Search
Search results
Darren (1599 KP) rated A Walk Among the Tombstones (2014) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: A Walk Among the Tombstones starts by in 1991 we meet Matt Scudder (Neeson) a nonsense detective who while having his morning Irish coffee ends up going into a shootout. Flash forward to 1999 Matt is now a private investigator and when a former junkie Peter Kristo (Holbrook) invites him to meet his brother Kenny (Stevens) for a job. Kenny’s wife was kidnapped with the ransom paid and murdered; he wants Matt to bring him the names of the people responsible. Matt rejects the offer wisely because it would involving working with a drug trafficker but Kenny won’t take no for an answer.
Kenny tales the story of what happened and how gruesome the murder was, this brings Matt into the case to track down the people responsible. Using all his skills he starts the investigation by questioning the locals. The killers prove to be professionals who cover their tracks when committing their crimes. When it becomes apparent they have been doing this for years Matt finds himself investigating cold cases. Tracking down the leads he does come up with a potential name and a place he could meet them, but nothing could prepare him for the nature of the men.
A Walk Among the Tombstones starts very nicely with the broken protagonist trying to make up for something he could never actually make up for, it is hidden from us but we do see he has personal problems. The whole drug dealers being targeting by serial killers also works nicely, giving us a chance to keep guessing on whether it is actually a large scale revenge type thriller than Matt is stuck in the middle off. It goes downhill slowly because of the pace and then turning it into the simple idea that they are just two killers doing it for fun. It is sad because this had a lot of potential from the start but in the end just fizzles out. (6/10)
Actor Review
Liam Neeson: Matt Scudder a private detective who against his better judgment ends up investigating serial killers who enjoy nothing more than kidnapping and killing their victim even if they get their money. He is a former detective who has been recovering from his alcoholism which cost him his job. Liam does do a good job in the role and goes away from the new action star he has created. (7/10)
matt
Dan Stevens: Kenny Kristo drug trafficker whose wife was killed and hires Matt to find the people responsible for it, it will mean risking his connection to help expose the truth. Dan does a good job as the mobster out for revenge for a crime that is personal rather than work related. (7/10)
kenny
Support Cast: A Walk Among the Tombstones has a supporting cast that includes the two killers who are very much evil in what they do, we have other mobsters who are the victims of those killers and we also have a street wise kid trying to help Mark out. They all help the story flow along very well.
Director Review: Scott Frank – Scott does a solid job directing this to make it an interesting thriller with a very dark side to it. (6/10)
Crime: A Walk Among the Tombstones enters into the crime world without going too far over the top with its double crossing, instead focusing on one angle the whole way through. (7/10)
Mystery: A Walk Among the Tombstones does keep you guessing to what would be the motives of the characters creating a nice mystery about the story. (8/10)
Thriller: A Walk Among the Tombstones starts off pulling you in especially when you hear about the murdered wife but afterwards slight starts to fade away. (7/10)
Settings: A Walk Among the Tombstones creates a world that is similar to 1999 New York. (7/10)
Suggestion: A Walk Among the Tombstones is one to try and the fans of Neeson will be watching this, it might not keep everyone happy because it isn’t as dark as its source material. (Try It)
Best Part: The shock of what Kenny finds in the boot of that car.
Worst Part: Falls away by the end.
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Similar Too: Cold in July
Oscar Chances: No
Box Office: $53 Million
Budget: $28 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 54 Minutes
Tagline: People are afraid of all the wrong things.
Overall: A Thriller That Hits Hard Early but Tires Near the End
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/01/26/a-walk-among-the-tombstones-2014/
Kenny tales the story of what happened and how gruesome the murder was, this brings Matt into the case to track down the people responsible. Using all his skills he starts the investigation by questioning the locals. The killers prove to be professionals who cover their tracks when committing their crimes. When it becomes apparent they have been doing this for years Matt finds himself investigating cold cases. Tracking down the leads he does come up with a potential name and a place he could meet them, but nothing could prepare him for the nature of the men.
A Walk Among the Tombstones starts very nicely with the broken protagonist trying to make up for something he could never actually make up for, it is hidden from us but we do see he has personal problems. The whole drug dealers being targeting by serial killers also works nicely, giving us a chance to keep guessing on whether it is actually a large scale revenge type thriller than Matt is stuck in the middle off. It goes downhill slowly because of the pace and then turning it into the simple idea that they are just two killers doing it for fun. It is sad because this had a lot of potential from the start but in the end just fizzles out. (6/10)
Actor Review
Liam Neeson: Matt Scudder a private detective who against his better judgment ends up investigating serial killers who enjoy nothing more than kidnapping and killing their victim even if they get their money. He is a former detective who has been recovering from his alcoholism which cost him his job. Liam does do a good job in the role and goes away from the new action star he has created. (7/10)
matt
Dan Stevens: Kenny Kristo drug trafficker whose wife was killed and hires Matt to find the people responsible for it, it will mean risking his connection to help expose the truth. Dan does a good job as the mobster out for revenge for a crime that is personal rather than work related. (7/10)
kenny
Support Cast: A Walk Among the Tombstones has a supporting cast that includes the two killers who are very much evil in what they do, we have other mobsters who are the victims of those killers and we also have a street wise kid trying to help Mark out. They all help the story flow along very well.
Director Review: Scott Frank – Scott does a solid job directing this to make it an interesting thriller with a very dark side to it. (6/10)
Crime: A Walk Among the Tombstones enters into the crime world without going too far over the top with its double crossing, instead focusing on one angle the whole way through. (7/10)
Mystery: A Walk Among the Tombstones does keep you guessing to what would be the motives of the characters creating a nice mystery about the story. (8/10)
Thriller: A Walk Among the Tombstones starts off pulling you in especially when you hear about the murdered wife but afterwards slight starts to fade away. (7/10)
Settings: A Walk Among the Tombstones creates a world that is similar to 1999 New York. (7/10)
Suggestion: A Walk Among the Tombstones is one to try and the fans of Neeson will be watching this, it might not keep everyone happy because it isn’t as dark as its source material. (Try It)
Best Part: The shock of what Kenny finds in the boot of that car.
Worst Part: Falls away by the end.
Believability: No (0/10)
Chances of Tears: No (0/10)
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Similar Too: Cold in July
Oscar Chances: No
Box Office: $53 Million
Budget: $28 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 54 Minutes
Tagline: People are afraid of all the wrong things.
Overall: A Thriller That Hits Hard Early but Tires Near the End
https://moviesreview101.com/2015/01/26/a-walk-among-the-tombstones-2014/
Ryan Hill (152 KP) rated The Last Samurai (2003) in Movies
Jun 23, 2019
" I will tell you, how he lived"
The honour and code of the samurai has always been enticing to a Western civilisation that is far removed from such customs, which perhaps makes The Last Samurai such an enticing, enigmatic film. Edward Zwick crafts quite an epic adventure rich in mythology & thematic resonance that while traditionally Hollywood in its construction still manages to exist a cut above many such movies of its ilk, a touch of class surrounding how the story of Captain Nathan Algren is put together, based as it is on several real life legendary American figures who played key roles in the Satsuma Rebellion in Japan during the late 19th century. This isn't a direct re-telling of those events but serves as a leaping off point to construct a tale about a stranger in a strange land, of a man haunted by fighting an unjust war who rediscovers his honour & place in the world through a dying culture. Zwick's film is slick, sweeping, beautifully shot and frequently involving, backed up by a strong performance by Tom Cruise in one of those roles that remind you just what a good actor he can be.
In the role of Algren, Cruise begins a dejected man living out of a bottle, bereft of purpose & suffering post-Civil War nightmares of a man touted as a hero despite feeling the guilt of slaughtering Indians crushed under the might of a military machine; in that sense, The Last Samurai is very anti-war in its message, John Logan's story painting the Americans and specifically the Imperialist Japanese not in the greatest light. Cruise takes Algren on a traditional voyage of discovery, first pitted against the samurai code & eventually becoming consumed by it, consumed by the similarity of the way of the warrior between both cultures - and Ken Watanabe's dignified samurai 'rebel' Katsumoto learns from him, as well as the other way around, with Cruise remaining stoic & only getting flashes of a chance to display the usual Cruise charm, but that's OK - Algren isn't the kind of character to benefit from that, Cruise's natural magnetism is enough here. Wit is provided thankfully through, albeit briefly, Billy Connolly as a tough old Irish veteran & chiefly Timothy Spall as our portly 'narrator' of sorts, who serves to help mythologise Algren & the legend itself. Zwick is most concerned with that, you see, the idea of legends and how men become them, exploring that concept alongside digging into the cultural rituals and practises of a changing Japan.
Algren's story is placed at a time when the old ways of Japan were shifting, under the pressures of global politics & business; the Emperor here is a naive young man, sitting on an empty throne, looking to Watanabe for validation as his advisor's push to quash a rebellion fighting to preserve the old ways, preserve Japanese interests as America knocks on the door. That's why Cruise's role here is so interesting, his character learning of the samurai code & helping those around him remember their history, and Zwick explores well the concept of national identity alongside personal ideas of myth, legend & destiny. It all boils together in a careful script, never overblown, which neatly develops the relationships involved & helps you fully believe Algren's transformation into the eponymous 'last samurai'. Along the way, Zwick doesn't forget theatrics - staging plenty of well staged & intense fight scenes which utilise the strong Japanese production design, before building to a quite epic war climax with army pitted against army, with personal stakes cutting through it, backed up indeed by another superlative score by Hans Zimmer. It becomes more than just a historical swords & armour film, reaching deeper on several levels.
What could have been a slow paced, potentially ponderous movie is avoided well by Edward Zwick, who with The Last Samurai delivers one of the stronger historical adventure epics of recent years. Beautifully shot in many places, with some excellent cinematography & production standards, not to mention an impressive script well acted in particular by Tom Cruise & Ken Watanabe, Zwick creates a recognisably Hollywood picture but for once a movie that doesn't dumb down, doesn't pander and ultimately serves as an often involving, often damn well made story. Especially one to check out if you love the way of the samurai.
In the role of Algren, Cruise begins a dejected man living out of a bottle, bereft of purpose & suffering post-Civil War nightmares of a man touted as a hero despite feeling the guilt of slaughtering Indians crushed under the might of a military machine; in that sense, The Last Samurai is very anti-war in its message, John Logan's story painting the Americans and specifically the Imperialist Japanese not in the greatest light. Cruise takes Algren on a traditional voyage of discovery, first pitted against the samurai code & eventually becoming consumed by it, consumed by the similarity of the way of the warrior between both cultures - and Ken Watanabe's dignified samurai 'rebel' Katsumoto learns from him, as well as the other way around, with Cruise remaining stoic & only getting flashes of a chance to display the usual Cruise charm, but that's OK - Algren isn't the kind of character to benefit from that, Cruise's natural magnetism is enough here. Wit is provided thankfully through, albeit briefly, Billy Connolly as a tough old Irish veteran & chiefly Timothy Spall as our portly 'narrator' of sorts, who serves to help mythologise Algren & the legend itself. Zwick is most concerned with that, you see, the idea of legends and how men become them, exploring that concept alongside digging into the cultural rituals and practises of a changing Japan.
Algren's story is placed at a time when the old ways of Japan were shifting, under the pressures of global politics & business; the Emperor here is a naive young man, sitting on an empty throne, looking to Watanabe for validation as his advisor's push to quash a rebellion fighting to preserve the old ways, preserve Japanese interests as America knocks on the door. That's why Cruise's role here is so interesting, his character learning of the samurai code & helping those around him remember their history, and Zwick explores well the concept of national identity alongside personal ideas of myth, legend & destiny. It all boils together in a careful script, never overblown, which neatly develops the relationships involved & helps you fully believe Algren's transformation into the eponymous 'last samurai'. Along the way, Zwick doesn't forget theatrics - staging plenty of well staged & intense fight scenes which utilise the strong Japanese production design, before building to a quite epic war climax with army pitted against army, with personal stakes cutting through it, backed up indeed by another superlative score by Hans Zimmer. It becomes more than just a historical swords & armour film, reaching deeper on several levels.
What could have been a slow paced, potentially ponderous movie is avoided well by Edward Zwick, who with The Last Samurai delivers one of the stronger historical adventure epics of recent years. Beautifully shot in many places, with some excellent cinematography & production standards, not to mention an impressive script well acted in particular by Tom Cruise & Ken Watanabe, Zwick creates a recognisably Hollywood picture but for once a movie that doesn't dumb down, doesn't pander and ultimately serves as an often involving, often damn well made story. Especially one to check out if you love the way of the samurai.
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Awaken (Awakened Fate #1) in Books
Jan 23, 2020
Awaken is the first book in the Awakened Fate series by Skye Malone, and I'm pretty familiar with her other series as Megan Joel Peterson (The Children and the Blood trilogy) that I was confident her latest book will go into my good graces pretty easily. Thing is, Awaken reminded me so much of The Little Mermaid, I can't help but have the urge to sing "Under the Sea" and ask one question:
<b>"Sebastian, Sebastian, where art thou?"</b>
I had also associated funny brow movements with the author in particular. As in, brows drawing down, which I still don't know how that works without your brows looking like a seesaw or ending up with a pouting pucker fish face.
But back to The Little Mermaid similarities... and not brow movements.
Chloe has red hair, or as the book describes, auburn. But auburn's technically red with a tinge of brown. Ariel has red hair. The difference? Chloe doesn't know how to swim, and has been living on land her entire life. Then there's Zeke, which I sort of predicted him to have dark hair, and he does! Just like the princey dude for whom I've forgotten the name. In fact, said unknown princeling stalks Ariel, and so does Zeke... due to curiosity on who the pretty girl is. It's not revealed in Awaken, but I won't be surprised if Zeke is a prince.
<blockquote>Despite the fact we were barely any distance from the shore, the temperature had dropped to levels ordinarily found in places even deeper than Nyciena, with darkness to match.</blockquote>
Every book has got to have an Ursula of some sort. And she just oozes darkness, doesn't she? Too bad the Ursulas here aren't Octopuses. ;)
<blockquote>The girl changed the ocean when she was near it – a statement that on any level should have been impossible.</blockquote>
Okay, here's Sophia Lin logic: See, Ariel has a curse. I was sort of assuming Chloe willingly turned into a human just like Ariel, but she doesn't lose her voice, right? Except, here's the curse: she changes the ocean... and it's not exactly a pleasant way. Technically, that logic isn't going to get you far, because it isn't true, and I can't reveal the actual answer without spoiling anything. Nor do I want to reveal anything, because answers are spoilers, and not everyone can be trusted with the trusty little spoiler button. ;)
Then there are the differences, which pretty much revamps The Little Mermaid. Enough commentary on Little Mermaid.
Awaken follows two views – Chloe and Zeke. The best part of those two views though? They balance each other out pretty well. Chloe doesn't really know anything about what she is, so we're basically following a naïve character for most of the story who has strange things happening to her and strange peeps with glowing eyes wanting to murder the likes of her. Very boring in my opinion, because she doesn't know what's going on and it's all confusing and she's stuck in the hospital every once in awhile from an unfortunate encounter with said strange flowing peepy eyes. Zeke balances her out because he pretty much knows what's going on from his observations – but he doesn't really know what Chloe is until the end either.
Let's just say that balance is a good thing. Because I just can't handle an utterly boring character, and I'm sure not everyone likes that either. But if there's one thing Chloe has that makes her an interesting character, it's her voice and her frustration on why her parents hate the ocean with a passion and come up with logical, but weird excuses for them.
The only problem I probably have is how some of the terms don't appear in the pronunciation guide, and how the long ones are confusing. Maybe my head just needs to wrap around them after reading Irish terms from the second book in the Danaan Trilogy. O_o
Awaken is a good start to the Awakened Fate series, and while we spend most of the time above the surface, it's hinted that the sequel will most likely be focused underwater. It's a quick read for those who enjoy reading stories related to <s>merps</s> merpeople.
------------------
original rating: 4.5 out of 5
Original review posted at <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2014/08/review-awaken-by-skye-malone.html">Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cG5gfBqJVzk/VA5BIojjZ9I/AAAAAAAAD1g/7srLUfpAGEU/s1600/banner.png"; /></a>
<b>"Sebastian, Sebastian, where art thou?"</b>
I had also associated funny brow movements with the author in particular. As in, brows drawing down, which I still don't know how that works without your brows looking like a seesaw or ending up with a pouting pucker fish face.
But back to The Little Mermaid similarities... and not brow movements.
Chloe has red hair, or as the book describes, auburn. But auburn's technically red with a tinge of brown. Ariel has red hair. The difference? Chloe doesn't know how to swim, and has been living on land her entire life. Then there's Zeke, which I sort of predicted him to have dark hair, and he does! Just like the princey dude for whom I've forgotten the name. In fact, said unknown princeling stalks Ariel, and so does Zeke... due to curiosity on who the pretty girl is. It's not revealed in Awaken, but I won't be surprised if Zeke is a prince.
<blockquote>Despite the fact we were barely any distance from the shore, the temperature had dropped to levels ordinarily found in places even deeper than Nyciena, with darkness to match.</blockquote>
Every book has got to have an Ursula of some sort. And she just oozes darkness, doesn't she? Too bad the Ursulas here aren't Octopuses. ;)
<blockquote>The girl changed the ocean when she was near it – a statement that on any level should have been impossible.</blockquote>
Okay, here's Sophia Lin logic: See, Ariel has a curse. I was sort of assuming Chloe willingly turned into a human just like Ariel, but she doesn't lose her voice, right? Except, here's the curse: she changes the ocean... and it's not exactly a pleasant way. Technically, that logic isn't going to get you far, because it isn't true, and I can't reveal the actual answer without spoiling anything. Nor do I want to reveal anything, because answers are spoilers, and not everyone can be trusted with the trusty little spoiler button. ;)
Then there are the differences, which pretty much revamps The Little Mermaid. Enough commentary on Little Mermaid.
Awaken follows two views – Chloe and Zeke. The best part of those two views though? They balance each other out pretty well. Chloe doesn't really know anything about what she is, so we're basically following a naïve character for most of the story who has strange things happening to her and strange peeps with glowing eyes wanting to murder the likes of her. Very boring in my opinion, because she doesn't know what's going on and it's all confusing and she's stuck in the hospital every once in awhile from an unfortunate encounter with said strange flowing peepy eyes. Zeke balances her out because he pretty much knows what's going on from his observations – but he doesn't really know what Chloe is until the end either.
Let's just say that balance is a good thing. Because I just can't handle an utterly boring character, and I'm sure not everyone likes that either. But if there's one thing Chloe has that makes her an interesting character, it's her voice and her frustration on why her parents hate the ocean with a passion and come up with logical, but weird excuses for them.
The only problem I probably have is how some of the terms don't appear in the pronunciation guide, and how the long ones are confusing. Maybe my head just needs to wrap around them after reading Irish terms from the second book in the Danaan Trilogy. O_o
Awaken is a good start to the Awakened Fate series, and while we spend most of the time above the surface, it's hinted that the sequel will most likely be focused underwater. It's a quick read for those who enjoy reading stories related to <s>merps</s> merpeople.
------------------
original rating: 4.5 out of 5
Original review posted at <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2014/08/review-awaken-by-skye-malone.html">Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
<a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-cG5gfBqJVzk/VA5BIojjZ9I/AAAAAAAAD1g/7srLUfpAGEU/s1600/banner.png"; /></a>
Johnny Marr recommended track Jeepster by T Rex in Electric Boogie 1971 by T Rex in Music (curated)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Downton Abbey (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Very little happens…. and it’s totally glorious!
The “Downton Abbey” TV show is comfortingly bland. The tales of the well-heeled Grantham family and the below-stairs antics of their servants. But for those who have followed Julian Fellowes‘ pot-boiler drama through all six seasons, and a number of Christmas specials, it’s like a favourite jumper… or rediscovering your comfy slippers just as the nights start getting colder.
But in a world where TV spin-off movies are notoriously dire, would this movie by the nail in Downton’s coffin?
Thankfully not.
It’s a glorious production! The opening of this film will, I’m sure, fill all Downton fans with utter glee. John Lunn‘s music builds progressively as a royal letter wends its way through the 1927 postal system, eventually ending up (as the famous theme finally emerges spectacularly) at the doors of Downton Abbey. (Downton is of course the gorgeous Highclere Castle near Newbury, acting as a star of the film in its own right. Somewhere I was lucky enough to visit just a couple of weeks before filming began).
The plot(s).
In a year of Thanos-crushing drama, there really is nothing very substantial going on here!
The King (George V, an almost unrecognizable Simon “Hitchhikers Guide” Jones) and Queen Mary (Geraldine James) are staying over in Downton for one night on their Yorkshire tour. This naturally sets the below-stairs staff into a bit of a tizz, as indeed it does the whole village. But their glee at involvement and recognition is a bit premature, since the royal entourage – headed by an officious Mr Wilson (David Haig) – parachute the complete gamut of staff into the location to serve the royal party, so bypassing the locals completely.
The ‘Downton massive’ are of course having none of this, and a battle-royale ensues.
Scattered as sub-plots like confetti at a wedding are a military man putting a strong arm around the potentially-risky Irish Tom Branson (Allen Leech); a family rift that erupts between Aunt Violet (Maggie Smith) and cousin (and royal lady-in-waiting) Maud Bagshaw (Imelda Staunton); a sobbing princess (Kate Phillips); an over-enthusiastic shopkeeper (Mark Addy), who is difficult to let-down gently; a plumbing emergency with romantic jealousy and sabotage involved; the sexual preferences of Barrow (Robert James-Collier) getting him into trouble; and a potential love-interest for the widowed Tom with Maud’s maid Lucy (Tuppence Middleton). (There are probably half a dozen others that I’ve forgotten!)
A huge ensemble cast.
As befits a show that has gone over six seasons, there is a huge ensemble cast involved. Inevitably, some get more air time than others. Bates (Brendan Coyle) seems to be particularly short-changed, and above stairs I thought the same was true – strangely enough – of the Crawleys (Hugh Bonneville and Elizabeth McGovern).
As for Henry Talbot (Matthew Goode), he’s hardly in it at all! Apart from some impressive camera gymnastics for his running-up-the-stairs arrival, he doesn’t make much of an impression at all. (I can only guess he had other filming commitments).
These are players that have worked together as a team for many years, and it shows.
But the acting kudos has to go to Maggie Smith who steals absolutely every scene she’s in, with genuinely witty lines – “I’ll lick the stamps myself” (LoL). Close behind though is Imelda Staunton who also turns in a very impressive performance.
Glorious photography.
The photography is fantastic throughout, with deep rich colours, pin-sharp focus and some seriously dramatic pans. A big hats off to cinematographer Ben Smithard, but also to his drone team (“The helicopter ladies”) for delivering some jaw-droppingly gorgeous shots of Highclere castle.
(By the way, I thought the picture at my local Picturehouse cinema – Harbour Lights in Southampton – was particularly stunning: I queried it with them, and they said they had changed the (very expensive) projector bulb just that day! These things clearly matter!)
Will is appeal?
If you are a Downton fan, yes, Yes, YES! I have been a moderate fan of the TV series, but went with superfans – the illustrious Mrs Movie-Man and (as a guest visitor) Miss Movie-Man. I loved it, but the two ladies were ecstatic with the movie.
Even if you have never seen an episode, it is easy to pick up and the quality of the production is so impressive I don’t think you will be disappointed.
As such, I think I need to post a blend of ratings for this one.
But in a world where TV spin-off movies are notoriously dire, would this movie by the nail in Downton’s coffin?
Thankfully not.
It’s a glorious production! The opening of this film will, I’m sure, fill all Downton fans with utter glee. John Lunn‘s music builds progressively as a royal letter wends its way through the 1927 postal system, eventually ending up (as the famous theme finally emerges spectacularly) at the doors of Downton Abbey. (Downton is of course the gorgeous Highclere Castle near Newbury, acting as a star of the film in its own right. Somewhere I was lucky enough to visit just a couple of weeks before filming began).
The plot(s).
In a year of Thanos-crushing drama, there really is nothing very substantial going on here!
The King (George V, an almost unrecognizable Simon “Hitchhikers Guide” Jones) and Queen Mary (Geraldine James) are staying over in Downton for one night on their Yorkshire tour. This naturally sets the below-stairs staff into a bit of a tizz, as indeed it does the whole village. But their glee at involvement and recognition is a bit premature, since the royal entourage – headed by an officious Mr Wilson (David Haig) – parachute the complete gamut of staff into the location to serve the royal party, so bypassing the locals completely.
The ‘Downton massive’ are of course having none of this, and a battle-royale ensues.
Scattered as sub-plots like confetti at a wedding are a military man putting a strong arm around the potentially-risky Irish Tom Branson (Allen Leech); a family rift that erupts between Aunt Violet (Maggie Smith) and cousin (and royal lady-in-waiting) Maud Bagshaw (Imelda Staunton); a sobbing princess (Kate Phillips); an over-enthusiastic shopkeeper (Mark Addy), who is difficult to let-down gently; a plumbing emergency with romantic jealousy and sabotage involved; the sexual preferences of Barrow (Robert James-Collier) getting him into trouble; and a potential love-interest for the widowed Tom with Maud’s maid Lucy (Tuppence Middleton). (There are probably half a dozen others that I’ve forgotten!)
A huge ensemble cast.
As befits a show that has gone over six seasons, there is a huge ensemble cast involved. Inevitably, some get more air time than others. Bates (Brendan Coyle) seems to be particularly short-changed, and above stairs I thought the same was true – strangely enough – of the Crawleys (Hugh Bonneville and Elizabeth McGovern).
As for Henry Talbot (Matthew Goode), he’s hardly in it at all! Apart from some impressive camera gymnastics for his running-up-the-stairs arrival, he doesn’t make much of an impression at all. (I can only guess he had other filming commitments).
These are players that have worked together as a team for many years, and it shows.
But the acting kudos has to go to Maggie Smith who steals absolutely every scene she’s in, with genuinely witty lines – “I’ll lick the stamps myself” (LoL). Close behind though is Imelda Staunton who also turns in a very impressive performance.
Glorious photography.
The photography is fantastic throughout, with deep rich colours, pin-sharp focus and some seriously dramatic pans. A big hats off to cinematographer Ben Smithard, but also to his drone team (“The helicopter ladies”) for delivering some jaw-droppingly gorgeous shots of Highclere castle.
(By the way, I thought the picture at my local Picturehouse cinema – Harbour Lights in Southampton – was particularly stunning: I queried it with them, and they said they had changed the (very expensive) projector bulb just that day! These things clearly matter!)
Will is appeal?
If you are a Downton fan, yes, Yes, YES! I have been a moderate fan of the TV series, but went with superfans – the illustrious Mrs Movie-Man and (as a guest visitor) Miss Movie-Man. I loved it, but the two ladies were ecstatic with the movie.
Even if you have never seen an episode, it is easy to pick up and the quality of the production is so impressive I don’t think you will be disappointed.
As such, I think I need to post a blend of ratings for this one.
Kiruji (13 KP) rated X-Men: First Class (2011) in Movies
Jul 18, 2018
I'm not an X-Men fan. I know, it's strange, right? I mean, I'm a comic book fan in general. Iron Man's a dude. I dig the Hulk. I love all things Batman (except when Joel Schumacher tweaked the Batman's Batnipples). I geekgasmed all over my trousers in the lead up to THE DARK KNIGHT and actually watching it at an IMAX was like losing my virginity again. But the X-Men? Kinda leave me cold. Even though, on the face of it, it should be pretty awesome. Mutant humans with the ability to do just about anything you can imagine, fighting each other and various other bad things? Why the hell wouldn't I like that? But I could never get into it. The first X-Men movie, way back in 2000, left me feeling indifferent. It was OK, but nothing special. The second one was worse. The third one just plain awful. WOLVERINE: ORIGINS was quite fun, but then, a hard drinking, smoking, swearing brawler with friendly mutton-chops and blades in his hands was always going to be appealing to me.
And so, it was with a feeling of complete indifference that I flashed my Cineworld Unlimited card at a bored usher and got my ticket and a mixed slushie last week. I only went to see it because my buddy wanted to and, well, we'd missed the start of THE HANGOVER PART II.
So, into the darkened room early for a change. Managed to get prime seats. Mainly because the auditorium was pretty much empty. Something I didn't think was the most fortuitous portent to the movie we were about to watch. On the plus side however, as we were watching a comic book movie, we got the comic book trailer reel... First was THE GREEN LANTERN, which excited me a little (mainly because I have a man crush on Ryan Reynolds). Then came CAPTAIN AMERICA, which excited me a little more (mainly because it looks FREAKIN' AWESOME). Then we got RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES, which intrigued me (mainly because James Franco was doing a 'learned man' accent). Presumably because Cineworld were already scraping the comic book movie barrel, they then repeated the APES trailer, which killed the mood and left me feeling indifferent again.
But I digress. I think you get that I didn't really give a crap one way or the other about the movie I was about to watch. The opening scenes however, are set in a WWII concentration camp and I found my interest piqued. At first, I couldn't figure out whether it had been newly filmed or if they were recycling one of the flashbacks from one of the earlier movies. Then, Kevin Bacon. Suddenly, I was transfixed by the German pouring forth from his mouth which seemed authentic and I couldn't quite work out if he was lip-synching or not. That's somewhat besides the point though, as the scene itself was very tense and only marginally spoiled by the child actor when it was his turn to scream the longest NOOOOOOO!!! (sorry, NEEEEEEEEIN!!!) since Adolf Vader in Episode 3.
The film very quickly moved on in leaps and bounds, sucking me in and winning me over. Kevin Bacon seemed to enjoy hamming it up as the evil Sebastian Shaw. James McAvoy is an exceptionally talented chap and made for an excellent Charles Xavier - a cocky, beer-swilling, genius ladies man. Similarly, Michael Fassbender did a top notch job in playing Erik Lehnsherr, coming across as a Holocaust-surviving Bond, maybe even slightly cooler. Even Jason Flemyng was pretty good, although I don't think he actually spoke at all, which might have helped his case.
I loved the whole origins story, seeing how Xavier and Lehnsherr were good friends despite their obvious differences and started the School for the Gifted together was pretty cool. The only little blight on the movie (after the whole NEEEEEEEIN!!! incident) was that when it came time for Fassbender to don Magneto's helmet, the prop department had obviously measured his noggin wrong and it was clearly too tight. I say that because, every time he slapped it on his dome, his accent turned from gruff-hero-of-indeterminate-country-of-origin to... Well, to Oirish. The only reason I can think of is that the helmet was squeezing his bonce a bit too snugly. It didn't happen when Kevin Bacon was wearing it.
Helmet business aside, on the whole, I left feeling like I'd just seen a proper comic book movie. Full of fantastical, incredible things dancing around a plot that made sense and characters that I, on the whole, cared about at least a little. There was even a Wolverine cameo in it, which made me chuckle more than it should have. Far from being indifferent towards the X-Men now, I'm looking forward to seeing where the story goes next. I just hope Matthew Vaughn is directing again. He's turned out an X-Men film that is much, much better than mediocre and they'd be idiots to give it to anyone else.
And so, it was with a feeling of complete indifference that I flashed my Cineworld Unlimited card at a bored usher and got my ticket and a mixed slushie last week. I only went to see it because my buddy wanted to and, well, we'd missed the start of THE HANGOVER PART II.
So, into the darkened room early for a change. Managed to get prime seats. Mainly because the auditorium was pretty much empty. Something I didn't think was the most fortuitous portent to the movie we were about to watch. On the plus side however, as we were watching a comic book movie, we got the comic book trailer reel... First was THE GREEN LANTERN, which excited me a little (mainly because I have a man crush on Ryan Reynolds). Then came CAPTAIN AMERICA, which excited me a little more (mainly because it looks FREAKIN' AWESOME). Then we got RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES, which intrigued me (mainly because James Franco was doing a 'learned man' accent). Presumably because Cineworld were already scraping the comic book movie barrel, they then repeated the APES trailer, which killed the mood and left me feeling indifferent again.
But I digress. I think you get that I didn't really give a crap one way or the other about the movie I was about to watch. The opening scenes however, are set in a WWII concentration camp and I found my interest piqued. At first, I couldn't figure out whether it had been newly filmed or if they were recycling one of the flashbacks from one of the earlier movies. Then, Kevin Bacon. Suddenly, I was transfixed by the German pouring forth from his mouth which seemed authentic and I couldn't quite work out if he was lip-synching or not. That's somewhat besides the point though, as the scene itself was very tense and only marginally spoiled by the child actor when it was his turn to scream the longest NOOOOOOO!!! (sorry, NEEEEEEEEIN!!!) since Adolf Vader in Episode 3.
The film very quickly moved on in leaps and bounds, sucking me in and winning me over. Kevin Bacon seemed to enjoy hamming it up as the evil Sebastian Shaw. James McAvoy is an exceptionally talented chap and made for an excellent Charles Xavier - a cocky, beer-swilling, genius ladies man. Similarly, Michael Fassbender did a top notch job in playing Erik Lehnsherr, coming across as a Holocaust-surviving Bond, maybe even slightly cooler. Even Jason Flemyng was pretty good, although I don't think he actually spoke at all, which might have helped his case.
I loved the whole origins story, seeing how Xavier and Lehnsherr were good friends despite their obvious differences and started the School for the Gifted together was pretty cool. The only little blight on the movie (after the whole NEEEEEEEIN!!! incident) was that when it came time for Fassbender to don Magneto's helmet, the prop department had obviously measured his noggin wrong and it was clearly too tight. I say that because, every time he slapped it on his dome, his accent turned from gruff-hero-of-indeterminate-country-of-origin to... Well, to Oirish. The only reason I can think of is that the helmet was squeezing his bonce a bit too snugly. It didn't happen when Kevin Bacon was wearing it.
Helmet business aside, on the whole, I left feeling like I'd just seen a proper comic book movie. Full of fantastical, incredible things dancing around a plot that made sense and characters that I, on the whole, cared about at least a little. There was even a Wolverine cameo in it, which made me chuckle more than it should have. Far from being indifferent towards the X-Men now, I'm looking forward to seeing where the story goes next. I just hope Matthew Vaughn is directing again. He's turned out an X-Men film that is much, much better than mediocre and they'd be idiots to give it to anyone else.
LilyLovesIndie (123 KP) rated The Return of the King (The Lord of the Rings, #3) in Books
Nov 5, 2018
See the latest and more detailed review over on Ramble Media here http://www.ramblemedia.com/?p=20020
The final instalment of TolkienÕs thrilling epic doesnÕt disappoint. In a gripping, at times, but IÕll get to that later, ending with twists and turns, drama and intrigue, and simply a fitting conclusion to a well written tale. Again, as always, I will intend to keep this short, and IÕll start with the bad and end with the good, because overall, this book is very good!
So for the bad, I have to admit, I find Frodo and Sam utterly boring. I appreciate that they have the most important task of the Company, and they need to be alone whist they are completing it, but they need something to complete their part of the story. Now I can understand others may have differing views, and I can appreciate this, but I find them such a tiresome partnership. Sam redeemed himself greatly in his persistence and growth of ÔspiritÕ as he continued with his task, but thatÕs the final word IÕll say on it as, it is a very good book for the most part.
And onto the good! I read a lot of books with battles in them, and rarely have I ever experienced the emotion, fear, sadness and excitement that a battle brings in such balance and proportion. The first book of this book, and apologies if that sounds a bit Irish as my mum would say, is totally enthralling and, to coin a common phrase, unputdownable. It is almost as though you can actually feel the charisma of Aragorn and the other captains pouring through the pages and giving you as the reader the desire to continue reading through what you know is going to be some pretty difficult parts emotionally.
Another positive of this is that the camaraderie seen at the end of the battles is truly heart-warming to see. It is sad that more is not seen of Gimli and Legolas, however I can understand that the emphasis needed to be on the captains and those of higher rank. This was especially true as the slow unveiling of Aragorn progressed, and the ceremony was extremely well written and really did help the reader to see what it would have been like to have been amongst the people welcoming their long lost King to their city of stone.
I have to admit my brain was rather slow on the uptake of where this story was going, but I couldn't have imagined half of the goings on that did occur. These were however, intricately weaved into each other and give the book a sense of completeness as you discover the ending for all the characters, not just the odd one or two. Usually, as a fanfiction writer, I like the reader to leave me thinking at the end so I can fill some gaps myself, but on this occasion, having journeyed so far and put so much into the effort of reading the book, I have to say I enjoyed having the majority of things being tidied up for me. Tolkien really did tidy stuff up, the Hobbits, the Elves, the Men, and this gave a strange sense of fulfilment which I rarely get when I finish a book, and that was lovely to experience. Anyway, IÕm waffling, but you get the gist as I canÕt, for a change, express myself in words.
Another fact I loved about this book was the sudden twist in the fate of the Shire. This hit me like a bolt of the blue and really opened my eyes to situations such as this which had been a part of Ômodern day lifeÕ. I never thought the Shire could ever be taken by evil, despite all the warnings of Gandalf and the Rangers, I was still, hobbitlike I suppose, in my defiance that it could happen. Well, blow me over with a feather! When I read their homecoming I was crushed, truly crushed. This affected me more than any other part of the story, however the sadness was short lived as I had never expected the journey to change the little hobbits so much! Merry and Pippin really did live up to the new livery of their respective Lords, and showed a new side to the wonderful tenacity and resourcefulness of the hobbits.
The addition of the appendices is a wonderful touch, as I feel as fully versed in the lore of this world as my own. It is clear from this alone that to Tolkien, this was not just a story, it was a living world just out of our reach and he created a doorway to it, letting us experience their trials and tribulations, joys and victories and many other occurrences alongside our own. I find myself looking for evidence of this world now when I travel and it has truly grasped my imagination in a way few books ever do. The impact of this will be lasting, and I know I will always be looking for an ideal hobbit hole in the Shire to retire to!
In conclusion, I adored parts of this book, abhorred others, but the contrast makes me love it all the more as it is so relatable to modern events, despite being written many years ago before such events could ever have been contrived in the minds of men. It is a truly fitting conclusion to the build up in the other books, and provides thought, excitement, happiness, sadness and many other emotions to help bring the reader home to the Shire along a twisting road. Fantastically written, an excellent testament to the greatness of Tolkien and a book I would not only highly recommend, but nag people until they had at least given it a try. A truly wonderful and epic tale that will be read again and again.
The final instalment of TolkienÕs thrilling epic doesnÕt disappoint. In a gripping, at times, but IÕll get to that later, ending with twists and turns, drama and intrigue, and simply a fitting conclusion to a well written tale. Again, as always, I will intend to keep this short, and IÕll start with the bad and end with the good, because overall, this book is very good!
So for the bad, I have to admit, I find Frodo and Sam utterly boring. I appreciate that they have the most important task of the Company, and they need to be alone whist they are completing it, but they need something to complete their part of the story. Now I can understand others may have differing views, and I can appreciate this, but I find them such a tiresome partnership. Sam redeemed himself greatly in his persistence and growth of ÔspiritÕ as he continued with his task, but thatÕs the final word IÕll say on it as, it is a very good book for the most part.
And onto the good! I read a lot of books with battles in them, and rarely have I ever experienced the emotion, fear, sadness and excitement that a battle brings in such balance and proportion. The first book of this book, and apologies if that sounds a bit Irish as my mum would say, is totally enthralling and, to coin a common phrase, unputdownable. It is almost as though you can actually feel the charisma of Aragorn and the other captains pouring through the pages and giving you as the reader the desire to continue reading through what you know is going to be some pretty difficult parts emotionally.
Another positive of this is that the camaraderie seen at the end of the battles is truly heart-warming to see. It is sad that more is not seen of Gimli and Legolas, however I can understand that the emphasis needed to be on the captains and those of higher rank. This was especially true as the slow unveiling of Aragorn progressed, and the ceremony was extremely well written and really did help the reader to see what it would have been like to have been amongst the people welcoming their long lost King to their city of stone.
I have to admit my brain was rather slow on the uptake of where this story was going, but I couldn't have imagined half of the goings on that did occur. These were however, intricately weaved into each other and give the book a sense of completeness as you discover the ending for all the characters, not just the odd one or two. Usually, as a fanfiction writer, I like the reader to leave me thinking at the end so I can fill some gaps myself, but on this occasion, having journeyed so far and put so much into the effort of reading the book, I have to say I enjoyed having the majority of things being tidied up for me. Tolkien really did tidy stuff up, the Hobbits, the Elves, the Men, and this gave a strange sense of fulfilment which I rarely get when I finish a book, and that was lovely to experience. Anyway, IÕm waffling, but you get the gist as I canÕt, for a change, express myself in words.
Another fact I loved about this book was the sudden twist in the fate of the Shire. This hit me like a bolt of the blue and really opened my eyes to situations such as this which had been a part of Ômodern day lifeÕ. I never thought the Shire could ever be taken by evil, despite all the warnings of Gandalf and the Rangers, I was still, hobbitlike I suppose, in my defiance that it could happen. Well, blow me over with a feather! When I read their homecoming I was crushed, truly crushed. This affected me more than any other part of the story, however the sadness was short lived as I had never expected the journey to change the little hobbits so much! Merry and Pippin really did live up to the new livery of their respective Lords, and showed a new side to the wonderful tenacity and resourcefulness of the hobbits.
The addition of the appendices is a wonderful touch, as I feel as fully versed in the lore of this world as my own. It is clear from this alone that to Tolkien, this was not just a story, it was a living world just out of our reach and he created a doorway to it, letting us experience their trials and tribulations, joys and victories and many other occurrences alongside our own. I find myself looking for evidence of this world now when I travel and it has truly grasped my imagination in a way few books ever do. The impact of this will be lasting, and I know I will always be looking for an ideal hobbit hole in the Shire to retire to!
In conclusion, I adored parts of this book, abhorred others, but the contrast makes me love it all the more as it is so relatable to modern events, despite being written many years ago before such events could ever have been contrived in the minds of men. It is a truly fitting conclusion to the build up in the other books, and provides thought, excitement, happiness, sadness and many other emotions to help bring the reader home to the Shire along a twisting road. Fantastically written, an excellent testament to the greatness of Tolkien and a book I would not only highly recommend, but nag people until they had at least given it a try. A truly wonderful and epic tale that will be read again and again.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Dolittle (2020) in Movies
Feb 23, 2020
A complete mess, but kids will probably love it.
With the words of Mark Kermode's review ringing in my ears ("It's shockingly poor... and that's the same in any language") I was bracing myself when I went to see this latest incarnation of Hugh Lofting's famous animal-chatting character. And I have to agree that it is a shocking mess of a film, given $175 million was poured into this thing. But, and I say this cautiously without first-hand empirical evidence, I *think* this is a movie that kids in the 6 to 10 age range might fall in love with.
Doctor Doolittle (Robert Downey Jnr) - famed animal doctor, with the unique ability to communicate with any animal - is now holed up in his animal sanctuary, a recluse. His beloved wife - adventurer Lily - was lost at sea (in a cartoon sequence that could have just used the same clip from "Frozen"). He's lost the will to practice; and almost lost the will to live.
Impinging on his morose life come two humans: Tommy Stubbings (Harry Collett), a reluctant hunter with a wounded squirrel, and Lady Rose (Carmel Laniado), daughter of the Queen of England. (We'll quietly ignore the coincidence that, after what looks like several years of mourning, these two independently pitch up at Chez Doolittle within ten minutes of each other!).
For the Queen (the omnipresent Jessie Buckley) is dying, and noone (other than us viewers, let in on the deal) suspect foul play might be at work in the form of Lord Thomas Badgley (the ever-reliable Jim Broadbent) and the Queen's old leech-loving doctor Blair Müdfly (a moustache-twiddling Michael Sheen).
Doolittle must engage in a perilous journey to find the only cure that will save both the Queen and his animal sanctuary - the fruit of the tree on a missing island that his long lost love was searching for.
Let's start with the most obvious point first up. Robert Downey Jnr's Welsh accent is quite the most terrible, most preposterous, most unintelligible, most offensive (to the Welsh) attempt at an accent in a mainstream film in movie history. And that's really saying something when you have Laurence Olivier's Jewish father from "The Jazz Singer" and Russell Crowe's English cum Irish cum Scottish cum Yugoslavian "Robin Hood" in the list. Why? Just why? Was it to distance this version from Rex Harrison's? (Since most younger movie goers will be going "Rex who?" at this point, this seems unlikely). It's a wholly curious decision.
It turns RDj's presence in the movie from being an asset to a liability.
The movie has had a tortuous history. Filmed in 2018 at enormous expense, the film completely bombed at test screenings so they brought in more script writers to make it funnier and did extensive additional filming.
I actually disagree with the general view that the film is unfunny. For there are a few points in the movie where I laughed out loud. A fly's miraculous, if temporary, escape was one such moment. The duck laying an egg in fright, another.
However, these seem to stand out starkly in isolation as 'the funny bits they inserted'. Much of the rest of the movie's comedy falls painfully flat.
In terms of the acting, there are the obvious visual talents on show of Michael Sheen (doing a great English accent for a Welshman.... #irony), Jim Broadbent, Jessie Buckley, Joanna Page (blink and you'll miss her) and Antonio Banderas, as the swashbuckling pirate king cum father-in-law.
But the end titles are an amazing array of "Ah!" moments as the vocal performances are revealed: Emma Thompson as the parrot; Rami Malek as the gorilla; John Cena as the polar bear; Kumail Nanjiani at the ostrich; Octavia Spencer at the duck; Tom Holland as the dog; Selena Gomez as the giraffe; Marion Cotillade as the fox, Frances de la Tour as a flatulent dragon and Ralph Fiennes as an evil tiger with mummy issues. It's a gift for future contestants on "Pointless"!
There are a lot of poe-faced critics throwing brick-bats at this movie, and to a degree it's deserved. They lavished $175 million on it, and it looked like it was going to be a thumping loss. (However, against all the odds, at the time of writing it has grossed north of $184 million. And it only opened yesterday in China. So although not stellar in the world of blockbuster movies it's not going to be a studio-killer like "Heaven's Gate").
And I suspect there's a good reason for that latent salvation. I think kids are loving this movie, driving repeat viewings and unexpected word of mouth. It is certainly a family friendly experience. There are no truly terrifying scenes that will haunt young children. A dragon-induced death, not seen on screen, is - notwithstanding the intro Frozen-esque cartoon sequence - the only obvious one in the movie and is (as above) played for laughs. There are fantastical sets and landscapes. Performing whales. A happy-ending (albeit not the one I was cynically expecting). And an extended dragon-farting scene, and what kids are not going to love that!!
Directed by Stephen Gaghan ("Syriana", but better known as a writer than a director) it's a jumbled messy bear of a movie but is in no way an unpleasant watch. I would take a grandkid along to watch this again. It even has some nuggets of gold hidden within its matted coat.
As this is primarily one for the kids, I'm giving the movie two ratings: 4/10 for adults and 8/10 for kids... the Smashbomb rating is the mean of these.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review on One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/22/doolittle-2019/ . Thanks).
Doctor Doolittle (Robert Downey Jnr) - famed animal doctor, with the unique ability to communicate with any animal - is now holed up in his animal sanctuary, a recluse. His beloved wife - adventurer Lily - was lost at sea (in a cartoon sequence that could have just used the same clip from "Frozen"). He's lost the will to practice; and almost lost the will to live.
Impinging on his morose life come two humans: Tommy Stubbings (Harry Collett), a reluctant hunter with a wounded squirrel, and Lady Rose (Carmel Laniado), daughter of the Queen of England. (We'll quietly ignore the coincidence that, after what looks like several years of mourning, these two independently pitch up at Chez Doolittle within ten minutes of each other!).
For the Queen (the omnipresent Jessie Buckley) is dying, and noone (other than us viewers, let in on the deal) suspect foul play might be at work in the form of Lord Thomas Badgley (the ever-reliable Jim Broadbent) and the Queen's old leech-loving doctor Blair Müdfly (a moustache-twiddling Michael Sheen).
Doolittle must engage in a perilous journey to find the only cure that will save both the Queen and his animal sanctuary - the fruit of the tree on a missing island that his long lost love was searching for.
Let's start with the most obvious point first up. Robert Downey Jnr's Welsh accent is quite the most terrible, most preposterous, most unintelligible, most offensive (to the Welsh) attempt at an accent in a mainstream film in movie history. And that's really saying something when you have Laurence Olivier's Jewish father from "The Jazz Singer" and Russell Crowe's English cum Irish cum Scottish cum Yugoslavian "Robin Hood" in the list. Why? Just why? Was it to distance this version from Rex Harrison's? (Since most younger movie goers will be going "Rex who?" at this point, this seems unlikely). It's a wholly curious decision.
It turns RDj's presence in the movie from being an asset to a liability.
The movie has had a tortuous history. Filmed in 2018 at enormous expense, the film completely bombed at test screenings so they brought in more script writers to make it funnier and did extensive additional filming.
I actually disagree with the general view that the film is unfunny. For there are a few points in the movie where I laughed out loud. A fly's miraculous, if temporary, escape was one such moment. The duck laying an egg in fright, another.
However, these seem to stand out starkly in isolation as 'the funny bits they inserted'. Much of the rest of the movie's comedy falls painfully flat.
In terms of the acting, there are the obvious visual talents on show of Michael Sheen (doing a great English accent for a Welshman.... #irony), Jim Broadbent, Jessie Buckley, Joanna Page (blink and you'll miss her) and Antonio Banderas, as the swashbuckling pirate king cum father-in-law.
But the end titles are an amazing array of "Ah!" moments as the vocal performances are revealed: Emma Thompson as the parrot; Rami Malek as the gorilla; John Cena as the polar bear; Kumail Nanjiani at the ostrich; Octavia Spencer at the duck; Tom Holland as the dog; Selena Gomez as the giraffe; Marion Cotillade as the fox, Frances de la Tour as a flatulent dragon and Ralph Fiennes as an evil tiger with mummy issues. It's a gift for future contestants on "Pointless"!
There are a lot of poe-faced critics throwing brick-bats at this movie, and to a degree it's deserved. They lavished $175 million on it, and it looked like it was going to be a thumping loss. (However, against all the odds, at the time of writing it has grossed north of $184 million. And it only opened yesterday in China. So although not stellar in the world of blockbuster movies it's not going to be a studio-killer like "Heaven's Gate").
And I suspect there's a good reason for that latent salvation. I think kids are loving this movie, driving repeat viewings and unexpected word of mouth. It is certainly a family friendly experience. There are no truly terrifying scenes that will haunt young children. A dragon-induced death, not seen on screen, is - notwithstanding the intro Frozen-esque cartoon sequence - the only obvious one in the movie and is (as above) played for laughs. There are fantastical sets and landscapes. Performing whales. A happy-ending (albeit not the one I was cynically expecting). And an extended dragon-farting scene, and what kids are not going to love that!!
Directed by Stephen Gaghan ("Syriana", but better known as a writer than a director) it's a jumbled messy bear of a movie but is in no way an unpleasant watch. I would take a grandkid along to watch this again. It even has some nuggets of gold hidden within its matted coat.
As this is primarily one for the kids, I'm giving the movie two ratings: 4/10 for adults and 8/10 for kids... the Smashbomb rating is the mean of these.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review on One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/22/doolittle-2019/ . Thanks).
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Ford v Ferrari (aka Le Mans '66) (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021 (Updated Jan 22, 2021)
Matt Damon asked Christian Bale how he had managed to lose almost 70lbs for his role as Ken Miles, following his chubbing up to play Dick Cheney in Vice the previous year. Bale just smiled, shrugged and said, “I didn’t eat”. Such is his reputation for playing real people with 100% commitment, apocryphal or not, I totally believe that is true.
Sports films, and especially racing films, hang on three things: the quality and believability of the sports/racing scenes, the dynamic tension between the lead characters, and the degree we are hooked by the underdog makes a comeback element. Le Mans ’66, also known as Ford V Ferrari for American audiences, who obviously can’t make sense of French or numbers, has all three of those boxes ticked, and several others besides.
It will make it easier for me to explain why I liked this film so much if I confess up front to how much I liked it, so without hesitation I confidently state… more than Rush (2013) and Grand Prix (1966), making it probably the best racing film ever, but less than Warrior (2011) or Rocky (1976), making it a contender for top 5 but not the best sports movie ever. So, that is pretty high praise from the flag-fall.
Let’s examine the 3 key elements in order. Firstly, the racing scenes: This film is based on real people in real races driving real cars, with very little altered or tweaked for dramatic purposes (save one key detail of the final race). It didn’t need anything adding, because the real story is incredible enough. Part of that is the very real rivalry that existed between the undisputed champions of the world’s most beautiful cars, Ferrari, representing everything essentially European, and the empire of mass production efficiency that was the Ford dynasty, representing everything American.
The reproductions of the cars themselves and the personalities behind them is vivid and believable from minute one, so when the cars hit the track you can almost smell the fuel and feel the heat and grime, not to mention the speed. Every shot on every straight and turn feels like it should, and would, if you yourself were driving: intense, terrifying, exhilarating and addictive!
At no point did I see anything unrealistic, or a piece of footage copied and pasted. No trick angles or overuse of time stretching techniques, what you see is mostly what you get, and if you understand car racing in even the most amateur way then that is impressive. Add to that a complete understanding of tension building during a race from a direction and acting point of view and you just have to tip your helmet visor to James Mangold and Christian Bale, who seem in complete synthesis about what is required from a racing scene.
Next, look at the chemistry between Damon’s laconic yet stubborn pragmatist, Carroll Shelby, and Bale’s idiosyncratic, twitchy adrenaline junky, Ken Miles. They couldn’t be more different, personality wise, or actually performance wise. Bale chews up the screen with another in a long line now of big bold characterisations that you can’t take your eyes off, and Damon gives off solid, dependable, trust-worthy movie-star vibes in return. Their scenes together are spiky, fun, compelling and feel authetic, in a Hollywood movie way that we recognise and love. It feels almost like Paul Newman and Jack Lemon – the handsome straight guy and the quirky foil.
I love both these actors when they bring their A game. And they do here. It is consummate film acting, completely in control of what kind of film they are making. Not a naturalistic drama hoping to sweep the Oscars and hit hard in the emotional solar plexus, but a fun sports film driven by the conventions and tropes of the genre. Both manage to keep it just the right side of fun and exciting, whilst holding the reigns on believability also. Mangold, who knows how both action (Logan) and Bio-pics (Walk the Line) work to a very high level, brings experience of both genres to the fore here, and the blend is sublime.
Finally, there is the underdog element. Both of these guys were unconventional mavericks, and well known as being so. Both respected, but never treated as champions as they deserved in their lifetime, perhaps because they were not yes men or company men, who toed the line and played by the rules of the big bosses of the sport. Both of them absolutely driven by compulsion and passion to win, yet both flawed on the ways they could achieve that.
Then there is the consideration how much the car is a character, or at least Ford as a concept. What makes this story so great is the David and Goliath element, that makes you sure there is no possible way this could be true. As with all great sports films, even if you know the history and result of a real event, the little guy sticking it to the invincible and arrogant behemoth, win, lose or draw, is what makes us invest and then cheer, or cry, when all the effort is finally spent.
Effort, sacrifice, overcoming obstacles, facing defeat, bouncing back from setbacks, gaining respect of friends and rivals alike – all these elements make a sports film great. Le Mans ’66 has it all, with the added bonus of enough budget to make it fly, which isn’t usually the case in this genre. It looks spectacular, feels exciting and is ultimately completely satisfying, as both a character study of real men, and a document of a game changing moment in sporting history.
It also doesn’t entirely ignore the female influence on such a masculine world; the little known Irish actress Catriona Balfe as Mollie Miles really caught my eye in some really tender scenes. This film won’t be passing the Bechdal test any time soon, however, as she is pretty much the only female member of the cast with an actual name! But it isn’t something to get too hung up about, in my opinion.
I’d be bold enough to recommend this to anyone. No need to love cars, or racing or even sport at all. If you love good movies that keep you hooked till the checkered flag of the credits, then look no further. High art? No. A proper movie with huge mass appeal? 100%
Sports films, and especially racing films, hang on three things: the quality and believability of the sports/racing scenes, the dynamic tension between the lead characters, and the degree we are hooked by the underdog makes a comeback element. Le Mans ’66, also known as Ford V Ferrari for American audiences, who obviously can’t make sense of French or numbers, has all three of those boxes ticked, and several others besides.
It will make it easier for me to explain why I liked this film so much if I confess up front to how much I liked it, so without hesitation I confidently state… more than Rush (2013) and Grand Prix (1966), making it probably the best racing film ever, but less than Warrior (2011) or Rocky (1976), making it a contender for top 5 but not the best sports movie ever. So, that is pretty high praise from the flag-fall.
Let’s examine the 3 key elements in order. Firstly, the racing scenes: This film is based on real people in real races driving real cars, with very little altered or tweaked for dramatic purposes (save one key detail of the final race). It didn’t need anything adding, because the real story is incredible enough. Part of that is the very real rivalry that existed between the undisputed champions of the world’s most beautiful cars, Ferrari, representing everything essentially European, and the empire of mass production efficiency that was the Ford dynasty, representing everything American.
The reproductions of the cars themselves and the personalities behind them is vivid and believable from minute one, so when the cars hit the track you can almost smell the fuel and feel the heat and grime, not to mention the speed. Every shot on every straight and turn feels like it should, and would, if you yourself were driving: intense, terrifying, exhilarating and addictive!
At no point did I see anything unrealistic, or a piece of footage copied and pasted. No trick angles or overuse of time stretching techniques, what you see is mostly what you get, and if you understand car racing in even the most amateur way then that is impressive. Add to that a complete understanding of tension building during a race from a direction and acting point of view and you just have to tip your helmet visor to James Mangold and Christian Bale, who seem in complete synthesis about what is required from a racing scene.
Next, look at the chemistry between Damon’s laconic yet stubborn pragmatist, Carroll Shelby, and Bale’s idiosyncratic, twitchy adrenaline junky, Ken Miles. They couldn’t be more different, personality wise, or actually performance wise. Bale chews up the screen with another in a long line now of big bold characterisations that you can’t take your eyes off, and Damon gives off solid, dependable, trust-worthy movie-star vibes in return. Their scenes together are spiky, fun, compelling and feel authetic, in a Hollywood movie way that we recognise and love. It feels almost like Paul Newman and Jack Lemon – the handsome straight guy and the quirky foil.
I love both these actors when they bring their A game. And they do here. It is consummate film acting, completely in control of what kind of film they are making. Not a naturalistic drama hoping to sweep the Oscars and hit hard in the emotional solar plexus, but a fun sports film driven by the conventions and tropes of the genre. Both manage to keep it just the right side of fun and exciting, whilst holding the reigns on believability also. Mangold, who knows how both action (Logan) and Bio-pics (Walk the Line) work to a very high level, brings experience of both genres to the fore here, and the blend is sublime.
Finally, there is the underdog element. Both of these guys were unconventional mavericks, and well known as being so. Both respected, but never treated as champions as they deserved in their lifetime, perhaps because they were not yes men or company men, who toed the line and played by the rules of the big bosses of the sport. Both of them absolutely driven by compulsion and passion to win, yet both flawed on the ways they could achieve that.
Then there is the consideration how much the car is a character, or at least Ford as a concept. What makes this story so great is the David and Goliath element, that makes you sure there is no possible way this could be true. As with all great sports films, even if you know the history and result of a real event, the little guy sticking it to the invincible and arrogant behemoth, win, lose or draw, is what makes us invest and then cheer, or cry, when all the effort is finally spent.
Effort, sacrifice, overcoming obstacles, facing defeat, bouncing back from setbacks, gaining respect of friends and rivals alike – all these elements make a sports film great. Le Mans ’66 has it all, with the added bonus of enough budget to make it fly, which isn’t usually the case in this genre. It looks spectacular, feels exciting and is ultimately completely satisfying, as both a character study of real men, and a document of a game changing moment in sporting history.
It also doesn’t entirely ignore the female influence on such a masculine world; the little known Irish actress Catriona Balfe as Mollie Miles really caught my eye in some really tender scenes. This film won’t be passing the Bechdal test any time soon, however, as she is pretty much the only female member of the cast with an actual name! But it isn’t something to get too hung up about, in my opinion.
I’d be bold enough to recommend this to anyone. No need to love cars, or racing or even sport at all. If you love good movies that keep you hooked till the checkered flag of the credits, then look no further. High art? No. A proper movie with huge mass appeal? 100%
The Bandersnatch (199 KP) rated Dracula in Books
Nov 7, 2019
Dracula was written by author Bram Stoker during the late 1890's and is set around the character of Dracula and his attempt to move from Transylvania to England so he can spread the curse of the undead (I.e. the creation of more vampires). English solicitor Jonathan Harker who'd originally gone to Transylvania to be legal aide for Dracula stops him with the help of Van Helsing and others which ends the life of one of them – Quincey-, the book ends with a note from Jonathan Harker that several people lived happily married and Jonathan has a son nicknamed for Quincey.
Dracula was published in London in May 1897 by Archibald Constable & Company and was later copyrighted in the U.S in 1899 and published by Doubleday & McClure of New York. Despite having decent praise form reviewers it wasn't an immediate bestseller. Although the English newspaper the Daily Mail ranked Stoker's writing prowess in Dracula above that of Mary Shelly, Edgar Allen Poe and Emily Bronte's Wuthering heights. Unfortunately it didn't make Stoker that much money and he'd had to petition for a compassionate grant from the royal literary fund. When he died his widow was forced to sell his notes and outlines of the book at an auction in 1913. It was the unauthorised adaption of Nosferatu by F. W. Murnau in 1922 and the resulting legal battle made when Stokers widow took affront that the novels popularity began to grow.
Before writing Dracula Bram Stoker had been researching European folklore and stories of vampires having been most influenced by Emily Gerard's “Transylvania Superstitions” 1885 essay...which included content about the vampire myth. Some historians insist that Vlad iii Dracula (More commonly known as Vlad the impaler) was the model for Stokers count but there's been no supporting evidence to make that true. According to one expert Stoker only borrowed the barest minimum of information of the Wallachian tyrant and he's not even mentioned in Stokers notes. Stoker was a member of the London library during the 1890's where books by Sabine Baring-Gould, Thomas Browne, AF Crosse and Charles Boner are attributed to Stokers research. Stoker would later claim he'd had a nightmare caused by over-eating crab meat about a “Vampire king” rising from his grave. Whitby on the Yorkshire coast contributed its landscape since Bram Stoker often holidayed there during the summer.
Dracula wasn't Stokers first choice as title for the story since he cycled through The Dead Un-Dead then simply the Un-Dead the count wasn't even supposed to be Count Dracula having had the name Count Wampyr for several drafts before Stoker became intrigued by the name Dracula. After reading “An account of the principles of Wallachia and Moldavia with political observations relative to them” written by author William Wilkinson (Published in 1820). the descendants of Vlad ii of Wallachia took the name Dracula or Dracul after being invested in the Order of the Dragon in 1431. In the old Romanian language the word Dracul mean “the Dragon” and Dracula meant “Son of the Dragon”. Nowadays however Dracul means “the Devil”
Whilst Dracula is known as THE Vampire novel its not the first. Johan Wolfgang Von Goethe had his book the Bride of Corinth published in 1797, 1871's Carmilla (a story about a lesbian vampire) was written by Sheridan Le Frau and James Malcolm Rymer's penny dreadful series Venny the Vampire was a product from the mid Victorian period. Even John Polidori created an image of a vampyric aristocrat in his 1819 story The Vampyre when he spent a summer with Merry Shelly (creator of Frankenstein) and her poet husband Percy Bysshe Shelly and Lord Bryon in 1816.
I really love Dracula. It showed the madness, the ethereal quality and the ultimate danger of what a vampire could do. Like many other goth inclined teenagers trying to find their feet in the world Dracula definitely added its two cents to my self worth and love of all things macabre. The fact it was written by a Victorian writer has added a unusual depth to the story as only a Victorian writer could. The culture of the Vampire has become deep rooted and wide spread in its acceptance and Dracula has definitely spearheaded such a phenomenon.
Abraham “Bram” Stoker was Born in Dublin, Ireland on the 8th of November 1847, He was the third of seven children born to Abraham and Charlotte Stoker and was bedridden with an unknown illness until he recovered at seven. He started schooling at a private school run by the Reverend William Woods and grew up without serious illness. Stoker excelled at sports at Trinity College Dublin having graduated in 1870 with a BA (Bachelor of Arts). He was an Auditor of the College Historical Society and the president of the University Philosophical Society where his first paper was on Sensationalism in fiction and society.
Thanks to his friend Dr. Maunsell, Stoker became interested in the theatre as a student and whilst working for the Irish civil service he became a theatre critic for the Dublin evening mail where he attracted notice for the quality of his reviews. Stoker gave a favourable review of Henry Irving's adaption of Hamlet in December 1876, this prompted Irving to invite him to dinner where they ended up becoming friends. Stoker wrote The Crystal Cup which was published by the London society in 1872 and The chain of Destiny which was released in four parts in the Shamrock. Stoker also wrote the non-fiction book the duties of clerks of petty sessions in Ireland which was published in 1879.
Bram stoker married Florence Balcombe the daughter of a lieutenent-colonel in 1978 and they moved to London. Where Stoker ended up the Business manager of the Lyceum theatre as well as manager for Henry Irving- a position he held for 27 years. Despite being a very busy man Stoker ended up writing several novels (as well as Dracula) Including The Snakes pass in 1890, the lady of the shroud in 1909 and the lair of the white worm in 1911. when Henry Irving died in 1906 he published his personal reminiscences of Henry Irving. Stoker also managed productions at the Prince of Wales theatre.
Bram stoker died after a series of strokes in London on April 20th 1912, the cause of death is split between the possibility of Tertiary Syphilis or overwork. He was cremated and was placed in a display urn at Golders Green Crematorium in North London, he was later joined by the ashes of his Son Irving Noel Stoker in 1961, his wife Florence was meant to join them but her ashes were scattered at the Gardens of rest.
Stoker was honoured with a Google Doogle (the banner on goggles homepage) on November 8th 2012 commemorating the 165th anniversary of his birth. An annual festival in honour of Bram Stoker happens in Dublin, its supported by the Bram stoker estate and was/is usually funded by Dublin City Council and Failte Ireland.
My opinion of Bran stoker is that of a decent hard working man who loved life. Stoker epitomises the phrases of “a man on a mission” and “a man who hussles”. Having worked extremely hard both creatively as a novelist and business wise as a theatre manager Stoker pretty much showed that if you work hard you could pretty much do anything you set your mind to.
And there you have it a book for all the ages, definitely under the banner of AWESOME!!!.
Dracula was published in London in May 1897 by Archibald Constable & Company and was later copyrighted in the U.S in 1899 and published by Doubleday & McClure of New York. Despite having decent praise form reviewers it wasn't an immediate bestseller. Although the English newspaper the Daily Mail ranked Stoker's writing prowess in Dracula above that of Mary Shelly, Edgar Allen Poe and Emily Bronte's Wuthering heights. Unfortunately it didn't make Stoker that much money and he'd had to petition for a compassionate grant from the royal literary fund. When he died his widow was forced to sell his notes and outlines of the book at an auction in 1913. It was the unauthorised adaption of Nosferatu by F. W. Murnau in 1922 and the resulting legal battle made when Stokers widow took affront that the novels popularity began to grow.
Before writing Dracula Bram Stoker had been researching European folklore and stories of vampires having been most influenced by Emily Gerard's “Transylvania Superstitions” 1885 essay...which included content about the vampire myth. Some historians insist that Vlad iii Dracula (More commonly known as Vlad the impaler) was the model for Stokers count but there's been no supporting evidence to make that true. According to one expert Stoker only borrowed the barest minimum of information of the Wallachian tyrant and he's not even mentioned in Stokers notes. Stoker was a member of the London library during the 1890's where books by Sabine Baring-Gould, Thomas Browne, AF Crosse and Charles Boner are attributed to Stokers research. Stoker would later claim he'd had a nightmare caused by over-eating crab meat about a “Vampire king” rising from his grave. Whitby on the Yorkshire coast contributed its landscape since Bram Stoker often holidayed there during the summer.
Dracula wasn't Stokers first choice as title for the story since he cycled through The Dead Un-Dead then simply the Un-Dead the count wasn't even supposed to be Count Dracula having had the name Count Wampyr for several drafts before Stoker became intrigued by the name Dracula. After reading “An account of the principles of Wallachia and Moldavia with political observations relative to them” written by author William Wilkinson (Published in 1820). the descendants of Vlad ii of Wallachia took the name Dracula or Dracul after being invested in the Order of the Dragon in 1431. In the old Romanian language the word Dracul mean “the Dragon” and Dracula meant “Son of the Dragon”. Nowadays however Dracul means “the Devil”
Whilst Dracula is known as THE Vampire novel its not the first. Johan Wolfgang Von Goethe had his book the Bride of Corinth published in 1797, 1871's Carmilla (a story about a lesbian vampire) was written by Sheridan Le Frau and James Malcolm Rymer's penny dreadful series Venny the Vampire was a product from the mid Victorian period. Even John Polidori created an image of a vampyric aristocrat in his 1819 story The Vampyre when he spent a summer with Merry Shelly (creator of Frankenstein) and her poet husband Percy Bysshe Shelly and Lord Bryon in 1816.
I really love Dracula. It showed the madness, the ethereal quality and the ultimate danger of what a vampire could do. Like many other goth inclined teenagers trying to find their feet in the world Dracula definitely added its two cents to my self worth and love of all things macabre. The fact it was written by a Victorian writer has added a unusual depth to the story as only a Victorian writer could. The culture of the Vampire has become deep rooted and wide spread in its acceptance and Dracula has definitely spearheaded such a phenomenon.
Abraham “Bram” Stoker was Born in Dublin, Ireland on the 8th of November 1847, He was the third of seven children born to Abraham and Charlotte Stoker and was bedridden with an unknown illness until he recovered at seven. He started schooling at a private school run by the Reverend William Woods and grew up without serious illness. Stoker excelled at sports at Trinity College Dublin having graduated in 1870 with a BA (Bachelor of Arts). He was an Auditor of the College Historical Society and the president of the University Philosophical Society where his first paper was on Sensationalism in fiction and society.
Thanks to his friend Dr. Maunsell, Stoker became interested in the theatre as a student and whilst working for the Irish civil service he became a theatre critic for the Dublin evening mail where he attracted notice for the quality of his reviews. Stoker gave a favourable review of Henry Irving's adaption of Hamlet in December 1876, this prompted Irving to invite him to dinner where they ended up becoming friends. Stoker wrote The Crystal Cup which was published by the London society in 1872 and The chain of Destiny which was released in four parts in the Shamrock. Stoker also wrote the non-fiction book the duties of clerks of petty sessions in Ireland which was published in 1879.
Bram stoker married Florence Balcombe the daughter of a lieutenent-colonel in 1978 and they moved to London. Where Stoker ended up the Business manager of the Lyceum theatre as well as manager for Henry Irving- a position he held for 27 years. Despite being a very busy man Stoker ended up writing several novels (as well as Dracula) Including The Snakes pass in 1890, the lady of the shroud in 1909 and the lair of the white worm in 1911. when Henry Irving died in 1906 he published his personal reminiscences of Henry Irving. Stoker also managed productions at the Prince of Wales theatre.
Bram stoker died after a series of strokes in London on April 20th 1912, the cause of death is split between the possibility of Tertiary Syphilis or overwork. He was cremated and was placed in a display urn at Golders Green Crematorium in North London, he was later joined by the ashes of his Son Irving Noel Stoker in 1961, his wife Florence was meant to join them but her ashes were scattered at the Gardens of rest.
Stoker was honoured with a Google Doogle (the banner on goggles homepage) on November 8th 2012 commemorating the 165th anniversary of his birth. An annual festival in honour of Bram Stoker happens in Dublin, its supported by the Bram stoker estate and was/is usually funded by Dublin City Council and Failte Ireland.
My opinion of Bran stoker is that of a decent hard working man who loved life. Stoker epitomises the phrases of “a man on a mission” and “a man who hussles”. Having worked extremely hard both creatively as a novelist and business wise as a theatre manager Stoker pretty much showed that if you work hard you could pretty much do anything you set your mind to.
And there you have it a book for all the ages, definitely under the banner of AWESOME!!!.