Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Downsizing (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Tiny People, Big Mess.
From the trailer this film looked quirky, funny and interesting and has been on my “looking forward to” list for many months. Oh dear, what a let down.
Matt Damon (“The Martian“, “The Great Wall“, “Jason Bourne“) and Kristen Wiig (“mother!“, “Ghostbusters“) play Paul and Audrey Safranek. Paul is a laid-back and hardworking occupational therapist; Audrey has materialistic ambitions over and above their available finances. The two decide to “downsize” making use of a revolutionary Norwegian invention that reduces humans, and most other lifeforms, to a fraction of their normal size. This offers huge wealth to the normal American, since the cost of living in downsized form within the mini-estate called LeisureLand is tiny in comparison to “big folks”. But all does not go well in the transition (unlike the trailer, no spoilers here) and Paul needs to find a new purpose in life as bigger problems loom.
It’s clearly written to be a social satire, and there are some clever angles to be explored here: everyone publicly positions their downsizing based on ‘environmental issues’ and ‘saving the planet’, but most everyone’s real reason is the lifestyle benefits. Also lightly touched on, but never deeply explored, are the impacts that the downsizing initiative is having on the broader American economy and property markets, with the ‘big people’ questioning why small people should have the same rights and votes as them.
But the film never really gets into the meat of any of this. Worse than that, the movie never settles on what it is trying to be. I think we can write off “Sci-Fi” pretty early on. But is it a drama? A comedy? A love story? A socialist rant? An environmental cri de coeur? The film jumbles all these aspects together and treats each so halfheartedly that none of them get properly addressed.
Not only are the audience confused: none of the actors seem to be too sure why they’re there either. Damon – never Mr Personality – should have been able to develop some chemistry with the feisty and dynamic Ms Wiig, but even these early scenes plod along with you thinking “what a dull film”. Things perk up slightly at the LeisureLand sales fair, where Neil Patrick Harris (“Gone Girl“) and a naked Laura Dern (“Star Wars: The Last Jedi“) glibly try to sell a luxury doll’s house to the assembled crowd. American consumerism in miniature.
But post-downsizing the film crashes back to ‘Dullesville Arizona’ again, but with added depression, requiring Christophe Waltz (“Django Unchanined”, “Spectre“), as a dodgy Serbian entrepreneur Dusan Mirkovic, to over-act manically to try to add any sort of energy into the film (which he is only mildly successful at doing). There’s a rather bizarre supporting role from Udo Kier – looking for all the world like Terence Stamp – as Mirkovic’s ship-owning pal, and an almost cameo performance from Jason Sudeikis (“Colossal“).
Enter stage-left Thai-born Hong Chau as Ngoc Lan Tran, a Vietnamese cleaner. There’s a clever angle here: where “average American Joes” like Safranek can live like kings, but the poor still have to scrape by, living in ‘skyscraper Portacabins’, as the menial classes: there’s no escaping class structures, even when 5 inches tall. Chau sums up the uneven nature of the film, as she mostly plays her lines for laughs but then (in a spectacularly good bit of acting in the midst of, I have to say, some pretty poor hamming) bursts into uncontrollable tears.
Just when you think things are going to limp to a unmemorable close, the film ups and leaves LeisureLand to add a completely bizarre final act. (It’s pretty unusual in the UK for people to walk out of a cinema mid-film, but a couple did so at this point). This segment bears no relationship to the downsizing theme whatsoever, since all the players at this point could be full-sized. Aside from an amusing “50 shades of f**k” speech from Ngoc Lan Tran and a “massive explosion”, this story goes nowhere, says nothing (at least not to me) and merely irritates. Throw in a completely anti-climatic non-ending and I genuinely shared a “WTF look” with the stranger sat next to me!
This is all very strange, since this comes from Alexander Payne, who also directed and co-wrote “The Descendants”, one of the most impressive films of the decade. Jim Taylor co-writes (as he has co-written numerous other films with Payne).
I note that in this morning’s London Times that their film critic, Kevin Maher – someone who’s views I am generally pretty well aligned with – gave it 4 *’s out of 5. I can only assume that he either saw a completely different cut of the film, or he is a lot cleverer than I am and understood amazing sub-texts that completely passed me by! Maybe… but I have a sneaking suspicion that the general viewing public will more share my opinion on this than his.
I was tempted to give this just one star as it was such a disappointment to me, but the underlying concept is a good one: it is just one that has, in my humble opinion, been implemented in a bizarrely slipshod manner.
Definitely not recommended. Go and see “Coco” instead!
Matt Damon (“The Martian“, “The Great Wall“, “Jason Bourne“) and Kristen Wiig (“mother!“, “Ghostbusters“) play Paul and Audrey Safranek. Paul is a laid-back and hardworking occupational therapist; Audrey has materialistic ambitions over and above their available finances. The two decide to “downsize” making use of a revolutionary Norwegian invention that reduces humans, and most other lifeforms, to a fraction of their normal size. This offers huge wealth to the normal American, since the cost of living in downsized form within the mini-estate called LeisureLand is tiny in comparison to “big folks”. But all does not go well in the transition (unlike the trailer, no spoilers here) and Paul needs to find a new purpose in life as bigger problems loom.
It’s clearly written to be a social satire, and there are some clever angles to be explored here: everyone publicly positions their downsizing based on ‘environmental issues’ and ‘saving the planet’, but most everyone’s real reason is the lifestyle benefits. Also lightly touched on, but never deeply explored, are the impacts that the downsizing initiative is having on the broader American economy and property markets, with the ‘big people’ questioning why small people should have the same rights and votes as them.
But the film never really gets into the meat of any of this. Worse than that, the movie never settles on what it is trying to be. I think we can write off “Sci-Fi” pretty early on. But is it a drama? A comedy? A love story? A socialist rant? An environmental cri de coeur? The film jumbles all these aspects together and treats each so halfheartedly that none of them get properly addressed.
Not only are the audience confused: none of the actors seem to be too sure why they’re there either. Damon – never Mr Personality – should have been able to develop some chemistry with the feisty and dynamic Ms Wiig, but even these early scenes plod along with you thinking “what a dull film”. Things perk up slightly at the LeisureLand sales fair, where Neil Patrick Harris (“Gone Girl“) and a naked Laura Dern (“Star Wars: The Last Jedi“) glibly try to sell a luxury doll’s house to the assembled crowd. American consumerism in miniature.
But post-downsizing the film crashes back to ‘Dullesville Arizona’ again, but with added depression, requiring Christophe Waltz (“Django Unchanined”, “Spectre“), as a dodgy Serbian entrepreneur Dusan Mirkovic, to over-act manically to try to add any sort of energy into the film (which he is only mildly successful at doing). There’s a rather bizarre supporting role from Udo Kier – looking for all the world like Terence Stamp – as Mirkovic’s ship-owning pal, and an almost cameo performance from Jason Sudeikis (“Colossal“).
Enter stage-left Thai-born Hong Chau as Ngoc Lan Tran, a Vietnamese cleaner. There’s a clever angle here: where “average American Joes” like Safranek can live like kings, but the poor still have to scrape by, living in ‘skyscraper Portacabins’, as the menial classes: there’s no escaping class structures, even when 5 inches tall. Chau sums up the uneven nature of the film, as she mostly plays her lines for laughs but then (in a spectacularly good bit of acting in the midst of, I have to say, some pretty poor hamming) bursts into uncontrollable tears.
Just when you think things are going to limp to a unmemorable close, the film ups and leaves LeisureLand to add a completely bizarre final act. (It’s pretty unusual in the UK for people to walk out of a cinema mid-film, but a couple did so at this point). This segment bears no relationship to the downsizing theme whatsoever, since all the players at this point could be full-sized. Aside from an amusing “50 shades of f**k” speech from Ngoc Lan Tran and a “massive explosion”, this story goes nowhere, says nothing (at least not to me) and merely irritates. Throw in a completely anti-climatic non-ending and I genuinely shared a “WTF look” with the stranger sat next to me!
This is all very strange, since this comes from Alexander Payne, who also directed and co-wrote “The Descendants”, one of the most impressive films of the decade. Jim Taylor co-writes (as he has co-written numerous other films with Payne).
I note that in this morning’s London Times that their film critic, Kevin Maher – someone who’s views I am generally pretty well aligned with – gave it 4 *’s out of 5. I can only assume that he either saw a completely different cut of the film, or he is a lot cleverer than I am and understood amazing sub-texts that completely passed me by! Maybe… but I have a sneaking suspicion that the general viewing public will more share my opinion on this than his.
I was tempted to give this just one star as it was such a disappointment to me, but the underlying concept is a good one: it is just one that has, in my humble opinion, been implemented in a bizarrely slipshod manner.
Definitely not recommended. Go and see “Coco” instead!
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Aquaman (2018) in Movies
Jan 8, 2019 (Updated Jan 8, 2019)
Wishy Washy
I was excited to see this movie after hearing the glowing reviews and praise it was getting. I am also a fan of Jason Momoa and James Wan, so I was really hoping for this to be at least as good as Wonder Woman. Also, being a long time fan of DC Comics, I really want to see them find their footing cinematically and I thought that this could finally be the start of that. Unfortunately I left the cinema feeling pretty underwhelmed.
The movie opens by telling the story of how Aquaman's parents came to meet and fall in love, even though they are from vastly different worlds. This whole sequence is brilliant and I was totally on-board for what was to come afterwards. Sadly, this opening sequence is by far the best part of the entire movie. From this point on it descends into a mediocre action adventure flick with story elements very reminiscent of Thor and Black Panther, (two movies that are vastly superior to this one.)
From a direction standpoint, it is clear that James Wan knows how to visually capture a scene in the most beautiful and intriguing way possible, which is especially evident during the trench sequence. His direction during all of the action sequences is great, with Nicole Kidman's trident work in the opening scene and the rooftop sequence with Black Manta, Mera and Aquaman being the highlights. I don't think that my issue with this movie is due to the direction lacking in any aspect. The only questionable choice in my opinion, was the choice to shoot the big Black Manta scene in broad daylight. It just looked slightly naff and would have came across much better if shot in darker conditions at night.
Nor do I think that it is the fault of any of the cast members. I think that Momoa does a great job in the title role and he looks incredible in the full on Aquaman suit, (which I don't think many other actors could legitimately pull off.) I think that Patrick Wilson did a decent job as the evil slightly cheesy power hungry half brother of Aquaman. I also enjoyed Willem Dafoe, Dolph Lundgren and Nicole Kidman in each of their scenes.
I think that the major culprit in this movie feeling a bit forced at times, is the lazy script that the actors had to work with. Almost every scene plays out in the exact same way; with the characters that we are following turning up to a new location, meeting up with a character, (usually Willem Dafoe,) listening to them spout a bunch of expositional dialogue and then mid sentence bad guys will attack and an explosion will go off cutting the conversation short. Then we will get a well shot action sequence with super dynamic cinematography, then the characters will figure out where they need to go next, they will go to the next location and the process will be rinsed and repeated for the duration of the movie.
Overall, Aquaman is not a bad superhero movie, there is a lot of fun to be had here with the badass action sequences. Unfortunately the lazy script holds the movie back from being as good as the glowing reviews told me it would be and out of the DC solo movies, - this, Man of Steel and Wonder Woman, - this is probably the worst of the three.
PS. Although I don't think that the movie in general was up to the highest level of quality, the CGI is objectively breath-taking in every scene and I totally agree with James Wan that it is nothing short of an atrocity that the SFX team on this movie have been snubbed for this year's Oscars ceremony.
The movie opens by telling the story of how Aquaman's parents came to meet and fall in love, even though they are from vastly different worlds. This whole sequence is brilliant and I was totally on-board for what was to come afterwards. Sadly, this opening sequence is by far the best part of the entire movie. From this point on it descends into a mediocre action adventure flick with story elements very reminiscent of Thor and Black Panther, (two movies that are vastly superior to this one.)
From a direction standpoint, it is clear that James Wan knows how to visually capture a scene in the most beautiful and intriguing way possible, which is especially evident during the trench sequence. His direction during all of the action sequences is great, with Nicole Kidman's trident work in the opening scene and the rooftop sequence with Black Manta, Mera and Aquaman being the highlights. I don't think that my issue with this movie is due to the direction lacking in any aspect. The only questionable choice in my opinion, was the choice to shoot the big Black Manta scene in broad daylight. It just looked slightly naff and would have came across much better if shot in darker conditions at night.
Nor do I think that it is the fault of any of the cast members. I think that Momoa does a great job in the title role and he looks incredible in the full on Aquaman suit, (which I don't think many other actors could legitimately pull off.) I think that Patrick Wilson did a decent job as the evil slightly cheesy power hungry half brother of Aquaman. I also enjoyed Willem Dafoe, Dolph Lundgren and Nicole Kidman in each of their scenes.
I think that the major culprit in this movie feeling a bit forced at times, is the lazy script that the actors had to work with. Almost every scene plays out in the exact same way; with the characters that we are following turning up to a new location, meeting up with a character, (usually Willem Dafoe,) listening to them spout a bunch of expositional dialogue and then mid sentence bad guys will attack and an explosion will go off cutting the conversation short. Then we will get a well shot action sequence with super dynamic cinematography, then the characters will figure out where they need to go next, they will go to the next location and the process will be rinsed and repeated for the duration of the movie.
Overall, Aquaman is not a bad superhero movie, there is a lot of fun to be had here with the badass action sequences. Unfortunately the lazy script holds the movie back from being as good as the glowing reviews told me it would be and out of the DC solo movies, - this, Man of Steel and Wonder Woman, - this is probably the worst of the three.
PS. Although I don't think that the movie in general was up to the highest level of quality, the CGI is objectively breath-taking in every scene and I totally agree with James Wan that it is nothing short of an atrocity that the SFX team on this movie have been snubbed for this year's Oscars ceremony.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Cats (2019) in Movies
Dec 27, 2019
[Nostalgia enters the room looking cheery. A cat lurks in the background. Nostalgia starts tapdancing. Suddenly a red dot appears on Nostalgia's back and the cat savagely attacks it, leaving it bloody and beaten on the ground.]
As I've been saying to people... this film isn't good, but it's also not entirely bad, it has its moments.
Let's talk about the CGI first. You know what? It's not all that bad. Take out whatever you think about the concept of the human cats the fur in the second trailer looked much better than its first outing. During the film, Old Deuteronomy looked so fluffy I just wanted to pet her. The ear movements were pretty good, if a little consistent, it felt a little like they'd looked up cat actions in a book and taken the textbook description to animate rather than watching an actual cat. The cats as a whole could probably been a little larger compared to the "life-sized" staging around them because the ratio did feel a little off, but it wasn't really enough to make it off-putting.
Ever since I saw Cats at the cinema I've been singing the songs, but that's off the back of me listening to the stage recordings on Spotify and not the film versions. They don't quite have the same pep of the originals, watching them wasn't the wondrous experience I was hoping for. There are small exceptions. Taylor Swift was excellent and set a perfect tone for her number. Jason Derulo is a showman in this and after his Red Dwarf Cat-like clip in the trailer I was excited for his full numbers, they didn't disappoint.
Memory has to be my favourite song since seeing it on the stage and I was keen to see the talented Jennifer Hudson perform it. When it surfaced briefly I was worried, there was no impact, no heart... potential disaster. Finally the full number happened at the end and I was convinced. I listened to Hudson sing with such emotion that I cried, streams of tears and a quivering lip. It was beautiful.
The rest of the cast, while chockful of talent, didn't have quite the same buzz about it.
Francesca Hayward is a massively talented ballerina but the acting portion of the performance didn't quite hit the spot. This wasn't helped by the advert that has been running with her and Jennifer Hudson before the trailer was running before every film I watched for about two weeks.
I love Dame Judi and Sir Ian, and it was fun seeing them in this, but both had their issues. I wasn't a fan of Dench's moments of singing and the melancholy role of Gus for McKellen was a little unsettling. Who doesn't love seeing an Idris Elba film? He does the bad "guy" well but there was something wrong here too, I think that was partly to do with that fur torso.
It would be entirely possible to go on and on about this and all its ins and outs, but I don't think either of us have the time for that. I do feel that having the previous knowledge of Cats on the stage will help immensely when seeing this. That does also have some drawbacks though, when we saw it at the theatre it was a very interactive experience with the cats in the aisles with the audience and that's something the film can't compete with. I'm tempted to say that they should have forgone CGI aspects for the most part and had costumed cast. Making something more realistic when everything around it is unrealistic (in that it's not quite what we're used to as regular-sized humans) makes everything more confusing, perhaps the low tech angle would have made it a little less scary to some.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/12/cats-movie-review.html
As I've been saying to people... this film isn't good, but it's also not entirely bad, it has its moments.
Let's talk about the CGI first. You know what? It's not all that bad. Take out whatever you think about the concept of the human cats the fur in the second trailer looked much better than its first outing. During the film, Old Deuteronomy looked so fluffy I just wanted to pet her. The ear movements were pretty good, if a little consistent, it felt a little like they'd looked up cat actions in a book and taken the textbook description to animate rather than watching an actual cat. The cats as a whole could probably been a little larger compared to the "life-sized" staging around them because the ratio did feel a little off, but it wasn't really enough to make it off-putting.
Ever since I saw Cats at the cinema I've been singing the songs, but that's off the back of me listening to the stage recordings on Spotify and not the film versions. They don't quite have the same pep of the originals, watching them wasn't the wondrous experience I was hoping for. There are small exceptions. Taylor Swift was excellent and set a perfect tone for her number. Jason Derulo is a showman in this and after his Red Dwarf Cat-like clip in the trailer I was excited for his full numbers, they didn't disappoint.
Memory has to be my favourite song since seeing it on the stage and I was keen to see the talented Jennifer Hudson perform it. When it surfaced briefly I was worried, there was no impact, no heart... potential disaster. Finally the full number happened at the end and I was convinced. I listened to Hudson sing with such emotion that I cried, streams of tears and a quivering lip. It was beautiful.
The rest of the cast, while chockful of talent, didn't have quite the same buzz about it.
Francesca Hayward is a massively talented ballerina but the acting portion of the performance didn't quite hit the spot. This wasn't helped by the advert that has been running with her and Jennifer Hudson before the trailer was running before every film I watched for about two weeks.
I love Dame Judi and Sir Ian, and it was fun seeing them in this, but both had their issues. I wasn't a fan of Dench's moments of singing and the melancholy role of Gus for McKellen was a little unsettling. Who doesn't love seeing an Idris Elba film? He does the bad "guy" well but there was something wrong here too, I think that was partly to do with that fur torso.
It would be entirely possible to go on and on about this and all its ins and outs, but I don't think either of us have the time for that. I do feel that having the previous knowledge of Cats on the stage will help immensely when seeing this. That does also have some drawbacks though, when we saw it at the theatre it was a very interactive experience with the cats in the aisles with the audience and that's something the film can't compete with. I'm tempted to say that they should have forgone CGI aspects for the most part and had costumed cast. Making something more realistic when everything around it is unrealistic (in that it's not quite what we're used to as regular-sized humans) makes everything more confusing, perhaps the low tech angle would have made it a little less scary to some.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/12/cats-movie-review.html
Heather Cranmer (2721 KP) rated A Kiss of Madness in Books
Jan 14, 2019
Too much smut (3 more)
Unbelievable plot
Underdeveloped and unlikable characters
Book is confused about the plot
Reads More Like a Rough Draft
I love reading books about mental illness, and even more so if they take place inside an asylum. When I saw A Kiss of Madness by K.B. Everly and Stacy Jones, it seemed like the perfect read for me. Unfortunately, I was left very disappointed.
The synopsis for A Kiss of Madness sounded very interesting. It could have been a very interesting book except there's too much going on in the story. Lydia gets sent to Brocker's Center for the Criminally Insane after having a vision and throwing a chair through a window as well as attacking an innocent bystander. She could have chose jail time or to voluntarily commit herself to Brocker's. She chose the latter. While there, she gets feelings about people and doesn't feel like she belongs. She meets three guys who are patients with their own issues. However, she ends up thinking they're hot, and they also think she's hot. The guys all agree to be her boyfriends and end up following her everywhere. When one of the other female patients goes missing, Lydia tries to uncover what really happened putting herself in grave danger. I was confused if A Kiss of Madness was trying to be more of a romance novel, a mystery/crime novel, or a paranormal novel. I got the insane asylum vibe for a few chapters, but soon this book lost its whole mental illness vibe. I felt like the insane asylum setting was just thrown in there to make this book sound more interesting than it actually was. It soon turned more into an erotic novel which made me like the book even less. There was just too much pointless fairly graphic sex for my liking. I feel like all the fairly graphic sex and sexual references really took away from the story. I also didn't like the ending. It just felt too rushed. Actually, the whole story just felt really rushed. I also didn't understand how one character who had a violent past could have such a great job. I won't go into further details because it's a spoiler.
I started out liking Lydia and was on her side for the first few chapters or so. However, I found myself losing the connection I felt with her the more I read. She just came across as being very irresponsible and immature. I didn't really care for Pierce, Emmett, or Mason/Jason either. None of the characters in A Kiss of Madness were fleshed out enough to be likable or believable.
The pacing starts out great in A Kiss of Madness. However, it soon slows down once the sex scenes come into play. Then it slows down and becomes more of a smut novel instead of a decent read. Luckily this is a short read or I would have given up on it when I got to the sex parts.
Trigger warnings for A Kiss of Madness include violence, murder, mental illness, attempted sexual assault, fairly graphic sex scenes, sexual references, and profanities.
Overall, A Kiss of Madness started out great. However, it soon went downhill close to halfway through the book. I feel like this book feels more like a rough draft on what could be a decent read. It just needs a lot more work to be good. Get rid of a lot of the pointless sex scenes and references, bulk up the story and characters a bit, decide on what angle to go with, and give this book some guts! At this time, I would not recommend A Kiss of Madness by K.B. Everly and Stacy Jones.
The synopsis for A Kiss of Madness sounded very interesting. It could have been a very interesting book except there's too much going on in the story. Lydia gets sent to Brocker's Center for the Criminally Insane after having a vision and throwing a chair through a window as well as attacking an innocent bystander. She could have chose jail time or to voluntarily commit herself to Brocker's. She chose the latter. While there, she gets feelings about people and doesn't feel like she belongs. She meets three guys who are patients with their own issues. However, she ends up thinking they're hot, and they also think she's hot. The guys all agree to be her boyfriends and end up following her everywhere. When one of the other female patients goes missing, Lydia tries to uncover what really happened putting herself in grave danger. I was confused if A Kiss of Madness was trying to be more of a romance novel, a mystery/crime novel, or a paranormal novel. I got the insane asylum vibe for a few chapters, but soon this book lost its whole mental illness vibe. I felt like the insane asylum setting was just thrown in there to make this book sound more interesting than it actually was. It soon turned more into an erotic novel which made me like the book even less. There was just too much pointless fairly graphic sex for my liking. I feel like all the fairly graphic sex and sexual references really took away from the story. I also didn't like the ending. It just felt too rushed. Actually, the whole story just felt really rushed. I also didn't understand how one character who had a violent past could have such a great job. I won't go into further details because it's a spoiler.
I started out liking Lydia and was on her side for the first few chapters or so. However, I found myself losing the connection I felt with her the more I read. She just came across as being very irresponsible and immature. I didn't really care for Pierce, Emmett, or Mason/Jason either. None of the characters in A Kiss of Madness were fleshed out enough to be likable or believable.
The pacing starts out great in A Kiss of Madness. However, it soon slows down once the sex scenes come into play. Then it slows down and becomes more of a smut novel instead of a decent read. Luckily this is a short read or I would have given up on it when I got to the sex parts.
Trigger warnings for A Kiss of Madness include violence, murder, mental illness, attempted sexual assault, fairly graphic sex scenes, sexual references, and profanities.
Overall, A Kiss of Madness started out great. However, it soon went downhill close to halfway through the book. I feel like this book feels more like a rough draft on what could be a decent read. It just needs a lot more work to be good. Get rid of a lot of the pointless sex scenes and references, bulk up the story and characters a bit, decide on what angle to go with, and give this book some guts! At this time, I would not recommend A Kiss of Madness by K.B. Everly and Stacy Jones.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Skinwalkers (2007) in Movies
Jul 25, 2019
Story: Skinwalkers starts as Varek (Behr) leads the hunt for a young boy for his werewolf pack, joined by Sonja (Malthe) he learns the location of Timothy (Knight) which takes him to small town to collect him.
Varek didn’t count on Timothy being under the watch of another prepared werewolf pack led by Jonas (Koteas) and his daughter-in-law Rachel (Mitra) who wasn’t ready to learn the truth that on Tim’s 13th birthday everything changes in the battle.
Thoughts on Skinwalkers
Characters – Varek is the leader of the werewolf pack that wants Timothy dead to stop the event he will cause, he hunts calmly through the film knowing how to get ahead of his enemies, though he is unaware of his connection to the child. Jonas has been protecting his nephew for years now, knowing what he means to the species, he has built the team his truss around him to make sure he is safe. Rachel is the mother of Timothy, she thinks he is just a normal kid and that she lives in a normal town, he must learn fast how to cope in this world filled with werewolves and protect her son. Sonja is the deadliest fighter on Varek side of the war, she enjoys hurting people and we see her take pleasure in this.
Performances – Jason Behr as the conflicted werewolf is good to watch, he shines on the bad boy side of this story, though when he must show the other side of the emotions we see him struggle at times. Elias Koteas is strong for his role which is one that we often see him in. Rhona Mitra does well in the reluctant heroes being the strong need to learn to battle mother figure in the film. everyone else in the film is fine without needing to be anything special, they fit their roles well to help the story flow.
Story – The story here follows two warring werewolf packs that know the importance of a child for both their existences, so basically something we have seen before only with a modern style to it. The fact the story does feel like an introduction to a much big world building idea is promising and while it isn’t the film’s fault we didn’t see the next chapter, it does show us how story telling can think ahead of time. If we are being honest this is a by the book storyline, it doesn’t bring us anything new to the werewolf mythology it just tries to keep it in the modern world.
Action/Fantasy/Horror – The action sequences are mixed bag because we have shoot-out which are routine and lack the peril for certain characters, while the fights show the effects that two werewolves fighting would have on each other. The fantasy world of werewolves living among humans is nicely done, showing two sides to them, though the horror does seem weak because we never feel terrified by what we are seeing.
Settings – The film uses the settings in a mix of quality and generic, the small town gets the big surprise with everyone being part of the protection, then we hit the road and its nothing we haven’t seen before.
Special Effects – The effects for the werewolves and wounds look nice, its just most are hidden from the full effect of the shock.
Scene of the Movie – Town stand off.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – There are a few blink and you miss it moments.
Final Thoughts –This is a by the book werewolf film, it has good moments, it has forgettable moments and ends up feeling like the pilot for a television show.
Overall: The werewolf genre done safely.
Varek didn’t count on Timothy being under the watch of another prepared werewolf pack led by Jonas (Koteas) and his daughter-in-law Rachel (Mitra) who wasn’t ready to learn the truth that on Tim’s 13th birthday everything changes in the battle.
Thoughts on Skinwalkers
Characters – Varek is the leader of the werewolf pack that wants Timothy dead to stop the event he will cause, he hunts calmly through the film knowing how to get ahead of his enemies, though he is unaware of his connection to the child. Jonas has been protecting his nephew for years now, knowing what he means to the species, he has built the team his truss around him to make sure he is safe. Rachel is the mother of Timothy, she thinks he is just a normal kid and that she lives in a normal town, he must learn fast how to cope in this world filled with werewolves and protect her son. Sonja is the deadliest fighter on Varek side of the war, she enjoys hurting people and we see her take pleasure in this.
Performances – Jason Behr as the conflicted werewolf is good to watch, he shines on the bad boy side of this story, though when he must show the other side of the emotions we see him struggle at times. Elias Koteas is strong for his role which is one that we often see him in. Rhona Mitra does well in the reluctant heroes being the strong need to learn to battle mother figure in the film. everyone else in the film is fine without needing to be anything special, they fit their roles well to help the story flow.
Story – The story here follows two warring werewolf packs that know the importance of a child for both their existences, so basically something we have seen before only with a modern style to it. The fact the story does feel like an introduction to a much big world building idea is promising and while it isn’t the film’s fault we didn’t see the next chapter, it does show us how story telling can think ahead of time. If we are being honest this is a by the book storyline, it doesn’t bring us anything new to the werewolf mythology it just tries to keep it in the modern world.
Action/Fantasy/Horror – The action sequences are mixed bag because we have shoot-out which are routine and lack the peril for certain characters, while the fights show the effects that two werewolves fighting would have on each other. The fantasy world of werewolves living among humans is nicely done, showing two sides to them, though the horror does seem weak because we never feel terrified by what we are seeing.
Settings – The film uses the settings in a mix of quality and generic, the small town gets the big surprise with everyone being part of the protection, then we hit the road and its nothing we haven’t seen before.
Special Effects – The effects for the werewolves and wounds look nice, its just most are hidden from the full effect of the shock.
Scene of the Movie – Town stand off.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – There are a few blink and you miss it moments.
Final Thoughts –This is a by the book werewolf film, it has good moments, it has forgettable moments and ends up feeling like the pilot for a television show.
Overall: The werewolf genre done safely.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Game Night (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021 (Updated Sep 29, 2021)
Miss Scarlett at the Airport with the Jet Engine.
“Game Night” is an American comedy film starring Jason Bateman (“Horrible Bosses”, “Central Intelligence“) as Max and Rachel McAdams (“Spotlight“, “Doctor Strange“) as Annie: two hyper-competitive professionals who invite other couples around to their house for a weekly night of charades and board games. The regulars are long-term couple Kevin and Michelle (Lamorne Morris and Kylie Bunbury) and complete buffoon Ryan (Billy Magnussen, “The Big Short“) and his revolving door of generally vacant girlfriends. Estranged from the group, after his divorce, is the creepy police officer Gary (Jesse Plemons, “The Post“, “American Made“) who lives next door.
Auditions for the next Spiderman movie were not going well.
But Max is not content (affecting the mobility of his fishes!) as he has a severe inferiority complex about his enormously successful and cocky older brother Brooks (Kyle Chandler, “Manchester by the Sea“) who beats him at EVERYTHING. When Brooks barges into their game night things get heated and after he organises the next game night as “something different” things take a sharp left into The Twilight Zone.
Bateman, McAdams and Chandler, with game night about to go in an odd direction.
As befits the quality of most modern American comedy films, its all complete nonsense of course. But actually, this is quite good nonsense. The script by Mark Perez (his first movie script in 12 years!) while following a fairly predictable path early in the film is littered with some good one-liners and funny scenes (a bullet-removal is a high-spot) and includes a memorable twist in the final real that I didn’t see coming.
Ryan and Sarah (Billy Magnussen and Sharon Horgan) about to get egged on. (There is a certain lack of logic in the action that follows).
Much of this is powered by the chemistry between Bateman and McAdams. McAdams in particular should do more comedy, as she is very adept at it. Playing the one bright spark in a parade of vacuousness, English comedienne Sharon Horgan also adds a butt to Magnussen’s one-tone joke very effectively. The surprising comedy player though is Jesse Plemons who I thought was just uncomfortably hilarious.
Jesse Plemons and his very white hairy friend.
It is normally unusual to find special effects in a film like this, but here the team (headed up by Dean Tyrrell) should be congratulated for some very subtle but effective effects. Most of the long shots in the film of the neighbourhood/streets etc. are of models which only fade to live action as you zoom in. In the opening drone-fly-over of Max and Annie driving home I thought all the housing looked model-like but as we zoomed into them arriving home I thought I must have imagined in. Only in the subsequent scenes did I realise I was right after all! But it’s so very subtle. I suspect many of the audience were similarly fooled (and many who’ve seen the film and are reading this will be still going “what??”)! There’s a kind of explanation for the randomness of these effects during the (very entertaining) end-titles.
Bullet removal with squeaky toy gag… very funny.
It’s unusual for me to laugh at a comedy so much, but this one I really did. Every comedy film is allowed a little latitude to get the odd strand wrong, and this one is no exception (I didn’t think the spat between Kevin and Michelle really worked)… so it’s not perfect, but novice directors John Francis Daley and Jonathan Goldstein (who’s only previous film project was 2015’s clearly missable “Vacation”) have pulled off a really entertaining watch here.
Auditions for the next Spiderman movie were not going well.
But Max is not content (affecting the mobility of his fishes!) as he has a severe inferiority complex about his enormously successful and cocky older brother Brooks (Kyle Chandler, “Manchester by the Sea“) who beats him at EVERYTHING. When Brooks barges into their game night things get heated and after he organises the next game night as “something different” things take a sharp left into The Twilight Zone.
Bateman, McAdams and Chandler, with game night about to go in an odd direction.
As befits the quality of most modern American comedy films, its all complete nonsense of course. But actually, this is quite good nonsense. The script by Mark Perez (his first movie script in 12 years!) while following a fairly predictable path early in the film is littered with some good one-liners and funny scenes (a bullet-removal is a high-spot) and includes a memorable twist in the final real that I didn’t see coming.
Ryan and Sarah (Billy Magnussen and Sharon Horgan) about to get egged on. (There is a certain lack of logic in the action that follows).
Much of this is powered by the chemistry between Bateman and McAdams. McAdams in particular should do more comedy, as she is very adept at it. Playing the one bright spark in a parade of vacuousness, English comedienne Sharon Horgan also adds a butt to Magnussen’s one-tone joke very effectively. The surprising comedy player though is Jesse Plemons who I thought was just uncomfortably hilarious.
Jesse Plemons and his very white hairy friend.
It is normally unusual to find special effects in a film like this, but here the team (headed up by Dean Tyrrell) should be congratulated for some very subtle but effective effects. Most of the long shots in the film of the neighbourhood/streets etc. are of models which only fade to live action as you zoom in. In the opening drone-fly-over of Max and Annie driving home I thought all the housing looked model-like but as we zoomed into them arriving home I thought I must have imagined in. Only in the subsequent scenes did I realise I was right after all! But it’s so very subtle. I suspect many of the audience were similarly fooled (and many who’ve seen the film and are reading this will be still going “what??”)! There’s a kind of explanation for the randomness of these effects during the (very entertaining) end-titles.
Bullet removal with squeaky toy gag… very funny.
It’s unusual for me to laugh at a comedy so much, but this one I really did. Every comedy film is allowed a little latitude to get the odd strand wrong, and this one is no exception (I didn’t think the spat between Kevin and Michelle really worked)… so it’s not perfect, but novice directors John Francis Daley and Jonathan Goldstein (who’s only previous film project was 2015’s clearly missable “Vacation”) have pulled off a really entertaining watch here.
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated Replication: The Jason Experiment in Books
Apr 27, 2018
Replication: the Jason Experiment has many different components that make it an excellent book.
The plot is intricately woven, exciting, fast-paced, and realistic. Yes it's about clones, but Williamson does an excellent job of keeping it from feeling ridiculous and impossible. She builds her world realistically and believably. The story starts off compelling, keeps you interested the whole time, and ends with potential. I like the ending because it doesn't feel like happyland syndrome (even though it's a happy ending) because it's an open ending: Williamson doesn't write everything down, but you pretty much know what happens, and it makes you feel so happy.
The characters are very complex. Abby is a Christian, but she's not perfect by any stretch. The youth pastor is a good guy, but he's not perfect either. Abby's relationship with God is realistic, her relationship with her father (who isn't saved) is hard to watch, but she tries to stay above reproach in the way she deals with his misunderstandings of her. I would have liked to know more about how Abby came to know Christ, but not knowing didn't take away from her story or her character. And maybe that's a story for another time.
Even though all the Jason's are clones, they are all very different. There are similar things about them, like their expressions (and probably their likes and dislikes) but they all have very unique characters. This story tackles the concept that yes we are born with DNA that determines a lot about us, but the way we grow up and the lifestyle we have and the influences around us also seriously impact our thoughts and choices. It's a balancing act; Williamson exposes it.
This book is a Christian novel, but it doesn't feel preachy (I call this Fictional Preaching), nor does it feel like a girl with a perfect almost sappy relationship with God. It's realistic. Abby fails, Abby sins, but she keeps going the right direction and she doesn't give up.
Lastly, the romance between the characters starts off subtle enough that you don't think anything of it, and stays real. It's not about the physical—so many teen romances start off that way. In fact, this novel says a lot about love: it's about them as people seeing examples of the love of Christ in each other! and because they love Christ, they love each other. And that's the way love is supposed to be: We love because He first loved us. It's a beautiful picture, and an excellent execution.
This novel was exciting, fast-paced, realistic, encouraging, and inspiring. On top of it all, it was totally clean. I recommend this one to anyone. Seriously. Read it. You won't regret it.
Check out the interview with Jill Williamson and the giveaway for a copy of the novel!
The plot is intricately woven, exciting, fast-paced, and realistic. Yes it's about clones, but Williamson does an excellent job of keeping it from feeling ridiculous and impossible. She builds her world realistically and believably. The story starts off compelling, keeps you interested the whole time, and ends with potential. I like the ending because it doesn't feel like happyland syndrome (even though it's a happy ending) because it's an open ending: Williamson doesn't write everything down, but you pretty much know what happens, and it makes you feel so happy.
The characters are very complex. Abby is a Christian, but she's not perfect by any stretch. The youth pastor is a good guy, but he's not perfect either. Abby's relationship with God is realistic, her relationship with her father (who isn't saved) is hard to watch, but she tries to stay above reproach in the way she deals with his misunderstandings of her. I would have liked to know more about how Abby came to know Christ, but not knowing didn't take away from her story or her character. And maybe that's a story for another time.
Even though all the Jason's are clones, they are all very different. There are similar things about them, like their expressions (and probably their likes and dislikes) but they all have very unique characters. This story tackles the concept that yes we are born with DNA that determines a lot about us, but the way we grow up and the lifestyle we have and the influences around us also seriously impact our thoughts and choices. It's a balancing act; Williamson exposes it.
This book is a Christian novel, but it doesn't feel preachy (I call this Fictional Preaching), nor does it feel like a girl with a perfect almost sappy relationship with God. It's realistic. Abby fails, Abby sins, but she keeps going the right direction and she doesn't give up.
Lastly, the romance between the characters starts off subtle enough that you don't think anything of it, and stays real. It's not about the physical—so many teen romances start off that way. In fact, this novel says a lot about love: it's about them as people seeing examples of the love of Christ in each other! and because they love Christ, they love each other. And that's the way love is supposed to be: We love because He first loved us. It's a beautiful picture, and an excellent execution.
This novel was exciting, fast-paced, realistic, encouraging, and inspiring. On top of it all, it was totally clean. I recommend this one to anyone. Seriously. Read it. You won't regret it.
Check out the interview with Jill Williamson and the giveaway for a copy of the novel!
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated Psycho (1960) in Movies
Jan 6, 2021
Contains spoilers, click to show
Ah Psycho, the granddaddy of slashers and a film that I find somehow modern and dated at the same time.
Psycho is a slow burn, at the beginning even the dialogue is sparse as the film builds up to the confrontations with Norman Bates (argued by most as the first modern slasher) and this is part of what makes it dated (and modern), the lack of action and the main character driving around gives Psycho the feel of something that Tarantino might make but it lacks 'something' . It's hard to explain but, by todays standards, parts of Psycho are a bit bland, not necessarily boring but bland. The best example I can think would be the scenes in the car, Psycho has just one character in the car who is imagining what others are saying about her and lots of silence which are filled with dramatic music, where as something like Pulp Fiction you get two characters who are just talking, the music seems to take you out of the situation because, in a modern film it would just be in the background.
As the film progresses we start to pick up on some of the slasher tropes, Norman is strange, again we can't quite explain why but that is sometimes the same in a modern film, we see him spy, once, on Marion and, in a more modern film this would probably be stretched out a bit more.
The kills aren't actually as graphic as most modern day slashers but this doesn't matter as Hitchcock has a talent for making the viewer see what he wants and not just what is happening.
The character of Norman is quite interesting but a lot of 'fleshing out' is just told to the viewer in exposition near the end, however you can see how Norman/Mother could easily be an inspiration for the Jason/Pamela dynamic in the first 'Friday 13th'
Psycho has a lot to answer for, sighted by many as the first modern 'Slasher' movie it caused an uproar for other reasons, the first time a toilet was seen flushing on screen, the first time a 'Leading Lady' was killed off halfway through the film (still a slight oddity now as we normally have one 'final girl') and the fact that the stolen money is just thrown away when it is no longer needed to push the plot along. It is these firsts that help to make the film feel dated, we are used to more graphic kills, toilets are almost irrelevant and there is normally more nudity/sex in a modern slasher.
Apart from being a little dated Psycho is a pretty good and entertain film which has put some thought into it's story and characters
Psycho is a slow burn, at the beginning even the dialogue is sparse as the film builds up to the confrontations with Norman Bates (argued by most as the first modern slasher) and this is part of what makes it dated (and modern), the lack of action and the main character driving around gives Psycho the feel of something that Tarantino might make but it lacks 'something' . It's hard to explain but, by todays standards, parts of Psycho are a bit bland, not necessarily boring but bland. The best example I can think would be the scenes in the car, Psycho has just one character in the car who is imagining what others are saying about her and lots of silence which are filled with dramatic music, where as something like Pulp Fiction you get two characters who are just talking, the music seems to take you out of the situation because, in a modern film it would just be in the background.
As the film progresses we start to pick up on some of the slasher tropes, Norman is strange, again we can't quite explain why but that is sometimes the same in a modern film, we see him spy, once, on Marion and, in a more modern film this would probably be stretched out a bit more.
The kills aren't actually as graphic as most modern day slashers but this doesn't matter as Hitchcock has a talent for making the viewer see what he wants and not just what is happening.
The character of Norman is quite interesting but a lot of 'fleshing out' is just told to the viewer in exposition near the end, however you can see how Norman/Mother could easily be an inspiration for the Jason/Pamela dynamic in the first 'Friday 13th'
Psycho has a lot to answer for, sighted by many as the first modern 'Slasher' movie it caused an uproar for other reasons, the first time a toilet was seen flushing on screen, the first time a 'Leading Lady' was killed off halfway through the film (still a slight oddity now as we normally have one 'final girl') and the fact that the stolen money is just thrown away when it is no longer needed to push the plot along. It is these firsts that help to make the film feel dated, we are used to more graphic kills, toilets are almost irrelevant and there is normally more nudity/sex in a modern slasher.
Apart from being a little dated Psycho is a pretty good and entertain film which has put some thought into it's story and characters
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Front Runner (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Candidate for a downfall.
We can all probably rattle off some of the classics movies with US politics as their backdrop. For me, “All the President’s Men”; “Primary Colors”; and “Frost/Nixon” might make that list. In the next tier down there are many great drama/thrillers – “Miss Sloane“; “The Post“; “The Ides of March”; “The American President”; “JFK” – and even some pretty funny comedies – “Dave” and “My Fellow Americans” for example. It’s actually quite difficult to think of many films on the subject that are outright dire, proving it remains a fertile ground for film-makers.
“The Front Runner” fortunately avoids this last category, but it’s certainly not good enough to make it into the ‘classics’ list either.
A true story.
The film is based on the true-story of US presidential hopeful Gary Hart (Hugh Jackman) and if you are NOT aware of the historical background then you might want to skip the rest of this review – and indeed all others – so you can see the film first and let the history come as a surprise to you.
Hart was younger than most candidates: good-looking, floppy-haired and refreshingly matter of fact in his dealings with the public and the press. Any interviews had to be about his politics: not about his family life with wife Lee (Vera Farmiga) and teenage daughter Andrea (Kaitlyn Dever).
Unfortunately, Hart has a weakness for a pretty face (or ten) and his marriage is rocky as a result: “Just don’t embarrass me” is Lee’s one requirement. His “nothing to hide” line to an intelligent Washington Post reporter – AJ Parker (a well cast Mamoudou Athie) – leads to a half-arsed stake-out by Miami Herald reporters and incriminating pictures linking Hart to a Miami pharmaceutical saleswoman Donna Rice (Sara Paxton). As the growing press tsunami rises, and his campaign manager (J.K. Simmons) gets more and more frustrated with him, can his candidacy survive and will his (now very much embarrassed) wife stick by him?
The turns.
Hugh Jackman is perfectly cast here; very believable as the self-centred, self-righteous and stubborn politician. But this central performance is surrounded by a strong team of supporting players. Vera Farmiga is superb as the wounded wife. Sara Paxton is heartbreaking as the intelligent college girl unfairly portrayed as a “slapper” by the media. The scenes between her and Hart-staffer Irene (Molly Ephraim), trying desperately to support her as best she can, are very nicely done. J.K Simmons as campaign manager Bill Dixon is as reliable as ever. And Alfred Molina turns up as the latest film incarnation of The Post’s Ben Bradlee – surely one of the most oft portrayed real-life journalists in film history.
“What did they just say”?
The biggest cause of dissatisfaction I have with the film is with the sound mixing. Was this a deliberate act by director Jason Reitman, to reflect the chaotic nature of political campaigning? Whether it was deliberate or not, much of the film’s dialogue – particularly in the first 30 minutes of the film – is drowned out by background noise. Sometimes I just longed for subtitles!
Just a little bit dull.
The screenplay, by Matt Bai (from his source book), Jay Carson (a Clinton staffer) and director Jason Reitman might align with the history, but the big problem is that the story’s just a little bit dull, particularly by today’s levels of scandal. This suffers the same fate as “House of Cards” (even before the Kevin Spacey allegations) in that the shocking realities of the Trump-era have progressively neutered the shock-factor of the fiction: to the point where it starts to become boring. Here, only once or twice does the screenplay hit a winning beat: for me, it was the scenes between Donna Rice and Irene Kelly and the dramatic press conference towards the end of the film. The rest of the time, the screenplay was perfectly serviceable but nothing spectacular.
When is a politician’s personal life private?
A core tenet of the film is Hart’s view that politics should be about the policies and not about the personality. Looking at the subject nowadays, it’s clearly a ridiculously idealistic viewpoint. Of course it matters. Politicians need to be trusted by their constituents (yeah, like that’s the case in the UK and the US at the moment!) and whether or not they slap their wives around or sleep with farm animals is clearly a material factor in that relationship. But this was clearly not as much the case in the 70’s as it is today, and the suggestion is that the Hart case was a turning point and a wake-up call to politicians around the world. (An interesting article by the Washington Post itself points out that this is also a simplistic view: that Hart should have been well aware of the dangerous game he was playing.)
Fidelity in politics.
Do you think that powerful politicos are driven to infidelity because they are powerful? Or that it is a characteristic of men who have the charisma to become political leaders in the first place? Such was the discussion my wife and I had in the car home after this film. Nature or political nurture? I’m still not sure.
It’s worth pointing out that to this day both Hart and Rice (interestingly, an alleged ex-girlfriend of Eagles front-man Don Henley) stick to their story that they never had sex.
Final thoughts.
The film’s perfectly watchable, has great acting, but is a little bit of a non-event. The end titles came and I thought “OK, that’s that then”…. nothing more. If you’re a fan of this style of historical political film then you probably won’t be disappointed by it; if not, probably best to wait and catch this on the TV.
“The Front Runner” fortunately avoids this last category, but it’s certainly not good enough to make it into the ‘classics’ list either.
A true story.
The film is based on the true-story of US presidential hopeful Gary Hart (Hugh Jackman) and if you are NOT aware of the historical background then you might want to skip the rest of this review – and indeed all others – so you can see the film first and let the history come as a surprise to you.
Hart was younger than most candidates: good-looking, floppy-haired and refreshingly matter of fact in his dealings with the public and the press. Any interviews had to be about his politics: not about his family life with wife Lee (Vera Farmiga) and teenage daughter Andrea (Kaitlyn Dever).
Unfortunately, Hart has a weakness for a pretty face (or ten) and his marriage is rocky as a result: “Just don’t embarrass me” is Lee’s one requirement. His “nothing to hide” line to an intelligent Washington Post reporter – AJ Parker (a well cast Mamoudou Athie) – leads to a half-arsed stake-out by Miami Herald reporters and incriminating pictures linking Hart to a Miami pharmaceutical saleswoman Donna Rice (Sara Paxton). As the growing press tsunami rises, and his campaign manager (J.K. Simmons) gets more and more frustrated with him, can his candidacy survive and will his (now very much embarrassed) wife stick by him?
The turns.
Hugh Jackman is perfectly cast here; very believable as the self-centred, self-righteous and stubborn politician. But this central performance is surrounded by a strong team of supporting players. Vera Farmiga is superb as the wounded wife. Sara Paxton is heartbreaking as the intelligent college girl unfairly portrayed as a “slapper” by the media. The scenes between her and Hart-staffer Irene (Molly Ephraim), trying desperately to support her as best she can, are very nicely done. J.K Simmons as campaign manager Bill Dixon is as reliable as ever. And Alfred Molina turns up as the latest film incarnation of The Post’s Ben Bradlee – surely one of the most oft portrayed real-life journalists in film history.
“What did they just say”?
The biggest cause of dissatisfaction I have with the film is with the sound mixing. Was this a deliberate act by director Jason Reitman, to reflect the chaotic nature of political campaigning? Whether it was deliberate or not, much of the film’s dialogue – particularly in the first 30 minutes of the film – is drowned out by background noise. Sometimes I just longed for subtitles!
Just a little bit dull.
The screenplay, by Matt Bai (from his source book), Jay Carson (a Clinton staffer) and director Jason Reitman might align with the history, but the big problem is that the story’s just a little bit dull, particularly by today’s levels of scandal. This suffers the same fate as “House of Cards” (even before the Kevin Spacey allegations) in that the shocking realities of the Trump-era have progressively neutered the shock-factor of the fiction: to the point where it starts to become boring. Here, only once or twice does the screenplay hit a winning beat: for me, it was the scenes between Donna Rice and Irene Kelly and the dramatic press conference towards the end of the film. The rest of the time, the screenplay was perfectly serviceable but nothing spectacular.
When is a politician’s personal life private?
A core tenet of the film is Hart’s view that politics should be about the policies and not about the personality. Looking at the subject nowadays, it’s clearly a ridiculously idealistic viewpoint. Of course it matters. Politicians need to be trusted by their constituents (yeah, like that’s the case in the UK and the US at the moment!) and whether or not they slap their wives around or sleep with farm animals is clearly a material factor in that relationship. But this was clearly not as much the case in the 70’s as it is today, and the suggestion is that the Hart case was a turning point and a wake-up call to politicians around the world. (An interesting article by the Washington Post itself points out that this is also a simplistic view: that Hart should have been well aware of the dangerous game he was playing.)
Fidelity in politics.
Do you think that powerful politicos are driven to infidelity because they are powerful? Or that it is a characteristic of men who have the charisma to become political leaders in the first place? Such was the discussion my wife and I had in the car home after this film. Nature or political nurture? I’m still not sure.
It’s worth pointing out that to this day both Hart and Rice (interestingly, an alleged ex-girlfriend of Eagles front-man Don Henley) stick to their story that they never had sex.
Final thoughts.
The film’s perfectly watchable, has great acting, but is a little bit of a non-event. The end titles came and I thought “OK, that’s that then”…. nothing more. If you’re a fan of this style of historical political film then you probably won’t be disappointed by it; if not, probably best to wait and catch this on the TV.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Saving Mr. Banks (2013) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019
One of the greatest Disney classics, “Mary Poppins” has a unique history on its long journey from the page to the silver screen. In “Saving Mr. Banks”, the twenty year battle between Walt Disney and the notoriously difficult author is told in a touching and gripping tale.
Tom Hanks stars as Walt Disney who after making a promise to his daughters to bring their beloved Mary Poppins books to life embarks on a frustrating battle with author P.L. Travers (Emma Thompson), that lasts twenty years.
Faced with financial need following a lack of published materials, Travers reluctantly agrees to travel from her home in London to meet with Disney to discuss signing over the rights to her beloved character. Travers is a very abrupt individual who has no problem speaking her mind and is not one to spare feelings with her cutting and direct barbs.
Travers has little love for animation, Disneyland, or the whimsy that accompanies all things Disney and is terrified that her beloved Mary Poppins will be turned into some silly and childish film, hence her reluctance to sign over the theatrical rights.
Over the two weeks of her visit to California, Walt, and the talented Sherman Brothers (B.J. Novak and Jason Schwartzman) endure her icy behavior, harsh criticisms and intolerance for their work and efforts. Travers is horrified with everything from their casting choices to the inclusion of music and many aspects of the script and look of the characters.
Undaunted, Walt and company press on in the face of overwhelming adversity and unending opposition from Travers and slowly but surely make progress in appeasing Travers as they bring the film closer and closer to fruition.
What follows is a very moving, funny and enjoyable tale that is powered by outstanding performances by the two leads and the very strong supporting cast, especially that of Paul Giamatti who plays a driver named Ralph who has to endure the venom of Travers has he drives her around during her stay.
The film does a good job of showing what Travers endured as a child thanks to her alcoholic father (Colin Farrell), and how her experiences with his struggles helped form the woman she was to become.
While aspects of the true story have been softened somewhat in the final act from what happened in reality, the film is very honest and effective.
Many of the memorable classic songs from the movie appear in the film but are done in a very natural way as they are introduced to viewers as they are being introduced to the characters in the film.
While some aspects of the film may be a little darker than people would come to expect from a Disney movie, the film is a very enjoyable experience that is not to be missed.
http://sknr.net/2013/12/13/saving-mr-banks/
Tom Hanks stars as Walt Disney who after making a promise to his daughters to bring their beloved Mary Poppins books to life embarks on a frustrating battle with author P.L. Travers (Emma Thompson), that lasts twenty years.
Faced with financial need following a lack of published materials, Travers reluctantly agrees to travel from her home in London to meet with Disney to discuss signing over the rights to her beloved character. Travers is a very abrupt individual who has no problem speaking her mind and is not one to spare feelings with her cutting and direct barbs.
Travers has little love for animation, Disneyland, or the whimsy that accompanies all things Disney and is terrified that her beloved Mary Poppins will be turned into some silly and childish film, hence her reluctance to sign over the theatrical rights.
Over the two weeks of her visit to California, Walt, and the talented Sherman Brothers (B.J. Novak and Jason Schwartzman) endure her icy behavior, harsh criticisms and intolerance for their work and efforts. Travers is horrified with everything from their casting choices to the inclusion of music and many aspects of the script and look of the characters.
Undaunted, Walt and company press on in the face of overwhelming adversity and unending opposition from Travers and slowly but surely make progress in appeasing Travers as they bring the film closer and closer to fruition.
What follows is a very moving, funny and enjoyable tale that is powered by outstanding performances by the two leads and the very strong supporting cast, especially that of Paul Giamatti who plays a driver named Ralph who has to endure the venom of Travers has he drives her around during her stay.
The film does a good job of showing what Travers endured as a child thanks to her alcoholic father (Colin Farrell), and how her experiences with his struggles helped form the woman she was to become.
While aspects of the true story have been softened somewhat in the final act from what happened in reality, the film is very honest and effective.
Many of the memorable classic songs from the movie appear in the film but are done in a very natural way as they are introduced to viewers as they are being introduced to the characters in the film.
While some aspects of the film may be a little darker than people would come to expect from a Disney movie, the film is a very enjoyable experience that is not to be missed.
http://sknr.net/2013/12/13/saving-mr-banks/