very watchable, but his inexperience in front of the camera and ability to find a range of emotions is often tested beyond his tender years, and can therefore break the magic spell that is woven in the best scenes.
The humour itself also doesn’t always hit the mark. Sometimes it is merely amusing rather than something laugh out loud funny, much as an average Mel Brooks film always was. And that can lead to a feel of something uneven and rambling, as the story struggles to find what it really wants to say. In its final moments it does land on an overlying message that leaves you with a winning impression, and you leave feeling that you saw something you enjoyed, but not something you would unreservedly recommend to everyone. In fact if someone said they didn’t enjoy it, or get the joke at all, then I would respect that view.
Under a microscope of scrutiny it doesn’t hold up that well, and I wonder how a few years of distance will treat it, once our sensibilities shift again with time. There are a few moments when the heart of the film connects with it’s silly bone and resonates, but not nearly enough. I personally wanted more of that. But, sadly, whenever JoJo threatens to grow up it retreats back into childhood and shies away from commenting on anything serious or truly meaningful. But, of course, that is not the point. As an entertainment it is a wonderful, unique and lovely film. And that should really be all that it is judged by.
In conclusion, a curiosity I will look forward to watching again, but don’t think quite makes the grade as an instant classic. It only reinforced however how much I like Rockwell and Johansson, and will always be curious about what Waititi is up to next.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Venom (2018) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
I went into the screen with wildly low expectations for Venom, nothing in the trailer had me on the edge of my seat. In the run up to me going there were more and more reviews appearing saying that it was bad, not that I read any of them. So many people just felt the need to put it right in the title... yes, yes, but much more obvious than mine!!
But you know what? It wasn't bad. That's not to say it was good, but it wasn't bad. I didn't laugh anywhere near as much as everyone else did, but it did have some funny bits in it. I'm sorry though, "blowing like a turd in the wind"? Not funny. Wasn't funny in the trailer, not funny in the film.
Full disclosure, I've booked to see this again. Not because I enjoyed it so much but because the people who were watching it in the screen with me were the noisiest people on the planet.
I understand that they couldn't accurately do Venom's origin story as it invilves Spider-man but I'm not sure how I felt about this version of events. Also, if a super nerd out there could help me out... I thought that Venom was the name for the combined host and symbiote, but in the film the symbiote is called Venom... which way is correct?
There are some great bits between Eddie and Venom. Venom obviously thinks Eddie is a bit of a wimp and doesn't mind pointing it out. He's embarrassed by him putting his hands up in surrender and by him being unwilling to jump out of an upper floor window. Both bring amusing exchanges.
When we see the duo fighting and evading the tac team in the early part of the film all I could think was how reminiscent of Upgrade it was when he was being controlled by Venom. I also got flashes of other Marvel offerings, specifically Hulk. Venom tossing people around by their feet, then witnessing him fight Riot gave me flashbacks of Hulk and The Abomination. The latter was a lot easier to watch than the fight between this new pair though. It was way too chaotic, and almost impossible to figure out exactly what was happening.
In general I'm not a fan of the CGI symbiotes, they look a lot more cartoony and feel slightly unfinished, like there's a layer missing to make them more realistic. I also wasn't overly keen on much of the acting, I found Tom Hardy to be lacking and didn't find Eddie Brock to be very dynamic for an investigative journalist.
The first of the credit scenes lines us up with a potential sequel with a quick appearence by Woody Harrelson as Cletus Kasady who historically was the original host for Carnage. Harrelson has grown on me immensely in recent years with his acting and it would be a shame not to see him given this serial killers' role in the Universe... but with a film that feels like it fits more in the Maguire era of Spider-man movies I personally can't see a sequel from Venom doing him justice.
The second credit scene felt a little like a cheat to me as it wasn't anything to do with the film. It was entertaining despite that though. A little lighthearted humour but it felt completely out of place, it was much more like a short you would watch before the main event. Perhaps it would have been better as a "feature length" trailer than a credit scene.
What should you do?
You should probably see it. In my opinion it doesn't compare to any of the other "super" movies, and he isn't going to become my favourite anti-hero, but it is a reasonable diversion and the humour that's there isn't that bad.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
If I could have a symbiote that won't kill be and wouldn't look so crazy then I think I'd probably see where it took me.
But you know what? It wasn't bad. That's not to say it was good, but it wasn't bad. I didn't laugh anywhere near as much as everyone else did, but it did have some funny bits in it. I'm sorry though, "blowing like a turd in the wind"? Not funny. Wasn't funny in the trailer, not funny in the film.
Full disclosure, I've booked to see this again. Not because I enjoyed it so much but because the people who were watching it in the screen with me were the noisiest people on the planet.
I understand that they couldn't accurately do Venom's origin story as it invilves Spider-man but I'm not sure how I felt about this version of events. Also, if a super nerd out there could help me out... I thought that Venom was the name for the combined host and symbiote, but in the film the symbiote is called Venom... which way is correct?
There are some great bits between Eddie and Venom. Venom obviously thinks Eddie is a bit of a wimp and doesn't mind pointing it out. He's embarrassed by him putting his hands up in surrender and by him being unwilling to jump out of an upper floor window. Both bring amusing exchanges.
When we see the duo fighting and evading the tac team in the early part of the film all I could think was how reminiscent of Upgrade it was when he was being controlled by Venom. I also got flashes of other Marvel offerings, specifically Hulk. Venom tossing people around by their feet, then witnessing him fight Riot gave me flashbacks of Hulk and The Abomination. The latter was a lot easier to watch than the fight between this new pair though. It was way too chaotic, and almost impossible to figure out exactly what was happening.
In general I'm not a fan of the CGI symbiotes, they look a lot more cartoony and feel slightly unfinished, like there's a layer missing to make them more realistic. I also wasn't overly keen on much of the acting, I found Tom Hardy to be lacking and didn't find Eddie Brock to be very dynamic for an investigative journalist.
The first of the credit scenes lines us up with a potential sequel with a quick appearence by Woody Harrelson as Cletus Kasady who historically was the original host for Carnage. Harrelson has grown on me immensely in recent years with his acting and it would be a shame not to see him given this serial killers' role in the Universe... but with a film that feels like it fits more in the Maguire era of Spider-man movies I personally can't see a sequel from Venom doing him justice.
The second credit scene felt a little like a cheat to me as it wasn't anything to do with the film. It was entertaining despite that though. A little lighthearted humour but it felt completely out of place, it was much more like a short you would watch before the main event. Perhaps it would have been better as a "feature length" trailer than a credit scene.
What should you do?
You should probably see it. In my opinion it doesn't compare to any of the other "super" movies, and he isn't going to become my favourite anti-hero, but it is a reasonable diversion and the humour that's there isn't that bad.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
If I could have a symbiote that won't kill be and wouldn't look so crazy then I think I'd probably see where it took me.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Some Like It Hot (1959) in Movies
Sep 25, 2019
The dilemma of an obsessed movie-goer is choosing what films to watch when things clash. It really wasn't a tough choice when an Unlimited Screening was announced for the same evening as Some Like It Hot. The screening was only two days before release, I could wait. It wasn't big enough to miss the chance to see this classic on the big screen.
It's been a long time since I've seen this and I'm always a little cautious about revisiting old favourites as my taste in films gradually changes. But luckily this one hadn't lost any of it's magic. It's a simple idea that's taken to the next level by a talented cast and wonderful script.
One of the reasons I think I love old movies so much is that they had a love of musical elements. I was always a fan of The Andrews Sisters, the Road movies, and of course musicals. A jazzy little number kept you buzzing and always knocked the entertainment value up a notch. This is no exception. Everyone loves some sultry Monroe be-dooping on screen.
There are lots of snippets online about the production and it give you a fantastic background. Monroe was terrible at remembering even that basic lines and they ended up writing lots of them down to hide on set, but some how that still didn't help to reduce the number of takes they needed to do. Curtis' prim and proper Josephine actually came about from him being uncomfortable dressed as a woman. Lemmon gave up being taught how to walk in heels because he wanted to look like a man wearing heels for the part. Despite it being in Monroe's contract that all her films had to be in colour they agreed to film in black and white because the make-up Curtis and Lemmon were wearing made them looking slightly green on camera... that's just some of it. It's well worth having a look around for other tidbits.
It's amazing to think that the flawless looking make-up in black and white looks completely different in colour. Let's face it, they both turn out looking pretty good dressed as women.
As a double act Curtis and Lemmon are wonderful together, both and Joe & Jerry and Josephine and Daphne. The dialogue, timing and the way they interact physically is all brilliant. One of my favourite bits is very early on when they realise the "funeral" is about to get raided. It's cool, calm and coordinated, not a beat is missed and the whole sequence puts a smile on my face.
I went to log this film on Letterboxd and noticed that I'd rated it as a four star film. Accurate, I thought to myself. But as I started to write notes for this review I realised I was sorely under appreciating it. How could I not give this five stars? Everything it does, it nails.
Being really picky, I'm not a big fan of Marilyn Monroe as an actress. I never feel that she stood up on her own, it tends to be the effort of everyone else that makes her shine better. That being said, she still has that massive impact on the screen and a naivety that needs to be there for some of the humour to work. Curtis dropping the dead pan line about water polo wouldn't have worked with any other type of character.
If I were to list the best bits of the film here I might as well just narrate you the whole movie. There are so many fun bits but one of my top ones is the engagement. That childlike glee is just so much fun that you're rooting for it to work too.
What you should do
There's no way that you should go through life without seeing Some Like It Hot. While there are a couple of moments that feel dated the humour is so good it would be a travesty to miss it.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Tough choice... Curtis' agility when climbing the front of the hotel, Lemmon's dance moves, or the ability to make a cocktail in a hot water bottle... decisions decisions!
It's been a long time since I've seen this and I'm always a little cautious about revisiting old favourites as my taste in films gradually changes. But luckily this one hadn't lost any of it's magic. It's a simple idea that's taken to the next level by a talented cast and wonderful script.
One of the reasons I think I love old movies so much is that they had a love of musical elements. I was always a fan of The Andrews Sisters, the Road movies, and of course musicals. A jazzy little number kept you buzzing and always knocked the entertainment value up a notch. This is no exception. Everyone loves some sultry Monroe be-dooping on screen.
There are lots of snippets online about the production and it give you a fantastic background. Monroe was terrible at remembering even that basic lines and they ended up writing lots of them down to hide on set, but some how that still didn't help to reduce the number of takes they needed to do. Curtis' prim and proper Josephine actually came about from him being uncomfortable dressed as a woman. Lemmon gave up being taught how to walk in heels because he wanted to look like a man wearing heels for the part. Despite it being in Monroe's contract that all her films had to be in colour they agreed to film in black and white because the make-up Curtis and Lemmon were wearing made them looking slightly green on camera... that's just some of it. It's well worth having a look around for other tidbits.
It's amazing to think that the flawless looking make-up in black and white looks completely different in colour. Let's face it, they both turn out looking pretty good dressed as women.
As a double act Curtis and Lemmon are wonderful together, both and Joe & Jerry and Josephine and Daphne. The dialogue, timing and the way they interact physically is all brilliant. One of my favourite bits is very early on when they realise the "funeral" is about to get raided. It's cool, calm and coordinated, not a beat is missed and the whole sequence puts a smile on my face.
I went to log this film on Letterboxd and noticed that I'd rated it as a four star film. Accurate, I thought to myself. But as I started to write notes for this review I realised I was sorely under appreciating it. How could I not give this five stars? Everything it does, it nails.
Being really picky, I'm not a big fan of Marilyn Monroe as an actress. I never feel that she stood up on her own, it tends to be the effort of everyone else that makes her shine better. That being said, she still has that massive impact on the screen and a naivety that needs to be there for some of the humour to work. Curtis dropping the dead pan line about water polo wouldn't have worked with any other type of character.
If I were to list the best bits of the film here I might as well just narrate you the whole movie. There are so many fun bits but one of my top ones is the engagement. That childlike glee is just so much fun that you're rooting for it to work too.
What you should do
There's no way that you should go through life without seeing Some Like It Hot. While there are a couple of moments that feel dated the humour is so good it would be a travesty to miss it.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
Tough choice... Curtis' agility when climbing the front of the hotel, Lemmon's dance moves, or the ability to make a cocktail in a hot water bottle... decisions decisions!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Long Shot (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
#Punching.
#Punching refers to an in-family joke….. my WhatsApp reply to my son when he sent me a picture of his new “Brazilian supermodel girlfriend” (she’s not). Bronwyn is now my daughter-in-law!
Similarly, the ‘out-there’ journalist Fred Flarsky (Seth Rogan) has been holding a candle for the glacial ice-queen Charlotte Field (Charlize Theron) for nearly twenty years. At the age of 16 she was his babysitter. Always with an interest in school issues, she has now risen to the dizzy heights of secretary (“of State”) to the President of the United States (Bob Odenkirk). With Charlotte getting the opportunity to run for President, fate arranges for Fred to get hired as a speechwriter on the team to help inject some necessary humour into Charlotte’s icy public persona. But in terms of romantic options, the shell-suited Fred is surely #punching isn’t he?
A rare thing.
Getting the balance right for a “romantic comedy” is a tricky job, but “Long Shot” just about gets it spot on. The comedy is sharp with a whole heap of great lines, some of which will need a second watch to catch. It’s also pleasingly politically incorrect, with US news anchors in particular being lampooned for their appallingly sexist language.
Just occasionally, the humour flips into Farrelly-levels of dubious taste (one “Mary-style” incident in particular was, for me, very funny but might test some viewer’s “ugh” button). The film also earns its UK15 certificate from the extensive array of “F” words utilized, and for some casual drug use.
Romantically, the film harks back to a classic blockbuster of 1990, but is well done and touching.
Writing and Directing
The sharp and tight screenplay was written by Dan Sterling, who wrote the internationally controversial Seth Rogen/James Franco comedy “The Interview” from 2014, and Liz Hannah, whose movie screenplay debut was the Spielberg drama “The Post“.
Behind the camera is Jonathan Levine, who previously directed the pretty awful “Snatched” from 2017 (a film I have started watching on a plane but never finished) but on the flip side he has on his bio the interesting rom-com-zombie film “Warm Bodies” and the moving cancer comedy “50:50”, also with Rogan, from 2011.
Also worthy of note in the technical department is the cinematography by Yves Bélanger (“The Mule“, “Brooklyn“, “Dallas Buyers Club“) with some lovely angles and tracking shots (a kitchen dance scene has an impressively leisurely track-away).
The Cast
Seth Rogen is a bit of an acquired taste: he’s like the US version of Johnny Vegas. Here he is suitably geeky when he needs to be, but has the range to make some of the pathos work in the inevitable “downer” scenes. Theron is absolutely gorgeous on-screen (although unlike the US anchors I OBVIOUSLY also appreciate her style and acting ability!). She really is the Grace Kelly of the modern age. She’s no stranger to comedy, having been in the other Seth (Macfarlane)’s “A Million Ways to Die in the West“. But she seems to be more comfortable with this material, and again gets the mix of comedy, romance and drama spot-on.
The strong supporting cast includes the unknown (to me) June Diane Raphael who is very effective at the cock-blocking Maggie, Charlotte’s aide; O’Shea Jackson Jr. as Fred’s buddy Lance; and Ravi Patel as the staffer Tom.
But winning the prize for the most unrecognizable cast member was Andy Serkis as the wizened old Rupert Murdoch-style media tycoon Parker Wembley: I genuinely got a shock as the titles rolled that this was him.
Final thoughts.
Although possibly causing offence to some, this is a fine example of a US comedy that delivers consistent laughs. Most of the audience chatter coming out of the screening was positive. At just over 2 hours, it breaks my “90 minute comedy” rule, but just about gets away with it. It’s not quite for me at the bar of “Game Night“, but it’s pretty close. Recommended.
#Punching refers to an in-family joke….. my WhatsApp reply to my son when he sent me a picture of his new “Brazilian supermodel girlfriend” (she’s not). Bronwyn is now my daughter-in-law!
Similarly, the ‘out-there’ journalist Fred Flarsky (Seth Rogan) has been holding a candle for the glacial ice-queen Charlotte Field (Charlize Theron) for nearly twenty years. At the age of 16 she was his babysitter. Always with an interest in school issues, she has now risen to the dizzy heights of secretary (“of State”) to the President of the United States (Bob Odenkirk). With Charlotte getting the opportunity to run for President, fate arranges for Fred to get hired as a speechwriter on the team to help inject some necessary humour into Charlotte’s icy public persona. But in terms of romantic options, the shell-suited Fred is surely #punching isn’t he?
A rare thing.
Getting the balance right for a “romantic comedy” is a tricky job, but “Long Shot” just about gets it spot on. The comedy is sharp with a whole heap of great lines, some of which will need a second watch to catch. It’s also pleasingly politically incorrect, with US news anchors in particular being lampooned for their appallingly sexist language.
Just occasionally, the humour flips into Farrelly-levels of dubious taste (one “Mary-style” incident in particular was, for me, very funny but might test some viewer’s “ugh” button). The film also earns its UK15 certificate from the extensive array of “F” words utilized, and for some casual drug use.
Romantically, the film harks back to a classic blockbuster of 1990, but is well done and touching.
Writing and Directing
The sharp and tight screenplay was written by Dan Sterling, who wrote the internationally controversial Seth Rogen/James Franco comedy “The Interview” from 2014, and Liz Hannah, whose movie screenplay debut was the Spielberg drama “The Post“.
Behind the camera is Jonathan Levine, who previously directed the pretty awful “Snatched” from 2017 (a film I have started watching on a plane but never finished) but on the flip side he has on his bio the interesting rom-com-zombie film “Warm Bodies” and the moving cancer comedy “50:50”, also with Rogan, from 2011.
Also worthy of note in the technical department is the cinematography by Yves Bélanger (“The Mule“, “Brooklyn“, “Dallas Buyers Club“) with some lovely angles and tracking shots (a kitchen dance scene has an impressively leisurely track-away).
The Cast
Seth Rogen is a bit of an acquired taste: he’s like the US version of Johnny Vegas. Here he is suitably geeky when he needs to be, but has the range to make some of the pathos work in the inevitable “downer” scenes. Theron is absolutely gorgeous on-screen (although unlike the US anchors I OBVIOUSLY also appreciate her style and acting ability!). She really is the Grace Kelly of the modern age. She’s no stranger to comedy, having been in the other Seth (Macfarlane)’s “A Million Ways to Die in the West“. But she seems to be more comfortable with this material, and again gets the mix of comedy, romance and drama spot-on.
The strong supporting cast includes the unknown (to me) June Diane Raphael who is very effective at the cock-blocking Maggie, Charlotte’s aide; O’Shea Jackson Jr. as Fred’s buddy Lance; and Ravi Patel as the staffer Tom.
But winning the prize for the most unrecognizable cast member was Andy Serkis as the wizened old Rupert Murdoch-style media tycoon Parker Wembley: I genuinely got a shock as the titles rolled that this was him.
Final thoughts.
Although possibly causing offence to some, this is a fine example of a US comedy that delivers consistent laughs. Most of the audience chatter coming out of the screening was positive. At just over 2 hours, it breaks my “90 minute comedy” rule, but just about gets away with it. It’s not quite for me at the bar of “Game Night“, but it’s pretty close. Recommended.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Coco (2017) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020 (Updated Mar 3, 2020)
As part of my project to compile a coffee table book called 21st Century cinema: 200 Unmissable Films, I have found it interesting, but not surprising, that almost 10% of the list since the year 2000 are animated features. It is an art form that Pixar and Disney especially, but many smaller studios, are excelling in, because of technological advances, and the free range of realising an imaginative vision. The trouble often is that they aren’t my first port of call anymore now I don’t have a kid around to watch them with. So it takes me some time to catch up on the good ones these days.
Also, for every good one there are several really lame ones, designed to get families into cinemas and take their money without much concession to a good script. It only takes the bad experience of a couple of those to put you off the genre as an adult. It can be hard to remember that some are made only with 6 year olds in mind. Frozen, for example. They have their place, and the phenomenon of which ones kids are drawn to is a different study altogether. For the purposes of my list, I am looking for the ones that can entertain young and older audiences at the same time. And, to date, no one has done that better than Pixar.
The benchmark, for me, remains Monsters Inc, The Incredibles and the Toy Story series. The latter especially, have a great knack of pleasing all generations. The key is always the writing. Animation styles and techniques can impress the eye, but it is always the theme, the relationships and the words that make an animated film enduring. Music also plays a big part; as does the level of humour. Both incredibly intangible arts that you can’t just buy.
I watched Coco on a Sunday morning – the perfect time to watch an animated film, by law! Chances are you will be a little hungover (I was) and susceptible to the inevitable sentimentality you are about to experience. The first thing that struck me was the colours! Embracing a Latin American cultural canvas, I don’t think I have ever seen such a vivid rainbow attacking my senses. From the naked flames of the candles, to the warm tones of the sunlight and the almost neon glow on display around the dead and the world of the afterlife, it was a visual treat I can honestly say I have never experienced before.
Oh, yes, Coco is about dying, if you didn’t know! And to say more about the genius of their approach to it, would be classed as a spoiler! The action takes place on Diá de Muertos (the day of the dead), when family members can revisit their loved ones, as long as they have been remembered. Our hero, young Miguel, loves music. But his family have banned him from listening to, or playing, it because of the shame surrounding a long dead ancestor. The magic of the day leads him to the underworld of the dead, to find out the truth and save the day.
Of course, once there, he meets all sorts of strange characters, and is lead on a fateful journey with lots of unexpected twists. Again, we won’t go into who, or why for the sake of spoilers. Suffice to say, the ideas, emotion and sense of righteousness flow, stirred up in the mix of constant moments of humour, some that land, some that don’t quite, at a pace fitting, and demanded, by young audiences. The ultimate aim being to reveal the truth behind the family story and to allow the dead to be remembered for their real worth.
On the negatives first: it is all pitched at quite a young audience, in the same way one of Pixar’s less successful films, Cars, is. Which means a lot of the humour lacks the sophistication needed to make it a classic. Also, for a film about the love and joy of music, the songs are only OK, and not especially memorable, although the Oscar winning main theme “Remember Me” serves its purpose very well in the climax. There are also one or two dips in the pacing of scenes that break the spell; surely the cornerstone rule of animated films: don’t drop the ball! Something both Wall-E and Up do at points, spoiling the overall impression of something so glorious in their best moments.
The power of Grandmas
To be more positive, we have to acknowledge the very, very high bar that Pixar set themselves. From an animation point of view, if this film had been released in 2001, we’d be in raptures about it! It is beautiful to look at! And the attention to detail is extraordinary, allowing for many re-watches, just to see the things they have put in there to largely amuse themselves. As a vision of an idea brought to life it is a consummate success! It is, essentially, so likeable. And at its heart, once again, right on the money.
It isn’t called Miguel. It isn’t called The Day of the Dead. It is called Coco. And by the end, you realise why that is important. Death is sad. Dementia is also an awful, awful thing. The strength of Coco is taking these difficult subjects and shining a meaningful light on them, that not only comments intelligently on them, but breaks the heart with the truth of it all. It takes a while to get there with this one, but the pay-off is sublime, yet again! Remember me, a simple sentiment that goes a long, long way!
As a side note, there is a controversial, but massively effective medical technique being utilised in the real world, with alzheimers sufferers, that uses music to trigger memory. It’s application and results are astonishing, for their ability to bring people “back to life”. Which, naturally, moved me immensely. To think the best moment of Coco isn’t just wish fulfilment in a sentimental world, but a real thing that can be done!
Sentimentality aside, Coco is a good film, in every sense of the word. As a parent, I would revel in the opportunity to show this to a child, for the positive conversations it might invoke. The aspects of cinema magic needed to make it an experience worth having are all there. To fault it is only to be unnecessarily picky. Better to go on the journey and enjoy it for what it is. Which, increasingly, is my mantra for watching anything. Who would not hope that someone chooses to celebrate life, with the thought “Remember Me”?
Also, for every good one there are several really lame ones, designed to get families into cinemas and take their money without much concession to a good script. It only takes the bad experience of a couple of those to put you off the genre as an adult. It can be hard to remember that some are made only with 6 year olds in mind. Frozen, for example. They have their place, and the phenomenon of which ones kids are drawn to is a different study altogether. For the purposes of my list, I am looking for the ones that can entertain young and older audiences at the same time. And, to date, no one has done that better than Pixar.
The benchmark, for me, remains Monsters Inc, The Incredibles and the Toy Story series. The latter especially, have a great knack of pleasing all generations. The key is always the writing. Animation styles and techniques can impress the eye, but it is always the theme, the relationships and the words that make an animated film enduring. Music also plays a big part; as does the level of humour. Both incredibly intangible arts that you can’t just buy.
I watched Coco on a Sunday morning – the perfect time to watch an animated film, by law! Chances are you will be a little hungover (I was) and susceptible to the inevitable sentimentality you are about to experience. The first thing that struck me was the colours! Embracing a Latin American cultural canvas, I don’t think I have ever seen such a vivid rainbow attacking my senses. From the naked flames of the candles, to the warm tones of the sunlight and the almost neon glow on display around the dead and the world of the afterlife, it was a visual treat I can honestly say I have never experienced before.
Oh, yes, Coco is about dying, if you didn’t know! And to say more about the genius of their approach to it, would be classed as a spoiler! The action takes place on Diá de Muertos (the day of the dead), when family members can revisit their loved ones, as long as they have been remembered. Our hero, young Miguel, loves music. But his family have banned him from listening to, or playing, it because of the shame surrounding a long dead ancestor. The magic of the day leads him to the underworld of the dead, to find out the truth and save the day.
Of course, once there, he meets all sorts of strange characters, and is lead on a fateful journey with lots of unexpected twists. Again, we won’t go into who, or why for the sake of spoilers. Suffice to say, the ideas, emotion and sense of righteousness flow, stirred up in the mix of constant moments of humour, some that land, some that don’t quite, at a pace fitting, and demanded, by young audiences. The ultimate aim being to reveal the truth behind the family story and to allow the dead to be remembered for their real worth.
On the negatives first: it is all pitched at quite a young audience, in the same way one of Pixar’s less successful films, Cars, is. Which means a lot of the humour lacks the sophistication needed to make it a classic. Also, for a film about the love and joy of music, the songs are only OK, and not especially memorable, although the Oscar winning main theme “Remember Me” serves its purpose very well in the climax. There are also one or two dips in the pacing of scenes that break the spell; surely the cornerstone rule of animated films: don’t drop the ball! Something both Wall-E and Up do at points, spoiling the overall impression of something so glorious in their best moments.
The power of Grandmas
To be more positive, we have to acknowledge the very, very high bar that Pixar set themselves. From an animation point of view, if this film had been released in 2001, we’d be in raptures about it! It is beautiful to look at! And the attention to detail is extraordinary, allowing for many re-watches, just to see the things they have put in there to largely amuse themselves. As a vision of an idea brought to life it is a consummate success! It is, essentially, so likeable. And at its heart, once again, right on the money.
It isn’t called Miguel. It isn’t called The Day of the Dead. It is called Coco. And by the end, you realise why that is important. Death is sad. Dementia is also an awful, awful thing. The strength of Coco is taking these difficult subjects and shining a meaningful light on them, that not only comments intelligently on them, but breaks the heart with the truth of it all. It takes a while to get there with this one, but the pay-off is sublime, yet again! Remember me, a simple sentiment that goes a long, long way!
As a side note, there is a controversial, but massively effective medical technique being utilised in the real world, with alzheimers sufferers, that uses music to trigger memory. It’s application and results are astonishing, for their ability to bring people “back to life”. Which, naturally, moved me immensely. To think the best moment of Coco isn’t just wish fulfilment in a sentimental world, but a real thing that can be done!
Sentimentality aside, Coco is a good film, in every sense of the word. As a parent, I would revel in the opportunity to show this to a child, for the positive conversations it might invoke. The aspects of cinema magic needed to make it an experience worth having are all there. To fault it is only to be unnecessarily picky. Better to go on the journey and enjoy it for what it is. Which, increasingly, is my mantra for watching anything. Who would not hope that someone chooses to celebrate life, with the thought “Remember Me”?