Search
Search results
David McK (3204 KP) rated Ant-Man and The Wasp: Quantumania (2023) in Movies
Mar 11, 2023
Maybe I'm just starting to get a bit burned out on the relentless release pace of the MCU, but - for me- I feel like it's been on a bit of a downward trend since the end of the Infinity Stones Saga (with Avengers: Endgame)
I also miss the somewhat-heightened reality of the earlier Marvel movies: like the original Iron Man, say, or even The Winter Soldier.
The reason I say that?
Because this takes place, almost exclusively, in the quantum realm first mentioned in the original Ant-Man, really only being book-ended by the 'real' world.
This is also - or so I've read - the first in what is termed as Marvel Phase 5, introducing (for any who didn't make it to the end of the Loki TV show!) the next big bad, in the form of Jonathan Major's Kang the Conqueror (who steals pretty much every scene he is in here)
I also miss the somewhat-heightened reality of the earlier Marvel movies: like the original Iron Man, say, or even The Winter Soldier.
The reason I say that?
Because this takes place, almost exclusively, in the quantum realm first mentioned in the original Ant-Man, really only being book-ended by the 'real' world.
This is also - or so I've read - the first in what is termed as Marvel Phase 5, introducing (for any who didn't make it to the end of the Loki TV show!) the next big bad, in the form of Jonathan Major's Kang the Conqueror (who steals pretty much every scene he is in here)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Reminiscence (2021) in Movies
Aug 24, 2021
Needed a better Director - like one of the Nolan boys
Christopher Nolan is one of the greatest Directors of our time usually making films that have an attribute of time in them. His brother, Jonathan Nolan, has had a hand in most of his brother’s terrific works as well as the creative force behind such “trippy” TV series as PERSON OF INTEREST and the recent revival of WESTWORLD. In both of these TV Series, Jonathan Nolan was assisted by his wife, Lisa Joy.
Lisa Joy has written and directed her own “trippy, play with time” film, REMINISCENCE that has quite a few of the hallmarks of a Christopher (or Jonathan) Nolan film - but it also has one very unsettling aspect to it - it plays like a twice over copy of something else.
REMINISCENCE is a classic neo-noir with our hero being smitten by the femme fatale which draws him into her world, where murder, criminal activities and low-lifes run rampant all with a downbeat tone.
This sounds like a terrific premise for a Christopher Nolan film, unfortunately, in the hands of Lisa Joy, it is like watching a local community theater production of a Broadway musical.
The first 1/3 of this film is one long, laborious setup for the tragedy that will unfold and it is told at an uninteresting snail’s pace. Reminiscence picks up a bit in the middle with a pretty good action scene - and plot twist - before squandering this momentum with mediocrity at the end.
Joy’s script - which was on Hollywood’s infamous “blacklist’ of scripts for many, many years (a list of screenplays that are generally praised, but for some reason or another have not been produced), is at the core of the problem. The dialogue is not very interesting and dripping with heavy film noire clichés. She does not follow the Hollywood doctrine of “show, don’t tell”. She TELLS the audience much, much more than is needed and never really gives the audience any credit for figuring things out for themselves.
For example, there is a “dirty cop” that is central to the plot (there always is in this type of film). So, how do the other characters in the film address him? “You’re the dirty cop…”
I’d laugh if I wasn’t so bored.
What DOES work in this film is the acting of Hugh Jackman (as our hero), Rebecca Ferguson (as the femme fatale) and - especially - Thandie Newton as the “Gal Friday” of Jackman’s. Someone needs to give this talented actress a true showcase of her talents.
Someone also needs to give good ol’ Cliff Curtis a vehicle for his talents - he is one of the most misused good performers in Hollywood and he is misused in this film as well.
And…don’t get me started on the special effects. If you are going to make a trippy, sci-fi, futuristic neo-noire thriller, you probably shouldn’t cut the corner on the special effects, but this film does that, amazingly.
But…with a good Director at the helm there is enough “good enough” here (especially in the acting) that you should be able to pull something decent out of it.
But…Joy is making her theatrical film directing debut - exactly the type of director that this film does not need. What this film needed wasn’t a rookie director like Joy, it needed a Nolan - either Jonathan or (preferably) Christopher to make this work. But, one will have to be contented with a copy of a copy.
And that’s just not good enough.
Letter Grade: C+ (the performances of the leads almost salvage things.
5 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Lisa Joy has written and directed her own “trippy, play with time” film, REMINISCENCE that has quite a few of the hallmarks of a Christopher (or Jonathan) Nolan film - but it also has one very unsettling aspect to it - it plays like a twice over copy of something else.
REMINISCENCE is a classic neo-noir with our hero being smitten by the femme fatale which draws him into her world, where murder, criminal activities and low-lifes run rampant all with a downbeat tone.
This sounds like a terrific premise for a Christopher Nolan film, unfortunately, in the hands of Lisa Joy, it is like watching a local community theater production of a Broadway musical.
The first 1/3 of this film is one long, laborious setup for the tragedy that will unfold and it is told at an uninteresting snail’s pace. Reminiscence picks up a bit in the middle with a pretty good action scene - and plot twist - before squandering this momentum with mediocrity at the end.
Joy’s script - which was on Hollywood’s infamous “blacklist’ of scripts for many, many years (a list of screenplays that are generally praised, but for some reason or another have not been produced), is at the core of the problem. The dialogue is not very interesting and dripping with heavy film noire clichés. She does not follow the Hollywood doctrine of “show, don’t tell”. She TELLS the audience much, much more than is needed and never really gives the audience any credit for figuring things out for themselves.
For example, there is a “dirty cop” that is central to the plot (there always is in this type of film). So, how do the other characters in the film address him? “You’re the dirty cop…”
I’d laugh if I wasn’t so bored.
What DOES work in this film is the acting of Hugh Jackman (as our hero), Rebecca Ferguson (as the femme fatale) and - especially - Thandie Newton as the “Gal Friday” of Jackman’s. Someone needs to give this talented actress a true showcase of her talents.
Someone also needs to give good ol’ Cliff Curtis a vehicle for his talents - he is one of the most misused good performers in Hollywood and he is misused in this film as well.
And…don’t get me started on the special effects. If you are going to make a trippy, sci-fi, futuristic neo-noire thriller, you probably shouldn’t cut the corner on the special effects, but this film does that, amazingly.
But…with a good Director at the helm there is enough “good enough” here (especially in the acting) that you should be able to pull something decent out of it.
But…Joy is making her theatrical film directing debut - exactly the type of director that this film does not need. What this film needed wasn’t a rookie director like Joy, it needed a Nolan - either Jonathan or (preferably) Christopher to make this work. But, one will have to be contented with a copy of a copy.
And that’s just not good enough.
Letter Grade: C+ (the performances of the leads almost salvage things.
5 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
David McK (3204 KP) rated Death of Wolverine in Books
Jan 30, 2019
The DEATH of Wolverine?
As if.
The Temporary Absence of Wolverine? (from the Marvel Universe). perhaps.
Admittedly, that doesn't sound *quite* as catchy, but I think that we all know by now that the death of any major comic character rarely stays that way: Superman, Captain America and Spider-Man (for instance) have all previously 'died' and later been resurrected. In the comics, indeed, I can only think of a few characters - all with mainly supporting roles - who have died, and stayed dead. Characters such as Uncle Ben (Spider-Man), Jonathan Kent (Superman) or the Wayne's (Batman), for example.
With all that said, this story starts with Logan stripped of his healing powers by unspecified events and with a huge bounty placed on him, leading several of the worlds bounty hunters to try to collect.
How this all fits into 'Old Man Logan' (which I haven't read, but have heard of), I have no idea - in this, he does, indeed, 'die' by the end of the stories. Like the character, the (linked) stories are also pretty brutal, with the art not shying away form showing the injuries sustained by a healing-powers-less Logan, and with blood spilt on a fairly regular basis.
There's also a throw-away line in one of the X-Men movies (the first?), where Logan is asked - when referring to his claws popping out - if that hurts, and in which he answers "Every damn time". The reason I bring that up? Because that fact is woven into this story as well, with Logan trying to avoid using his claws until absolutely necessary and with close-ups of his hands (when he does) showing just how painful it can be.
Worth a read? Yes, but I very much doubt the character will stay dead for long!
As if.
The Temporary Absence of Wolverine? (from the Marvel Universe). perhaps.
Admittedly, that doesn't sound *quite* as catchy, but I think that we all know by now that the death of any major comic character rarely stays that way: Superman, Captain America and Spider-Man (for instance) have all previously 'died' and later been resurrected. In the comics, indeed, I can only think of a few characters - all with mainly supporting roles - who have died, and stayed dead. Characters such as Uncle Ben (Spider-Man), Jonathan Kent (Superman) or the Wayne's (Batman), for example.
With all that said, this story starts with Logan stripped of his healing powers by unspecified events and with a huge bounty placed on him, leading several of the worlds bounty hunters to try to collect.
How this all fits into 'Old Man Logan' (which I haven't read, but have heard of), I have no idea - in this, he does, indeed, 'die' by the end of the stories. Like the character, the (linked) stories are also pretty brutal, with the art not shying away form showing the injuries sustained by a healing-powers-less Logan, and with blood spilt on a fairly regular basis.
There's also a throw-away line in one of the X-Men movies (the first?), where Logan is asked - when referring to his claws popping out - if that hurts, and in which he answers "Every damn time". The reason I bring that up? Because that fact is woven into this story as well, with Logan trying to avoid using his claws until absolutely necessary and with close-ups of his hands (when he does) showing just how painful it can be.
Worth a read? Yes, but I very much doubt the character will stay dead for long!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Wife (2017) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021 (Updated Sep 28, 2021)
Glenn Close … #robbed.
I missed “The Wife” when it came out in September, but finally caught it a few weeks ago. (Been a busy time at work so have a bit of a backlog of reviews!).
The Plot.
Joan Castleman (Glenn Close) is the doting wife of internationally renowned writer Joe Castleman (Jonathan Pryce). As we start the film, Joe has just received a call from Stockholm. No, it’s not an “amusing story about a goat” (for any MM2 fans out there). It’s notification that he is to receive the Nobel prize for literature. As Joan listens to the news on the extension, there is something in her eyes that betrays mixed emotions.
They travel to Sweden (on Concorde, obviously) with their son Max (Max Irons) – a writer at the start of his career. Max and Joe have a strained relationship.
Also in Stockholm is Nathanial Bone (Christian Slater) – the bane of Joe’s life, since he seems insistent on writing the biography of the great man. As Nathanial picks through the history of the couple, things start to unravel in unexpected ways.
What a performance!
The heart of this film, and the main reason for watching what is really a bit of a pot-boiler, is the performance by Glenn Close. It’s a remarkable demonstration of the acting craft and 110% Oscar worthy.
Don’t get me wrong…. as I watched the Oscars live in the wee-hours of Monday morning I let out a WHOOP of joy when our own national treasure Olivia Colman picked up the award. But I have to say that I think Glenn Close was rather robbed. Close can act brilliantly without saying a single word. In fact most of her best scenes are reaction shots to what she is listening to.
In comparison I found Jonathan Pryce to be a soupçon over-the-top as the feted writer, and I didn’t find the portrayal of Bone by Slater to be terribly convincing. So it’s a very mixed acting bag in my view.
Utterly gorgeous in a way that only Swedish women can be is Karin Franz Körlof as the personal photographer Linnea. She can also act!
A perfectly pleasant movie
Directed by Swedish director Björn Runge and with a screenplay by Jane Anderson, it’s a perfectly pleasant way to spend a couple of hours. The story is intriguing enough to keep your interest, although it plays its hand so early that the simmering suspense element ebbs out of the film. A final “Sixth Sense” style of reveal might have been much more effective.
But this is above all a film to relish the performance of Close: the facial acting during the speech at the awards ceremony is something that should be studied at acting schools for years to come.
The Plot.
Joan Castleman (Glenn Close) is the doting wife of internationally renowned writer Joe Castleman (Jonathan Pryce). As we start the film, Joe has just received a call from Stockholm. No, it’s not an “amusing story about a goat” (for any MM2 fans out there). It’s notification that he is to receive the Nobel prize for literature. As Joan listens to the news on the extension, there is something in her eyes that betrays mixed emotions.
They travel to Sweden (on Concorde, obviously) with their son Max (Max Irons) – a writer at the start of his career. Max and Joe have a strained relationship.
Also in Stockholm is Nathanial Bone (Christian Slater) – the bane of Joe’s life, since he seems insistent on writing the biography of the great man. As Nathanial picks through the history of the couple, things start to unravel in unexpected ways.
What a performance!
The heart of this film, and the main reason for watching what is really a bit of a pot-boiler, is the performance by Glenn Close. It’s a remarkable demonstration of the acting craft and 110% Oscar worthy.
Don’t get me wrong…. as I watched the Oscars live in the wee-hours of Monday morning I let out a WHOOP of joy when our own national treasure Olivia Colman picked up the award. But I have to say that I think Glenn Close was rather robbed. Close can act brilliantly without saying a single word. In fact most of her best scenes are reaction shots to what she is listening to.
In comparison I found Jonathan Pryce to be a soupçon over-the-top as the feted writer, and I didn’t find the portrayal of Bone by Slater to be terribly convincing. So it’s a very mixed acting bag in my view.
Utterly gorgeous in a way that only Swedish women can be is Karin Franz Körlof as the personal photographer Linnea. She can also act!
A perfectly pleasant movie
Directed by Swedish director Björn Runge and with a screenplay by Jane Anderson, it’s a perfectly pleasant way to spend a couple of hours. The story is intriguing enough to keep your interest, although it plays its hand so early that the simmering suspense element ebbs out of the film. A final “Sixth Sense” style of reveal might have been much more effective.
But this is above all a film to relish the performance of Close: the facial acting during the speech at the awards ceremony is something that should be studied at acting schools for years to come.
Gareth von Kallenbach (968 KP) rated Journey 2: The Mysterious Island (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
A follow up to the 2008, “Journey to the Center of the Earth,” here is another modern take on those beloved classic stories of the 19th century. “Journey 2: The Mysterious Island” is based on the idea that Jules Verne’s Mysterious Island, Jonathan Swift’s Gulliver’s Travels and Robert Louis Stevenson’s Treasure Island, are in fact the same island which really does exist.
The movie opens up with the return of Sean Anderson (Josh Hutcherson) getting caught by the police for climbing a satellite tower. To his chagrin, Josh is released into the custody of his stepfather Hank (Dwayne ‘The Rock’ Johnson), a former Navy man who wants nothing more than to be friends with his stepson. Sean’s reason for climbing the satellite tower was to get a hold of a satellite transmission code that he believes is the key to a message from his long-lost grandfather Alexander(Michael Caine).
Sean, with the help of Hank’s Navy expertise, attempts to decode the message which eventually leads them to the Mysterious Island. Along the way, the two hire a helicopter pilot Gabato (Luis Guzman), who provides the comedic relief and his daughter Kailani (Vanessa Hudgens) who, of course, is the eye candy and the romantic interest for Sean.
Upon arrival at the Mysterious Island, they locate Sean’s grandfather Alexander and they discover they must trek across the island, past a volcano that erupts gold leaves and run from dangerous creatures to find Captain Nemo’s ship. All before the island sinks!
You don’t have to be a “Vernian” to know what’s going on here. This movie was definitely geared toward a younger audience. The idea behind recreating Verne’s novels with a modern day twist was clever, however the execution was poor as the sequence of events didn’t flow from one scene to the next and the character relationships were not genuine at all. I must say, however the visual effects were stunning. as well as some of the action scenes which could have rivaled “Indiana Jones” or even “The Goonies” with just a bit more care and attention to detail.
The movie opens up with the return of Sean Anderson (Josh Hutcherson) getting caught by the police for climbing a satellite tower. To his chagrin, Josh is released into the custody of his stepfather Hank (Dwayne ‘The Rock’ Johnson), a former Navy man who wants nothing more than to be friends with his stepson. Sean’s reason for climbing the satellite tower was to get a hold of a satellite transmission code that he believes is the key to a message from his long-lost grandfather Alexander(Michael Caine).
Sean, with the help of Hank’s Navy expertise, attempts to decode the message which eventually leads them to the Mysterious Island. Along the way, the two hire a helicopter pilot Gabato (Luis Guzman), who provides the comedic relief and his daughter Kailani (Vanessa Hudgens) who, of course, is the eye candy and the romantic interest for Sean.
Upon arrival at the Mysterious Island, they locate Sean’s grandfather Alexander and they discover they must trek across the island, past a volcano that erupts gold leaves and run from dangerous creatures to find Captain Nemo’s ship. All before the island sinks!
You don’t have to be a “Vernian” to know what’s going on here. This movie was definitely geared toward a younger audience. The idea behind recreating Verne’s novels with a modern day twist was clever, however the execution was poor as the sequence of events didn’t flow from one scene to the next and the character relationships were not genuine at all. I must say, however the visual effects were stunning. as well as some of the action scenes which could have rivaled “Indiana Jones” or even “The Goonies” with just a bit more care and attention to detail.
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated Playing with Matches in Books
Mar 10, 2019
Good read, especially for those young & dating
Sasha Goldberg's plans as a writer are quickly derailed when her boss tells her he doesn't have the funds to hire her on after her graduation. She's stuck--in New York City--without a Plan B. When she sees a job listing for a matchmaker, she's intrigued. Sasha's secret is that her parents met through a kind of matchmaker: her father chose her mom through a catalog and paid for her to come to the United States from Russia. Of course, it didn't exactly work out (they're divorced), but Sasha uses the story to get hired on at Bliss, an exclusive NYC matchmaking service. She's hopeful the job will tide her over while she waits for a writing gig. And, she thinks, she has to know something about love, since she's successfully with her boyfriend, Jonathan, who works around-the-clock in his Wall Street gig. But matchmaking isn't as easy as it looks--it's a lot of stressful Tinder swiping and tracking down potential mates in random ways--and it becomes even more complicated when Sasha develops a crush on one of her client's matches. One of the firm's rules is that matches are off-limits. Sasha's struggling: can she keep it all together?
This is one of those books where I find myself going into it warily, because you just know things are going to come crashing down, and you (me) are not 100% sure you want to be there for all of it. It's not a secret (it's in the book description) that Sasha and Jonathan break up and that she gets into a relationship with Adam, one of her client's matches. For some reason, I often have an issue with these sorts of books where the character just makes bad choices: Sasha makes no attempt to avoid what will be an inevitable downfall with Adam, so I found myself cringing as she made a string of poor decisions.
That's not to say Sasha isn't an engaging character. This book is very readable, and I certainly liked Sasha and reading about her life. However, I can't lie:I probably am a little older than the target audience for this novel. It offers a fun and engaging look at the dating scene in New York, but there wasn't a lot I could relate to. I felt protective of Sasha, not empathetic to her, if that makes any sense. Honestly, the book just made me feel relieved I no longer have to date or deal with basically anything Sasha had to endure during the course of this novel.
Still, Orenstein does a good job at capturing Sasha's voice and what it's like to be a young twenty-something trying to survive in the city. Sasha's relationship with her best friend Caroline and her mom are well-done. I didn't think there was as much overall about matchmaking as a job as I'd hoped--it seemed to be a lot of Tinder swiping and chatting--so that was a little bit of a bummer, but there was enough to know it's a job I'd never want!
Overall, if you're young and still dating, you'll probably really enjoy this book--especially if you live in a city. If not, some of its essence may be a bit lost of you, but you'll still like Orenstein's witty writing and the arc of Sasha's struggles.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review (thank you!).
This is one of those books where I find myself going into it warily, because you just know things are going to come crashing down, and you (me) are not 100% sure you want to be there for all of it. It's not a secret (it's in the book description) that Sasha and Jonathan break up and that she gets into a relationship with Adam, one of her client's matches. For some reason, I often have an issue with these sorts of books where the character just makes bad choices: Sasha makes no attempt to avoid what will be an inevitable downfall with Adam, so I found myself cringing as she made a string of poor decisions.
That's not to say Sasha isn't an engaging character. This book is very readable, and I certainly liked Sasha and reading about her life. However, I can't lie:I probably am a little older than the target audience for this novel. It offers a fun and engaging look at the dating scene in New York, but there wasn't a lot I could relate to. I felt protective of Sasha, not empathetic to her, if that makes any sense. Honestly, the book just made me feel relieved I no longer have to date or deal with basically anything Sasha had to endure during the course of this novel.
Still, Orenstein does a good job at capturing Sasha's voice and what it's like to be a young twenty-something trying to survive in the city. Sasha's relationship with her best friend Caroline and her mom are well-done. I didn't think there was as much overall about matchmaking as a job as I'd hoped--it seemed to be a lot of Tinder swiping and chatting--so that was a little bit of a bummer, but there was enough to know it's a job I'd never want!
Overall, if you're young and still dating, you'll probably really enjoy this book--especially if you live in a city. If not, some of its essence may be a bit lost of you, but you'll still like Orenstein's witty writing and the arc of Sasha's struggles.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review (thank you!).
Darren (1599 KP) rated The Two Popes (2019) in Movies
Dec 20, 2019
Verdict: A Pryce & Hopkins Masterclass
Story: The Two Popes starts with the death of Pope John Paul II, the Vatican must elect a new Pope, bring the Cardinals from around the world together to go through the voting system, one the world is waiting to hear the news. Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio (Pryce) and Cardinal Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger (Hopkins) are the favourites to wise to the spot, with Ratzinger becoming Pope Benedict.
Jump forward to 2012, Pope Benedict is involved in a scandal, which sees Jorge return to Rome hoping to be granted his retirement. Pope Benedict refuses his request, as the two clash on their beliefs, with Jorge wanting to see the church move to the future, while Pope Benedict believes the church should never change.
Thoughts on The Two Popes
Characters – Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio is from Argentina, he has always bought the people together, he sees the church needing to not only let the future in, but embrace the changes they could never have considered because of their beliefs, he is one of the two challengers voted for to become the next Pope before stepping away from the votes. Years later, he wants to retire and isn’t getting answers, he confronts the pope, wanting to get answers, until he learns the true reason for their meeting. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was always meant to replace Pope John Paul II, he wins and becomes Pope Benedict. His reign will see him facing scandal before he decides to make a massive decision, one unheard of in the church. He has always believed in follow everything the church has before, which is why he gets challenged the most. We only meet a younger version of Jorge as we see his journey to rise to Cardinal in Argentina, while anybody else is usually just showing the two around.
Performances – Jonathan Pryce and Anthony Hopkins give two of the greatest performances of the year, the two legends of the industry shine carrying the film with their performances through the film.
Story – The story here follows the close election of a new Pope and how the Cardinal who stepped out of the race he never wanted to be in, is the one person that the new Pope can turn to in his time of need to save the church from a scandal which could destroy it. This is one of the most interesting and engrossing stories you will see, it shows a behind the curtain look at how the church operates, with minds that believe in a God, even if they do follow different beliefs with how they can connect to more people. We do get to learn how Jorge was given his chance in the first place, had experiences that Pope Benedict never went through to get to his position. The idea that this is a conversation between two religious men with differences, it shows how people can disagree without needing to turn into an ugly fight for no reason, they can respect their differences.
Biopic/Comedy – The biopic side of the film shows the private conversation between two religious figureheads that went through to make one of the biggest decisions in the church’s history, which is also done in a comedic way, where we get to see the two have a joke along the way.
Settings – The settings are beautiful from the country house to how the Vatican is recreated to make us believe we are right there with the Popes.
Scene of the Movie – The truth conversation.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not hearing the confession.
Final Thoughts – This is an acting masterclass from two of the greatest actors Hollywood has seen, it highlights the big change the church would take and how to have a conversation where both sides disagree, but accept the difference of opinions.
Overall: Acting Masterclass.
Story: The Two Popes starts with the death of Pope John Paul II, the Vatican must elect a new Pope, bring the Cardinals from around the world together to go through the voting system, one the world is waiting to hear the news. Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio (Pryce) and Cardinal Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger (Hopkins) are the favourites to wise to the spot, with Ratzinger becoming Pope Benedict.
Jump forward to 2012, Pope Benedict is involved in a scandal, which sees Jorge return to Rome hoping to be granted his retirement. Pope Benedict refuses his request, as the two clash on their beliefs, with Jorge wanting to see the church move to the future, while Pope Benedict believes the church should never change.
Thoughts on The Two Popes
Characters – Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio is from Argentina, he has always bought the people together, he sees the church needing to not only let the future in, but embrace the changes they could never have considered because of their beliefs, he is one of the two challengers voted for to become the next Pope before stepping away from the votes. Years later, he wants to retire and isn’t getting answers, he confronts the pope, wanting to get answers, until he learns the true reason for their meeting. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was always meant to replace Pope John Paul II, he wins and becomes Pope Benedict. His reign will see him facing scandal before he decides to make a massive decision, one unheard of in the church. He has always believed in follow everything the church has before, which is why he gets challenged the most. We only meet a younger version of Jorge as we see his journey to rise to Cardinal in Argentina, while anybody else is usually just showing the two around.
Performances – Jonathan Pryce and Anthony Hopkins give two of the greatest performances of the year, the two legends of the industry shine carrying the film with their performances through the film.
Story – The story here follows the close election of a new Pope and how the Cardinal who stepped out of the race he never wanted to be in, is the one person that the new Pope can turn to in his time of need to save the church from a scandal which could destroy it. This is one of the most interesting and engrossing stories you will see, it shows a behind the curtain look at how the church operates, with minds that believe in a God, even if they do follow different beliefs with how they can connect to more people. We do get to learn how Jorge was given his chance in the first place, had experiences that Pope Benedict never went through to get to his position. The idea that this is a conversation between two religious men with differences, it shows how people can disagree without needing to turn into an ugly fight for no reason, they can respect their differences.
Biopic/Comedy – The biopic side of the film shows the private conversation between two religious figureheads that went through to make one of the biggest decisions in the church’s history, which is also done in a comedic way, where we get to see the two have a joke along the way.
Settings – The settings are beautiful from the country house to how the Vatican is recreated to make us believe we are right there with the Popes.
Scene of the Movie – The truth conversation.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not hearing the confession.
Final Thoughts – This is an acting masterclass from two of the greatest actors Hollywood has seen, it highlights the big change the church would take and how to have a conversation where both sides disagree, but accept the difference of opinions.
Overall: Acting Masterclass.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Churchill (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“We will bore them on the beaches”.
“Churchill” tells the story of the great leader’s extreme opposition to “Operation Overlord”, the Eisenhower-led invasion of Normandy in 1944 that ultimately led – more by luck that judgement perhaps – to the fall of the Third Reich in the following year.
I’m not a historian but am married to one, so know the importance of “sources” in the pursuit of “truth”: one man’s terrorist is after all another man’s freedom fighter from a different perspective. Some sources on the internet (here for example) certainly suggest the The British (led by Churchill as Prime Minister) might have sensibly promoted the acceleration of the Italian campaign to reach Berlin rather than the far riskier Channel crossing.
This film however paints Churchill as a man demonised by his decision to send young men to their deaths in the fateful Gallipoli beach landings of World War One, with this – rather than a sensible strategic one – being the primary reason for opposing the Normandy landings. To further paint him as a bumbling old fool that is “worked around” by his peers strikes you as borderline libellous.
So the film’s script, by novice Alex von Tunzelmann, immediately set the wrong tone with me, and the undeniably strong performances of Brian Cox (“The Bourne Identity”) as Churchill and the wonderful Miranda Richardson (“Harry Potter” and the soon to be released “Stronger”) as Clemmie can’t fill the gap.
Besides anything else, diretor Jonathan Teplitzky (“The Railway Man”) delivers a piece so dull and lifeless, and with so much brooding, that its not remotely enjoyable. You think the introduction of a bullied secretary – Ms Garrett (Ella Purnell) – with a strong personal connection to ‘Overlord’ will add dramatic colour? But this angle too seems to go nowhere in particular.
There are many tales of the Normandy landings that are fascinating, over and above the dramatic sweep of “The Longest Day” (which is surely well overdue for a remake?) and Spielberg’s fictionalisation of the Niland brothers in “Saving Private Ryan”. How about the 2 out of 29 American amphibious tanks that reached Omaha beach after ignoring British advice to not launch so far from shore in rough seas?
So, as a film, it might be “worthy”. But I didn’t remotely believe the depiction of Churchill and it astonished me that such a rivetingly exciting period of British history could deliver a film that bored me. So, sorry, can’t recommend this one. Perhaps Joe Wright will have a better go with Gary Oldman as Churchill in “Darkest Hour”…
I’m not a historian but am married to one, so know the importance of “sources” in the pursuit of “truth”: one man’s terrorist is after all another man’s freedom fighter from a different perspective. Some sources on the internet (here for example) certainly suggest the The British (led by Churchill as Prime Minister) might have sensibly promoted the acceleration of the Italian campaign to reach Berlin rather than the far riskier Channel crossing.
This film however paints Churchill as a man demonised by his decision to send young men to their deaths in the fateful Gallipoli beach landings of World War One, with this – rather than a sensible strategic one – being the primary reason for opposing the Normandy landings. To further paint him as a bumbling old fool that is “worked around” by his peers strikes you as borderline libellous.
So the film’s script, by novice Alex von Tunzelmann, immediately set the wrong tone with me, and the undeniably strong performances of Brian Cox (“The Bourne Identity”) as Churchill and the wonderful Miranda Richardson (“Harry Potter” and the soon to be released “Stronger”) as Clemmie can’t fill the gap.
Besides anything else, diretor Jonathan Teplitzky (“The Railway Man”) delivers a piece so dull and lifeless, and with so much brooding, that its not remotely enjoyable. You think the introduction of a bullied secretary – Ms Garrett (Ella Purnell) – with a strong personal connection to ‘Overlord’ will add dramatic colour? But this angle too seems to go nowhere in particular.
There are many tales of the Normandy landings that are fascinating, over and above the dramatic sweep of “The Longest Day” (which is surely well overdue for a remake?) and Spielberg’s fictionalisation of the Niland brothers in “Saving Private Ryan”. How about the 2 out of 29 American amphibious tanks that reached Omaha beach after ignoring British advice to not launch so far from shore in rough seas?
So, as a film, it might be “worthy”. But I didn’t remotely believe the depiction of Churchill and it astonished me that such a rivetingly exciting period of British history could deliver a film that bored me. So, sorry, can’t recommend this one. Perhaps Joe Wright will have a better go with Gary Oldman as Churchill in “Darkest Hour”…
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Ricki And The Flash (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
The iron lady goes all iron maiden
Meryl Streep has always been one of our most reliable actresses. The three-time Oscar winner has starred in some iconic films, from Sophie’s Choice to The Devil Wears Prada and from Kramer vs Kramer to The Iron Lady, she can turn her hand to almost anything.
However, her latest role sees the fan favourite star as an ageing rock star who must heal the voids in her family after an incident. But does Ricki & the Flash do Meryl proud?
The film sees Streep play Ricki Rendazzo, aka Linda, a musician playing in the pubs of California, estranged from her family after years of absence. Suddenly, she’s thrown back into the mix after her daughter Julie, played superbly by Meryl’s real-life offspring Mamie Gummer, faces a personal crisis.
Starring alongside the Academy Award winner is the ever-reliable Kevin Kline as Linda’s ex-wife Pete. His scenes with her show real chemistry and the relationship they share is completely believable.
Having Streep’s daughter on the screen with her was a masterstroke by director Jonathan Demme (The Silence of the Lambs) and they share more than just a familiar face. Their mannerisms are completely in sync and match up together in more ways than any acting class could have taught.
Unfortunately, the clichéd script and predictable story really let Ricki & the Flash down. There’s not an ounce of originality here, despite the great casting, and the ending is signposted not only in the film itself, but in the trailers – the cardinal sin of movie marketing.
What is a pleasant surprise however is Meryl’s cracking vocal performance. With her belting out hits like Lady GaGa’s Bad Romance and Pink’s Get the Party Started left, right and centre, the soundtrack is positively sizzling and a real highlight throughout the film.
Nevertheless, Demme’s usual visual flair, for which he won an Oscar back in 1991 with The Silence of the Lambs, is nowhere to be found here. The cinematography is inoffensive enough but lacking in any real punch, a disappointment given the film’s bursting energy.
I feel that Streep too is aware of these shackles and her characterisation, whilst capable, lacks the finesse of some of her other work. Let’s remember though, that Streep at her worst is many other actresses at their best.
Overall, Ricki & the Flash is a capable film led by a pleasant and inoffensive cast. Meryl Streep is always reason enough to give any movie a go, but this somewhat muddled comedy drama is towards the bottom end of her work.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/09/06/the-iron-lady-goes-all-iron-maiden-ricki-the-flash-review/
However, her latest role sees the fan favourite star as an ageing rock star who must heal the voids in her family after an incident. But does Ricki & the Flash do Meryl proud?
The film sees Streep play Ricki Rendazzo, aka Linda, a musician playing in the pubs of California, estranged from her family after years of absence. Suddenly, she’s thrown back into the mix after her daughter Julie, played superbly by Meryl’s real-life offspring Mamie Gummer, faces a personal crisis.
Starring alongside the Academy Award winner is the ever-reliable Kevin Kline as Linda’s ex-wife Pete. His scenes with her show real chemistry and the relationship they share is completely believable.
Having Streep’s daughter on the screen with her was a masterstroke by director Jonathan Demme (The Silence of the Lambs) and they share more than just a familiar face. Their mannerisms are completely in sync and match up together in more ways than any acting class could have taught.
Unfortunately, the clichéd script and predictable story really let Ricki & the Flash down. There’s not an ounce of originality here, despite the great casting, and the ending is signposted not only in the film itself, but in the trailers – the cardinal sin of movie marketing.
What is a pleasant surprise however is Meryl’s cracking vocal performance. With her belting out hits like Lady GaGa’s Bad Romance and Pink’s Get the Party Started left, right and centre, the soundtrack is positively sizzling and a real highlight throughout the film.
Nevertheless, Demme’s usual visual flair, for which he won an Oscar back in 1991 with The Silence of the Lambs, is nowhere to be found here. The cinematography is inoffensive enough but lacking in any real punch, a disappointment given the film’s bursting energy.
I feel that Streep too is aware of these shackles and her characterisation, whilst capable, lacks the finesse of some of her other work. Let’s remember though, that Streep at her worst is many other actresses at their best.
Overall, Ricki & the Flash is a capable film led by a pleasant and inoffensive cast. Meryl Streep is always reason enough to give any movie a go, but this somewhat muddled comedy drama is towards the bottom end of her work.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/09/06/the-iron-lady-goes-all-iron-maiden-ricki-the-flash-review/
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Long Shot (2019) in Movies
Apr 29, 2019
Very Fun RomCom
When a fired journalist finds himself writing speeches for the Secretary of State, he also finds himself in over his head when he quickly falls for her. Anyone that’s read even a tenth of my reviews know how much I love genre films that try and bend said genre and do things differently, albeit slightly. It’s for that reason that I fell in love with Long Shot. I’d be surprised if you didn’t as well.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
In Long Shot, Seth Rogen plays the role of Fred Flarsky, a journalist committed to reporting on the right things, or at least his version of what’s right, anyway. He’s daft, but not stupid. Timid for the most part, but knows how to seize an opportunity when necessary. Charlize Theron is Charlotte Field the Secretary of State, a strong woman who stands up for herself, but also knows the necessity of “playing the game” sometimes. Charlotte and Fred work so well together because they are polar opposites, but also share some strange interests. I can’t lie, I’m a sucker for most roles Rogen plays. If Chris Hemsworth is a reminder that we need to hit the gym, Rogen is a reminder that your plain old average self will do just fine, thank you very much. He is the Every Man of everymen. You want Fred to succeed not just because he’s an underdog, but also because he’s cool as hell.
Charlotte is dope too, but in a different way. I love that she takes no crap, but also has a soft spot and a willingness to give others a chance. It wasn’t hard for either of these characters to win me over.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 2
The movie falters a bit here, at least in my opinion. I’m sure there may be others that feel differently, but I didn’t really feel much strong opposition over the course of the movie. I would elaborate, but will stop short here as I don’t want to give away too much of what too expect.
Genre: 9
As I kept thinking of what I would score this film on the drive home, I found new reasons to love the movie. When I look at a number of other movies in the genre, it definitely stacks up. it’s one of those movies you can watch regularly and not get bored.
Memorability: 9
Pace: 9
Director Jonathan Levine moves the story along at a smooth pace that is pretty consistent save for one or two “meh” spots along the way. It’s funny throughout and continues to make you laugh right as you start to get the sense things will die down. Fred is a bit of a wild card as well as you look forward to seeing what crazy crap he will get into next.
Plot: 4
Resolution: 10
Great ending with a bit of a twist that really brought the funny. After watching this journey, I couldn’t have been more satisfied with how things ended up. Predictable yet perfect at the same time.
Overall: 83
I have no doubt you will have a fun time seeing Long Shot. Even if you feel like you’ve been down the road before or you know what’s waiting at the end of the road, see it anyway. There is a certain amount of originality here that makes the movie well worth the ride.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
In Long Shot, Seth Rogen plays the role of Fred Flarsky, a journalist committed to reporting on the right things, or at least his version of what’s right, anyway. He’s daft, but not stupid. Timid for the most part, but knows how to seize an opportunity when necessary. Charlize Theron is Charlotte Field the Secretary of State, a strong woman who stands up for herself, but also knows the necessity of “playing the game” sometimes. Charlotte and Fred work so well together because they are polar opposites, but also share some strange interests. I can’t lie, I’m a sucker for most roles Rogen plays. If Chris Hemsworth is a reminder that we need to hit the gym, Rogen is a reminder that your plain old average self will do just fine, thank you very much. He is the Every Man of everymen. You want Fred to succeed not just because he’s an underdog, but also because he’s cool as hell.
Charlotte is dope too, but in a different way. I love that she takes no crap, but also has a soft spot and a willingness to give others a chance. It wasn’t hard for either of these characters to win me over.
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 2
The movie falters a bit here, at least in my opinion. I’m sure there may be others that feel differently, but I didn’t really feel much strong opposition over the course of the movie. I would elaborate, but will stop short here as I don’t want to give away too much of what too expect.
Genre: 9
As I kept thinking of what I would score this film on the drive home, I found new reasons to love the movie. When I look at a number of other movies in the genre, it definitely stacks up. it’s one of those movies you can watch regularly and not get bored.
Memorability: 9
Pace: 9
Director Jonathan Levine moves the story along at a smooth pace that is pretty consistent save for one or two “meh” spots along the way. It’s funny throughout and continues to make you laugh right as you start to get the sense things will die down. Fred is a bit of a wild card as well as you look forward to seeing what crazy crap he will get into next.
Plot: 4
Resolution: 10
Great ending with a bit of a twist that really brought the funny. After watching this journey, I couldn’t have been more satisfied with how things ended up. Predictable yet perfect at the same time.
Overall: 83
I have no doubt you will have a fun time seeing Long Shot. Even if you feel like you’ve been down the road before or you know what’s waiting at the end of the road, see it anyway. There is a certain amount of originality here that makes the movie well worth the ride.