Search
Search results
Erika (17788 KP) rated Fantastic Beasts: Crimes of Grindelwald (2018) in Movies
Nov 16, 2018 (Updated Nov 19, 2018)
Newt (2 more)
The beasts
Jude Law as Dumbledore
Johnny Depp (2 more)
Johnny Depp
and Johnny Depp
*After reading the screenplay, I'm knocking this rating down.
I am completely torn on this one, I liked some parts, but hated others. I also really can't stand Johnny Depp, and I rolled my eyes to myself every time he was on screen...
In my book, Jude Law was playing Richard Harris' Dumbledore, not... Michael Gambon (Don't even get me started on Gambon: 'Did you put your name in the goblet of fire, Harry?' Dumbledore asked CALMLY). So, it was a good way to go.
I did not like the way they went with some characters, namely one, who was rumored to go to Grindelwald's camp. Making a likeable character slightly deranged was irritating. There was a name drop at Hogwarts that had to have been a relative, unless the original character became an adult professor before she was technically born...
However, the possible recons that occurred didn't mess with canon as badly as that terrible Cursed Child mess.
It was largely predictable, and even the end, it was all foreshadowed, and not in a good way. The best bits were of Newt with the beasts... I liked Eddie Redmayne, as always, but can we please stop calling these movies Fantastic Beasts? 6 for him and the Niffler alone.
I wanted to largely stay away from a comparison, but I feel like Rowling is going the George Lucas route. And, that's not a compliment.
I am completely torn on this one, I liked some parts, but hated others. I also really can't stand Johnny Depp, and I rolled my eyes to myself every time he was on screen...
In my book, Jude Law was playing Richard Harris' Dumbledore, not... Michael Gambon (Don't even get me started on Gambon: 'Did you put your name in the goblet of fire, Harry?' Dumbledore asked CALMLY). So, it was a good way to go.
I did not like the way they went with some characters, namely one, who was rumored to go to Grindelwald's camp. Making a likeable character slightly deranged was irritating. There was a name drop at Hogwarts that had to have been a relative, unless the original character became an adult professor before she was technically born...
However, the possible recons that occurred didn't mess with canon as badly as that terrible Cursed Child mess.
It was largely predictable, and even the end, it was all foreshadowed, and not in a good way. The best bits were of Newt with the beasts... I liked Eddie Redmayne, as always, but can we please stop calling these movies Fantastic Beasts? 6 for him and the Niffler alone.
I wanted to largely stay away from a comparison, but I feel like Rowling is going the George Lucas route. And, that's not a compliment.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated We Were Liars in Books
Feb 13, 2018
Cadence (Cady) grows up slightly insulated from the world - the first grandchild born to the weathly Harris and Tupper. Her mother is one of the Harris' three daughters, all of whom have their own children and each of whom vie for their father's affection (and eventual inheritance). During the summer's, Cady stays on a private island with her family, growing up with her cousins - including a group they call the Liars, composed her herself, her cousins Mirren and Johnny, and Johnny's friend, Gat. Thick as thieves during the summer, it seems like nothing can separate the quartet - but is that really true?
So, this is a tough one to review. I'd heard a lot of glowing things and this had a ton of positive reviews from my friends. Even my stepmom (who lent the book to me) liked it. So maybe my expectations were just too high when I read it, but I felt "eh." That's not to say that I didn't find the big *ahh spoilery ending* to be amazing and shocking. I did, and I felt wowed and, yes, a bit amazed, and did sort of want to re-read things in that context.
But, I don't think I could. Because, overall, I found the book kind of annoying. I certainly don't think you have to like every character you read about, but good grief, I just found Cady whiny and deplorable. She and her entitled cousins were so irritating. Johnny's friend, Gat, attempts to bring them back to reality (Gat's heritage is Indian, meaning Cady's grandfather despises him and also forbids Cady's aunt to marry Gat's uncle, or risk being disinherited), but he definitely fails. The aunts are selfish and petty and only care about their inheritance, not their children. Lockhart's prose is lovely in many places, but in others just confusing - the metaphors and use of language to refer to Cady's illness (she suffers from migraines and such) is borderline confusing.
The ending was jarring, yes (don't read any spoilers - it won't be worth it), but the rest of the book didn't seem to be matched to it. I didn't see the point of all Cady's whining and the family squabbles. Just because the family was rich, they weren't interesting, nor mysterious. Perhaps I missed the larger point, but I was left shaking my head.
So, this is a tough one to review. I'd heard a lot of glowing things and this had a ton of positive reviews from my friends. Even my stepmom (who lent the book to me) liked it. So maybe my expectations were just too high when I read it, but I felt "eh." That's not to say that I didn't find the big *ahh spoilery ending* to be amazing and shocking. I did, and I felt wowed and, yes, a bit amazed, and did sort of want to re-read things in that context.
But, I don't think I could. Because, overall, I found the book kind of annoying. I certainly don't think you have to like every character you read about, but good grief, I just found Cady whiny and deplorable. She and her entitled cousins were so irritating. Johnny's friend, Gat, attempts to bring them back to reality (Gat's heritage is Indian, meaning Cady's grandfather despises him and also forbids Cady's aunt to marry Gat's uncle, or risk being disinherited), but he definitely fails. The aunts are selfish and petty and only care about their inheritance, not their children. Lockhart's prose is lovely in many places, but in others just confusing - the metaphors and use of language to refer to Cady's illness (she suffers from migraines and such) is borderline confusing.
The ending was jarring, yes (don't read any spoilers - it won't be worth it), but the rest of the book didn't seem to be matched to it. I didn't see the point of all Cady's whining and the family squabbles. Just because the family was rich, they weren't interesting, nor mysterious. Perhaps I missed the larger point, but I was left shaking my head.
Adam Ant recommended New York Dolls by New York Dolls in Music (curated)
Darren (1599 KP) rated Starship Troopers (1997) in Movies
Jul 7, 2019 (Updated Nov 25, 2019)
Verdict: Instant Classic
Story: Starship Troopers starts in a world where humans are not at war with a bug planet across the galaxy, students and young people are expected to join the federal service to become citizens. Johnny Rico (Can Dien), Dizzy (Meyer), Carl (Harris) and Carmen (Richards) all have their sights set on enlisting, Johnny and Dizzy are mobile infantry, while Carmen has bigger sights of being a pilot and Carl has his sights set on military intelligence, with his mind reading ability.
While Rico is going through his training and constant battles with the flashy Ace (Busey) battling for squad leader, Carmen is flourishing in the flight academy, but this is just training, now they must go into combat against the giant deadly bugs.
Thoughts on Starship Troopers
Characters – Johnny Rico comes from a wealthy family that want to send him to Harvard, but he has other plans, he wants to become a citizen, which means he must join the military, here he excels in training until a mistakes sees him disgraced. He loses his family and will remaining fighting under a new squad leader, proving himself as one of the best soldiers in the infantry. Dizzy has spent her school life crushing over Rico, she follows him to mobile infantry, proving herself as one of the best soldiers. Carmen is the girlfriend of Johnny’s through school, she has set her sights on becoming a pilot in the Starfleet, something her grades could make easy for her, she proves an asset to the fleet rising up the ranks with ease. Ace is the rival of Rico’s in training, they both want squad leader and with the rivalry they become brothers in arms.
Performances – Casper Van Dien in the leading role makes himself remember forever with his character, this will define his career without question. Dina Meyer shines too, while this cast is fantastic and understands just what movie they are in. Denise Richard has been criticised before, but here she works in the modern future world and Jake Busey add more comedy as times to his role.
Story – The story here takes us to the future where humans are waged in a war with bugs from across the galaxy, we see how the soldiers and pilots are dealing with the increasing threat they are going to be facing. This story does present itself in a satirical look at the military behaviour and how it can become a propaganda machine forcing young people into joining under false promises, it also shows how humans will always look to conquer another area no matter how outnumbered or out of place they are in their invasion behaviour. Plenty of this story over accentuates the idea of what is going on, which will add moments of comedy.
Action/Sci-Fi – The action in the film is war style military attacks with laser bullets flying literally everywhere and the bugs ripping bodies apart. The sci-fi side of the film shows us just how far the human race has come with transportation across the galaxy, despite not giving them the brains when it comes to war.
Settings – The world created is fantastic with Earth looking futuristic without being all that different, while the bug planet feels like a battleground.
Special Effects – The effects in the film are also flawless, with a mix of practical and CGI which barely look like they have dated even after being over 20 years old.
Scene of the Movie – The first battle shows the scale of the war.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Nothing really.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the best sci-fi films you will see, it is wildly over the top and doesn’t miss a beat with style that knows just what the film is meant to be.
Overall: Fun, Brilliant and Entertaining.
Story: Starship Troopers starts in a world where humans are not at war with a bug planet across the galaxy, students and young people are expected to join the federal service to become citizens. Johnny Rico (Can Dien), Dizzy (Meyer), Carl (Harris) and Carmen (Richards) all have their sights set on enlisting, Johnny and Dizzy are mobile infantry, while Carmen has bigger sights of being a pilot and Carl has his sights set on military intelligence, with his mind reading ability.
While Rico is going through his training and constant battles with the flashy Ace (Busey) battling for squad leader, Carmen is flourishing in the flight academy, but this is just training, now they must go into combat against the giant deadly bugs.
Thoughts on Starship Troopers
Characters – Johnny Rico comes from a wealthy family that want to send him to Harvard, but he has other plans, he wants to become a citizen, which means he must join the military, here he excels in training until a mistakes sees him disgraced. He loses his family and will remaining fighting under a new squad leader, proving himself as one of the best soldiers in the infantry. Dizzy has spent her school life crushing over Rico, she follows him to mobile infantry, proving herself as one of the best soldiers. Carmen is the girlfriend of Johnny’s through school, she has set her sights on becoming a pilot in the Starfleet, something her grades could make easy for her, she proves an asset to the fleet rising up the ranks with ease. Ace is the rival of Rico’s in training, they both want squad leader and with the rivalry they become brothers in arms.
Performances – Casper Van Dien in the leading role makes himself remember forever with his character, this will define his career without question. Dina Meyer shines too, while this cast is fantastic and understands just what movie they are in. Denise Richard has been criticised before, but here she works in the modern future world and Jake Busey add more comedy as times to his role.
Story – The story here takes us to the future where humans are waged in a war with bugs from across the galaxy, we see how the soldiers and pilots are dealing with the increasing threat they are going to be facing. This story does present itself in a satirical look at the military behaviour and how it can become a propaganda machine forcing young people into joining under false promises, it also shows how humans will always look to conquer another area no matter how outnumbered or out of place they are in their invasion behaviour. Plenty of this story over accentuates the idea of what is going on, which will add moments of comedy.
Action/Sci-Fi – The action in the film is war style military attacks with laser bullets flying literally everywhere and the bugs ripping bodies apart. The sci-fi side of the film shows us just how far the human race has come with transportation across the galaxy, despite not giving them the brains when it comes to war.
Settings – The world created is fantastic with Earth looking futuristic without being all that different, while the bug planet feels like a battleground.
Special Effects – The effects in the film are also flawless, with a mix of practical and CGI which barely look like they have dated even after being over 20 years old.
Scene of the Movie – The first battle shows the scale of the war.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Nothing really.
Final Thoughts – This is one of the best sci-fi films you will see, it is wildly over the top and doesn’t miss a beat with style that knows just what the film is meant to be.
Overall: Fun, Brilliant and Entertaining.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Wedding Ringer (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Best reserved for the DVD shelf
The comedy genre is one which goes through many cycles. You can go for years with lacklustre efforts featuring big-name celebrities like Norbit and Johnny English: Reborn, but every so often something special comes along to remind you how funny films can be – a la Bridesmaids or The Heat.
This year’s first offering is The Wedding Ringer. Fronted by Kevin Hart and Josh Gad, it follows the story of a loner who is forced to hire a best man to ensure his upcoming wedding goes without a hitch. But will it have you in fits of laughter or running from the altar?
Jeremy Garelick directs a film that despite a few chuckles here and there and the odd laugh-out-loud moment never really manages to settle into a groove and as such it all feels a little, well vanilla.
Dough Harris (Gad) is a man with a secret, one so big he is unable to share it with his obnoxious fiancée Gretchen – the normally adorable Kaley Cuoco-Sweeting in an against type performance. He simply hasn’t got any friends and is forced to hire Jimmy Callahan (Hart) as his best man to make himself look less of a loser.
Naturally things don’t go quite to plan with a selection of mildly amusing set-pieces involving bachelor parties, dogs and dancing interspersed with genuinely touching scenes which look at self-worth and finding true love and friendship.
Unfortunately this is where things begin to unravel. A mixture of slapstick and more complex comedic elements are put into a film which isn’t quite sure which genre it is trying to be, outright comedy or romantic comedy drama.
Hart plays Jimmy well and Gad is good as the bumbling yet sweet Doug, but the former seems to be on autopilot for the majority of The Wedding Ringer’s 101 minute running time while the latter seems to be just going through the motions, exhibiting no real connection with the script.
Other characters including a selection of hired groomsmen and close family barely register as cardboard cut-outs, never mind major characters in a motion picture.
However, the real fun to be had here is in the more childish sequences with one involving a dog, and another featuring an extended danceringer-dancing sequence having the audience in fits of laughter, though again these moments are few and far between.
Ultimately then, The Wedding Ringer isn’t as disappointing as it could have been but falls short of the comedic standard that audiences now expect when paying the increasingly expensive price of a cinema ticket.
Despite some reasonably charming performances, a couple of stand-out scenes and a cracking soundtrack, The Wedding Ringer fits into a bracket reserved for comedy films which could have delivered so much, but in the end just didn’t go quite far enough and it leaves Bridesmaids at the top of the pile for wedding-themed hilarity.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/02/22/best-reserved-for-the-dvd-shelf-the-wedding-ringer-review/
This year’s first offering is The Wedding Ringer. Fronted by Kevin Hart and Josh Gad, it follows the story of a loner who is forced to hire a best man to ensure his upcoming wedding goes without a hitch. But will it have you in fits of laughter or running from the altar?
Jeremy Garelick directs a film that despite a few chuckles here and there and the odd laugh-out-loud moment never really manages to settle into a groove and as such it all feels a little, well vanilla.
Dough Harris (Gad) is a man with a secret, one so big he is unable to share it with his obnoxious fiancée Gretchen – the normally adorable Kaley Cuoco-Sweeting in an against type performance. He simply hasn’t got any friends and is forced to hire Jimmy Callahan (Hart) as his best man to make himself look less of a loser.
Naturally things don’t go quite to plan with a selection of mildly amusing set-pieces involving bachelor parties, dogs and dancing interspersed with genuinely touching scenes which look at self-worth and finding true love and friendship.
Unfortunately this is where things begin to unravel. A mixture of slapstick and more complex comedic elements are put into a film which isn’t quite sure which genre it is trying to be, outright comedy or romantic comedy drama.
Hart plays Jimmy well and Gad is good as the bumbling yet sweet Doug, but the former seems to be on autopilot for the majority of The Wedding Ringer’s 101 minute running time while the latter seems to be just going through the motions, exhibiting no real connection with the script.
Other characters including a selection of hired groomsmen and close family barely register as cardboard cut-outs, never mind major characters in a motion picture.
However, the real fun to be had here is in the more childish sequences with one involving a dog, and another featuring an extended danceringer-dancing sequence having the audience in fits of laughter, though again these moments are few and far between.
Ultimately then, The Wedding Ringer isn’t as disappointing as it could have been but falls short of the comedic standard that audiences now expect when paying the increasingly expensive price of a cinema ticket.
Despite some reasonably charming performances, a couple of stand-out scenes and a cracking soundtrack, The Wedding Ringer fits into a bracket reserved for comedy films which could have delivered so much, but in the end just didn’t go quite far enough and it leaves Bridesmaids at the top of the pile for wedding-themed hilarity.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/02/22/best-reserved-for-the-dvd-shelf-the-wedding-ringer-review/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Fantastic Beasts: Crimes of Grindelwald (2018) in Movies
Nov 21, 2018
For the "true" Potter fan
It is a misnomer to call FANTASTIC BEASTS: THE CRIMES OF GRINDELWALD a "Harry Potter" movie. True, it is a film that takes place in the "Harry Potter-verse", but it should, more accurately, be called an "Albus Dumbledore" movie.
"Crimes of Grindelwald" (or COG as I will call it from now on) has a tone more in keeping with the later films in the Harry Potter original grouping of films. Gone is the "fun" and "whimsey" of building a world based on magic. In is a dark, grainy and grey film that focuses on relationship building that will pay off down the road. Keep in mind that this is the 2nd film of a proposed 5 film series, so there's quite a bit of "set-up" and very little payoff here.
Because of all of this, the younger members of the audience in the theater I saw COGS in were antsey in their seats (as were the "casual" Harry Potter viewers who were just there to see "Magic Battles").
But...and this is a BIG but...those of us (including me) who are "into" the world that J.K. Rowling has built were rewarded with a rich, complex tapestry of backstory and legend building, bringing in characters that were merely mentioned in the original books (and films) and filling out parts of this universe to make it much, much richer, indeed.
And that's the problem with this film - and the problem that this film is going to have in finding an audience. I have heard criticisms such as "it's too dense", "it moves too slow" and there are "too many characters". And that is justified, if you're a casual fan. If you're "into it", then those criticisms don't hold water.
I've also heard that Eddie Redmayne as Newt Scamander, the "hero" of the Fantastic Beasts franchise is too bland to hold the center of these films. I couldn't disagree more. I found that Redmayne's characterization of the magizooligist to be interesting and quirky. True, his characterization is subtle, maybe too subtle for some, but it was intriguing and interesting for me.
Returning from the first film are Katherine Waterson, Dan Fogler and Alison Sudol as comrades of Scamandars. They were "serviceable" in the first film and they are "serviceable" in the 2nd film.
It is the newcomers to this series that were of most interest to me starting with Jude Law as a young Albus Dumbledore. I liked his interpretation of this character - he has the same "mysterious" atmosphere about him that Richard Harris (and later) Michael Gambon brought to the character. Johnny Depp is also well cast as the titular bad guy, Grindelwald. Finally, Zoe Kravitz gives a strong performance as a conflicted wizard constantly battling her compulsion to be "good" and "bad".
David Yates returns to helm his 6th "Potter" film and he shows that he knows what he's doing. The world is rich (if grainy) and the action moves along as fast as the script allows. He does have a tendency to become enamored with the CGI aspects of the world he is building, but that is part of the charm of these films.
Remember, this is the 2nd of 5 films, so don't expect loose ends to be tied up. Expect cliff-hangers.
Letter Grade A- (B- if you are a casual fan)
8 (out of 10) stars (6 stars if you are a casual fan) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
"Crimes of Grindelwald" (or COG as I will call it from now on) has a tone more in keeping with the later films in the Harry Potter original grouping of films. Gone is the "fun" and "whimsey" of building a world based on magic. In is a dark, grainy and grey film that focuses on relationship building that will pay off down the road. Keep in mind that this is the 2nd film of a proposed 5 film series, so there's quite a bit of "set-up" and very little payoff here.
Because of all of this, the younger members of the audience in the theater I saw COGS in were antsey in their seats (as were the "casual" Harry Potter viewers who were just there to see "Magic Battles").
But...and this is a BIG but...those of us (including me) who are "into" the world that J.K. Rowling has built were rewarded with a rich, complex tapestry of backstory and legend building, bringing in characters that were merely mentioned in the original books (and films) and filling out parts of this universe to make it much, much richer, indeed.
And that's the problem with this film - and the problem that this film is going to have in finding an audience. I have heard criticisms such as "it's too dense", "it moves too slow" and there are "too many characters". And that is justified, if you're a casual fan. If you're "into it", then those criticisms don't hold water.
I've also heard that Eddie Redmayne as Newt Scamander, the "hero" of the Fantastic Beasts franchise is too bland to hold the center of these films. I couldn't disagree more. I found that Redmayne's characterization of the magizooligist to be interesting and quirky. True, his characterization is subtle, maybe too subtle for some, but it was intriguing and interesting for me.
Returning from the first film are Katherine Waterson, Dan Fogler and Alison Sudol as comrades of Scamandars. They were "serviceable" in the first film and they are "serviceable" in the 2nd film.
It is the newcomers to this series that were of most interest to me starting with Jude Law as a young Albus Dumbledore. I liked his interpretation of this character - he has the same "mysterious" atmosphere about him that Richard Harris (and later) Michael Gambon brought to the character. Johnny Depp is also well cast as the titular bad guy, Grindelwald. Finally, Zoe Kravitz gives a strong performance as a conflicted wizard constantly battling her compulsion to be "good" and "bad".
David Yates returns to helm his 6th "Potter" film and he shows that he knows what he's doing. The world is rich (if grainy) and the action moves along as fast as the script allows. He does have a tendency to become enamored with the CGI aspects of the world he is building, but that is part of the charm of these films.
Remember, this is the 2nd of 5 films, so don't expect loose ends to be tied up. Expect cliff-hangers.
Letter Grade A- (B- if you are a casual fan)
8 (out of 10) stars (6 stars if you are a casual fan) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Wild Rose (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Three Chords and the Truth.
BAFTA named Jessie Buckley as one of their “Rising Stars” for 2019, and here she proves why.
Buckley plays Glaswegian Rose-Lynn Harlan, a decidedly wild child electronically tagged and released from the clink but straight down to some very public cowgirl sex with her erstwhile boyfriend. Only then does she have the afterthought of going round to the house of her Mum (Julie Walters) where two young children live. For Rose-Lynn is a single mum of two (#needs-to-be-more-careful-with-the-cowgirl-stuff), and the emotional damage metered out to the youngsters from her wayward life is fully evident.
Rose-Lynn is a frustrated ‘country-and-weste’… no, sorry… just ‘western’ singer, and she has a talent for bringing the house down in Glasgow during a show. The desire to ‘make it big’ in Nashville is bordering on obsession, and nothing – not her mum, not her children, nothing – will get in her way.
Rose-Lynn has no idea how to make her dream come true. (And no, she doesn’t bump into Bradley Cooper at this point). But things look up when she lies her way to a cleaning job for the middle class Susannah (Sophie Okonedo) who sees the talent in her and comes up with a couple of innovative ways to move her in the right direction.
Will she get out of her Glasgow poverty trap and rise to fame and fortune as a Nashville star?
Difficult to like.
Rose-Lynn is not an easy character to like. She is borderline sociopathic and has a self-centred selfish streak a mile wide. As she tramples all over her offspring’s young lives, breaking each and every promise like clockwork, then you just want to shout at her and give her a good shaking. It’s a difficult line for the film to walk (did the ghost of Johnny Cash make me write that?) and it only barely walks it unscathed.
Memories of Birdman.
A key shout-out needs to go to director Tom Harper (“Woman in Black 2“, and the TV epic “War and Peace”) and his cinematographer of choice George Steel. Some of the angles and framed shots are exquisitely done. A fantastic dance sequence through Susannah’s house (the best since Hugh Grant‘s No. 10 “Jump” in “Love Actually”) reveals the associated imaginary musicians in various alcoves reminiscent of the drummer in “Birdman“. And there are a couple of great drone shots: one (no spoilers) showing Rose-Lynn leaving a party is particularly effective.
The turns.
The camera simply loves Jessie Buckley. She delivers real energy in the good times and real pathos in the bad. She can – assuming it’s her performing – also sing! (No surprise since she was, you might remember, runner up to Jodie Prenger in the BBC search for a “Maria” for Lloyd Webber’s “Sound of Music”). She is certainly one to watch on the acting stage.
Supporting Buckley in prime roles are national treasure Julie Walters, effecting an impressive Glaswegian accent, and Sophie Okonedo, who is one of those well-known faces from TV that you can never quite place. BBC Radio 2’s Bob Harris also turns up as himself, being marvellously unconvincing as an actor!
But I don’t like country music?
Frankly neither do I. But it hardly matters. As long as you don’t ABSOLUTELY LOATHE it, I predict you’ll tolerate the tunes and enjoy the movie. Followers of this blog might remember that – against the general trend – I was highly unimpressed with “A Star is Born“. This movie I enjoyed far, far more.
Buckley plays Glaswegian Rose-Lynn Harlan, a decidedly wild child electronically tagged and released from the clink but straight down to some very public cowgirl sex with her erstwhile boyfriend. Only then does she have the afterthought of going round to the house of her Mum (Julie Walters) where two young children live. For Rose-Lynn is a single mum of two (#needs-to-be-more-careful-with-the-cowgirl-stuff), and the emotional damage metered out to the youngsters from her wayward life is fully evident.
Rose-Lynn is a frustrated ‘country-and-weste’… no, sorry… just ‘western’ singer, and she has a talent for bringing the house down in Glasgow during a show. The desire to ‘make it big’ in Nashville is bordering on obsession, and nothing – not her mum, not her children, nothing – will get in her way.
Rose-Lynn has no idea how to make her dream come true. (And no, she doesn’t bump into Bradley Cooper at this point). But things look up when she lies her way to a cleaning job for the middle class Susannah (Sophie Okonedo) who sees the talent in her and comes up with a couple of innovative ways to move her in the right direction.
Will she get out of her Glasgow poverty trap and rise to fame and fortune as a Nashville star?
Difficult to like.
Rose-Lynn is not an easy character to like. She is borderline sociopathic and has a self-centred selfish streak a mile wide. As she tramples all over her offspring’s young lives, breaking each and every promise like clockwork, then you just want to shout at her and give her a good shaking. It’s a difficult line for the film to walk (did the ghost of Johnny Cash make me write that?) and it only barely walks it unscathed.
Memories of Birdman.
A key shout-out needs to go to director Tom Harper (“Woman in Black 2“, and the TV epic “War and Peace”) and his cinematographer of choice George Steel. Some of the angles and framed shots are exquisitely done. A fantastic dance sequence through Susannah’s house (the best since Hugh Grant‘s No. 10 “Jump” in “Love Actually”) reveals the associated imaginary musicians in various alcoves reminiscent of the drummer in “Birdman“. And there are a couple of great drone shots: one (no spoilers) showing Rose-Lynn leaving a party is particularly effective.
The turns.
The camera simply loves Jessie Buckley. She delivers real energy in the good times and real pathos in the bad. She can – assuming it’s her performing – also sing! (No surprise since she was, you might remember, runner up to Jodie Prenger in the BBC search for a “Maria” for Lloyd Webber’s “Sound of Music”). She is certainly one to watch on the acting stage.
Supporting Buckley in prime roles are national treasure Julie Walters, effecting an impressive Glaswegian accent, and Sophie Okonedo, who is one of those well-known faces from TV that you can never quite place. BBC Radio 2’s Bob Harris also turns up as himself, being marvellously unconvincing as an actor!
But I don’t like country music?
Frankly neither do I. But it hardly matters. As long as you don’t ABSOLUTELY LOATHE it, I predict you’ll tolerate the tunes and enjoy the movie. Followers of this blog might remember that – against the general trend – I was highly unimpressed with “A Star is Born“. This movie I enjoyed far, far more.