Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Trial of the Chicago 7 (2020) in Movies
Oct 24, 2020
The epic ensemble cast (1 more)
The direction from Aaron Sorkin
“Trial” is a less wordy triumph for Sorkin
So, "The Trial of the Chicago 7" is one which I was unfortunately unable to catch on its short "Oscar-nom" cinema release, but is now on Netflix. And boy, for older viewers who prefer historical drama over wham-bam action, this is definitely worth the watch.
I know a decent bit of 20th century history, but this is a story I knew nothing about. At the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago, anti-Vietnam protests resulted in a violent and brutal confrontation with the police. Eight of the ring-leaders were rounded up and charged with inciting the violence. What happens in the court with the eight convicted men, in front of an old and partisan judge (the wonderful Frank Langella), is simply amazing.
There's a nice wiki article on the history you can look up. But its worth watching the movie blind, since it's a great rollercoaster ride.
If you read my blog regularly, you'll know that one of my favourite of the awards in award season is the "Ensemble Cast" award from the Screen Actor's Guild (SAG). I think a good measure of which movies might be good candidates for this award is when you find it difficult to single out particular actors for an individual award when they all work so well together. For this is a cast to die for:
- Sacha Baron Cohen, as Abbie Hoffman: an intelligent 'straight' role, poles apart from Borat and Bruno, that he delivers on 100%;
- Jeremy Strong as Hoffman's buddy Jerry Rubin, doing an enormously entertaining turn;
- Eddie Redmayne as the apparently 'sensible one' Tom Hayden. A bit similar to his role in "Les Miserables", but diving off in a different direction at a key point;
- John Carroll Lynch as the genuine 'boy scout' David Dellinger, so good in "The Founder" and here as the only family man under the judgmental stare of his wife and son;
- Yahya Abdul-Mateen II as Black Panther member Bobby Seale - the "minus 1" from the title - in an astonishingly powerful performance;
- Joseph Gordon-Levitt as the prosecutor Richard Schultz - always quietly dependable;
- And the fantastic Mark Rylance as the defense attorney William Kunstler. I appreciate I am having a tendency to gush in this review, but Rylance expresses such a range of frustration and disgust here that his performance is nothing short of electrifying.
There's also a cracking cameo from Michael Keaton playing the former US Attorney General, Ramsey Clark.
I would think that any of these performances might be Oscar-worthy (somewhere in the Actor/Supporting Actor categories) but my personal choices would be Rylance for Best Actor and Baron Cohen and Langella for Best Supporting Actor nods.
One of my issues with the scripts of Aaron Sorkin is that they tend to be overly dense and wordy. In epic TV like "The West Wing" he could spread the dialogue over a whole series, but in a feature film it can become very dense and verbose. I found that in both of his last two films - "Molly's Game" and "Steve Jobs".
Here, in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", even though there's a lot of speechifying, to me it never felt over the top. Although an epic courtroom drama (akin to his debut script "A Few Good Men") the characters are given time to breath between the lines. And many of those lines are real zingers, particularly out of the mouth of stand-up anarchist Abbie Hoffman (Sacha Baron Cohen).
Aside from the script being a zinger, the direction here from Aaron Sorkin is also top-notch. If you thought a courtroom drama was going to be static and boring, think again. The camera never rests, and inserted flashbacks (excellent film editing from Alan Baumgarten) maintain the momentum of the story.
Overall, this is a movie tour-de-force from Sorkin, and a fantastic watch. Could this be a writing/directing double Oscar nom for Sorkin?
(For the full graphical review, check out the bob the movie man review here - https://rb.gy/y6bxtf . Thanks.)
I know a decent bit of 20th century history, but this is a story I knew nothing about. At the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago, anti-Vietnam protests resulted in a violent and brutal confrontation with the police. Eight of the ring-leaders were rounded up and charged with inciting the violence. What happens in the court with the eight convicted men, in front of an old and partisan judge (the wonderful Frank Langella), is simply amazing.
There's a nice wiki article on the history you can look up. But its worth watching the movie blind, since it's a great rollercoaster ride.
If you read my blog regularly, you'll know that one of my favourite of the awards in award season is the "Ensemble Cast" award from the Screen Actor's Guild (SAG). I think a good measure of which movies might be good candidates for this award is when you find it difficult to single out particular actors for an individual award when they all work so well together. For this is a cast to die for:
- Sacha Baron Cohen, as Abbie Hoffman: an intelligent 'straight' role, poles apart from Borat and Bruno, that he delivers on 100%;
- Jeremy Strong as Hoffman's buddy Jerry Rubin, doing an enormously entertaining turn;
- Eddie Redmayne as the apparently 'sensible one' Tom Hayden. A bit similar to his role in "Les Miserables", but diving off in a different direction at a key point;
- John Carroll Lynch as the genuine 'boy scout' David Dellinger, so good in "The Founder" and here as the only family man under the judgmental stare of his wife and son;
- Yahya Abdul-Mateen II as Black Panther member Bobby Seale - the "minus 1" from the title - in an astonishingly powerful performance;
- Joseph Gordon-Levitt as the prosecutor Richard Schultz - always quietly dependable;
- And the fantastic Mark Rylance as the defense attorney William Kunstler. I appreciate I am having a tendency to gush in this review, but Rylance expresses such a range of frustration and disgust here that his performance is nothing short of electrifying.
There's also a cracking cameo from Michael Keaton playing the former US Attorney General, Ramsey Clark.
I would think that any of these performances might be Oscar-worthy (somewhere in the Actor/Supporting Actor categories) but my personal choices would be Rylance for Best Actor and Baron Cohen and Langella for Best Supporting Actor nods.
One of my issues with the scripts of Aaron Sorkin is that they tend to be overly dense and wordy. In epic TV like "The West Wing" he could spread the dialogue over a whole series, but in a feature film it can become very dense and verbose. I found that in both of his last two films - "Molly's Game" and "Steve Jobs".
Here, in "The Trial of the Chicago 7", even though there's a lot of speechifying, to me it never felt over the top. Although an epic courtroom drama (akin to his debut script "A Few Good Men") the characters are given time to breath between the lines. And many of those lines are real zingers, particularly out of the mouth of stand-up anarchist Abbie Hoffman (Sacha Baron Cohen).
Aside from the script being a zinger, the direction here from Aaron Sorkin is also top-notch. If you thought a courtroom drama was going to be static and boring, think again. The camera never rests, and inserted flashbacks (excellent film editing from Alan Baumgarten) maintain the momentum of the story.
Overall, this is a movie tour-de-force from Sorkin, and a fantastic watch. Could this be a writing/directing double Oscar nom for Sorkin?
(For the full graphical review, check out the bob the movie man review here - https://rb.gy/y6bxtf . Thanks.)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Inception (2010) in Movies
May 20, 2018
A Modern Classic
I have a confession to make - INCEPTION is one of my favorite Christopher Nolan films - and, perhaps, it is in my list of TOP 10 ALL TIME FAVORITE films, so this might not be a fair and impartial review of the film. To be fair to me, I did make a conscience effort whilst watching this movie to scrape away my previous preconceptions and opinions of this film and just let it wash over me in this "new light" of my blog to see what my reaction is.
My reaction: I LOVE THIS FILM!!!
I was asked how far back do you have to go before you can consider a film a "classic" and, I guess, I'd have to say 2010, for this film - to me - is a classic.
In INCEPTION, Nolan, and his co-writer brother Jonathan Nolan, go into the dreamworld with the premise that we can join in "shared dreams" to extract information from people that are locked away deep in their conscious (or in some cases unconscious) minds. This film deals with the idea of "Inception", planting an idea into someone's mind. This is, in essence, a "heist" film where our team of heroes is constantly at war with the minds they are inhabiting (since they are seen as parasites). The clock is ticking and they must get in and get out before they get lost.
Speaking of time, Nolan - once again - plays with the idea of time in this film. Once you go into a dream, 1 minute is like 1 hour and when you go into a dream of a dream, then 1 minute is like 60 hours and when you go into a dream within a dream within a dream, then...well...you get the idea.
If someone loses their way in this film, it's because they are trying to make logical sense of a dream world that defies physics - and time. My suggestion to you is to let go and let the movie take you to some fantastical places - with some fantastical imagery and plot machinations - that I enjoyed the heck out of.
Helping out this film is that it is impeccably cast. Leonardo DiCaprio is Cobb the head of this group that enters the dream realm. He is perfectly cast and Nolan, and this film, relies on his likeableness, his charm and the feeling that something just isn't quite right with him. All to very good effect. Ellen Page is strong as Ariadne, the rookie of the team that is our eyes and ears into this world. Ken Watanabe brings his typically strong game to the role of Saito - the man that gives the team the job and goes along for the ride. Nolan regular Cillian Murphy is a welcome addition as the person who they are trying to "Incept" and even small parts are filled with wonderful character actors like the late great, Pete Postlethwaite, Tom Berenger and good ol' Michael Caine.
But it is the emergence of two of the co-stars that, up until this film I thought were "fair actors but not great" that really elevates this film for me. Joseph Gordon-Levitt was always the "long haired kid from 3RD ROCK FROM THE SUN", but in this - as Cobb's right-hand man Arthur - he excels and really jumps out of the film as a screen presence. Of course, it really helps him that he has one of the best action sequences - for the most part practically shot - that I have ever scene. And, of course, there's TOM HARDY. He is a movie star and really shows it in the supporting role of Eames. This guy will win an Oscar one day, probably for a film that Nolan Directs him in.
My only quibble - and it is a QUIBBLE - is that I didn't really feel any strong chemistry between Marion Cotillard's Mal and DiCaprio's Cobb. She was supposed to be the big "love of his life" and I just didn't sense that. She was very good - and imposing - as she infiltrated Cobb's mind (which is, I think, the purpose of her character), but I could have used a little more between her and DiCaprio. But...as I say...a quibble.
All in all, a terrific - different - film. One that I am calling a "classic".
Letter Grade: A+
10 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
My reaction: I LOVE THIS FILM!!!
I was asked how far back do you have to go before you can consider a film a "classic" and, I guess, I'd have to say 2010, for this film - to me - is a classic.
In INCEPTION, Nolan, and his co-writer brother Jonathan Nolan, go into the dreamworld with the premise that we can join in "shared dreams" to extract information from people that are locked away deep in their conscious (or in some cases unconscious) minds. This film deals with the idea of "Inception", planting an idea into someone's mind. This is, in essence, a "heist" film where our team of heroes is constantly at war with the minds they are inhabiting (since they are seen as parasites). The clock is ticking and they must get in and get out before they get lost.
Speaking of time, Nolan - once again - plays with the idea of time in this film. Once you go into a dream, 1 minute is like 1 hour and when you go into a dream of a dream, then 1 minute is like 60 hours and when you go into a dream within a dream within a dream, then...well...you get the idea.
If someone loses their way in this film, it's because they are trying to make logical sense of a dream world that defies physics - and time. My suggestion to you is to let go and let the movie take you to some fantastical places - with some fantastical imagery and plot machinations - that I enjoyed the heck out of.
Helping out this film is that it is impeccably cast. Leonardo DiCaprio is Cobb the head of this group that enters the dream realm. He is perfectly cast and Nolan, and this film, relies on his likeableness, his charm and the feeling that something just isn't quite right with him. All to very good effect. Ellen Page is strong as Ariadne, the rookie of the team that is our eyes and ears into this world. Ken Watanabe brings his typically strong game to the role of Saito - the man that gives the team the job and goes along for the ride. Nolan regular Cillian Murphy is a welcome addition as the person who they are trying to "Incept" and even small parts are filled with wonderful character actors like the late great, Pete Postlethwaite, Tom Berenger and good ol' Michael Caine.
But it is the emergence of two of the co-stars that, up until this film I thought were "fair actors but not great" that really elevates this film for me. Joseph Gordon-Levitt was always the "long haired kid from 3RD ROCK FROM THE SUN", but in this - as Cobb's right-hand man Arthur - he excels and really jumps out of the film as a screen presence. Of course, it really helps him that he has one of the best action sequences - for the most part practically shot - that I have ever scene. And, of course, there's TOM HARDY. He is a movie star and really shows it in the supporting role of Eames. This guy will win an Oscar one day, probably for a film that Nolan Directs him in.
My only quibble - and it is a QUIBBLE - is that I didn't really feel any strong chemistry between Marion Cotillard's Mal and DiCaprio's Cobb. She was supposed to be the big "love of his life" and I just didn't sense that. She was very good - and imposing - as she infiltrated Cobb's mind (which is, I think, the purpose of her character), but I could have used a little more between her and DiCaprio. But...as I say...a quibble.
All in all, a terrific - different - film. One that I am calling a "classic".
Letter Grade: A+
10 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated The Passion of Joan of Arc (1928) in Movies
Feb 19, 2019
Silent cinema is not my strongest subject but one which I have been making a concerted effort to learn about over the past decade, but admittedly at a slow pace. The idea of sitting through a silent film can seem to be chore to a modern audience and to be honest, it can be inconceivable to the vast majority, but these attitudes only serve to deprive us of 30 years of cinema, both in primitive evolution and cinematic excellence.
The notion is that silent movies where almost amateurish is style, a three decade long film school to keep up occupied until the Talkies turned up and “film” as we know it, was born. This is wrong. Film is visual medium, Movies, moving pictures, all of which were accompanied by music by the way, so the term “silent” only really refers to the lack of synchronized sound and dialogue.
ydvjeYet, the core of film is visual. Modern cinema is a about perfecting the mesh of media forms, music, photography, narrative and sound. But without dialogue, silent movies had a challenge on their hands and one which The Passion Of Joan Of Arc, one of the last silent movies of the era, rose to perfectly.
Visually, this could have been made yesterday. A truly timeless blend of artistic and innovative cinematography, fast paced editing and outstanding performances. The Danish director, Carl Theodore Dreyer mastered the close up, naturalistic acting and manages to tell the procedural story of the trial of Joan Of Arc in such a gripping manner that you will forget that there is no spoken dialogue, yet you are literally putting the intertitles in to the mouths of the cast.
Not a single cast member is wasted, with every one pouring their hearts and souls in to the camera in such nuanced ways that it can be left to debate and interpretation as to exactly who is thinking or feeling what as Joan, Maria Falconetti in her third and final film role, steals the screen with her tortured soul and face shown almost entirely in close up.
the-passion-of-joan-of-arc-large-pictureOver acting has given way to strong acting, each shot designed to allow us access to her soul as she, in a plot not to dissimilar from the last hours of Jesus Christ, is torn between torture and certain death of abandoning her faith and spending the rest of her life imprisoned with only bread and water to look forward too.
The script is based on the actually accounts of the future saint’s trial in 1431 but the real events took place over 18 months whilst this either compresses this into one day or takes place on the last one, but the feeling is that this is the one and only trial of Joan so in that sense, theatrical licence has been taken but it hardly matters. The facts are present and the story is harrowing, made more so by an almost perfect production, led by a controversial, almost Kubrickian director, forcing his cast to suffer for their art, yet this version of events is also contested.
joan-of-arc-soundtrackFor everyone out there who believes that Silent movies are just cut to the chase comedies, or overly flamboyant and patronising filler until “real films” are made, this may just serve as wake up call, that films have evolved, but Sound would actually set the industry back in the 1930’s, as the new audio based art form evolved just as movies had up until this point., but Joan Of Arc should help all see that film has always been able to convey anything, from humour to horror; Real of make-believe.
Many believe that this movie is one of the best ever made and I do believe that to be true. An outstanding and forgotten film to all but critics and film buffs, one which everyone should see.
VERSION
The version which I watched was The Criterion Edition of the 1985 restoration of Dreyer’s “Lost” original cut. The music to this film was never deemed to be that important so there are several compositions which have been attached to the film over the years.
The “Lo Duca” cut, which was the a 61 minute version (1951) doing the rounds for years after the original cut was lost in a fire soon after the film’s release, was cut together by Joseph-Marie Lo Duca after discovering a negative in a vault. This version, as well as the “Director’s Cut” are both available on the Blu-ray, whilst it appeared that the 1985 restoration (Director’s Cut) is more widely available on DVD.
The notion is that silent movies where almost amateurish is style, a three decade long film school to keep up occupied until the Talkies turned up and “film” as we know it, was born. This is wrong. Film is visual medium, Movies, moving pictures, all of which were accompanied by music by the way, so the term “silent” only really refers to the lack of synchronized sound and dialogue.
ydvjeYet, the core of film is visual. Modern cinema is a about perfecting the mesh of media forms, music, photography, narrative and sound. But without dialogue, silent movies had a challenge on their hands and one which The Passion Of Joan Of Arc, one of the last silent movies of the era, rose to perfectly.
Visually, this could have been made yesterday. A truly timeless blend of artistic and innovative cinematography, fast paced editing and outstanding performances. The Danish director, Carl Theodore Dreyer mastered the close up, naturalistic acting and manages to tell the procedural story of the trial of Joan Of Arc in such a gripping manner that you will forget that there is no spoken dialogue, yet you are literally putting the intertitles in to the mouths of the cast.
Not a single cast member is wasted, with every one pouring their hearts and souls in to the camera in such nuanced ways that it can be left to debate and interpretation as to exactly who is thinking or feeling what as Joan, Maria Falconetti in her third and final film role, steals the screen with her tortured soul and face shown almost entirely in close up.
the-passion-of-joan-of-arc-large-pictureOver acting has given way to strong acting, each shot designed to allow us access to her soul as she, in a plot not to dissimilar from the last hours of Jesus Christ, is torn between torture and certain death of abandoning her faith and spending the rest of her life imprisoned with only bread and water to look forward too.
The script is based on the actually accounts of the future saint’s trial in 1431 but the real events took place over 18 months whilst this either compresses this into one day or takes place on the last one, but the feeling is that this is the one and only trial of Joan so in that sense, theatrical licence has been taken but it hardly matters. The facts are present and the story is harrowing, made more so by an almost perfect production, led by a controversial, almost Kubrickian director, forcing his cast to suffer for their art, yet this version of events is also contested.
joan-of-arc-soundtrackFor everyone out there who believes that Silent movies are just cut to the chase comedies, or overly flamboyant and patronising filler until “real films” are made, this may just serve as wake up call, that films have evolved, but Sound would actually set the industry back in the 1930’s, as the new audio based art form evolved just as movies had up until this point., but Joan Of Arc should help all see that film has always been able to convey anything, from humour to horror; Real of make-believe.
Many believe that this movie is one of the best ever made and I do believe that to be true. An outstanding and forgotten film to all but critics and film buffs, one which everyone should see.
VERSION
The version which I watched was The Criterion Edition of the 1985 restoration of Dreyer’s “Lost” original cut. The music to this film was never deemed to be that important so there are several compositions which have been attached to the film over the years.
The “Lo Duca” cut, which was the a 61 minute version (1951) doing the rounds for years after the original cut was lost in a fire soon after the film’s release, was cut together by Joseph-Marie Lo Duca after discovering a negative in a vault. This version, as well as the “Director’s Cut” are both available on the Blu-ray, whilst it appeared that the 1985 restoration (Director’s Cut) is more widely available on DVD.
Lee (2222 KP) rated The Lion King (2019) in Movies
Jul 20, 2019 (Updated Jul 20, 2019)
Disney's 1994 animated version of The Lion King was a huge hit. Not only did it win Academy Awards for original score (courtesy of the amazing Hans Zimmer) but also for original song "Can You Feel the Love Tonight" by Elton John & Tim Rice. It also won a Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture - Musical or Comedy and went on to become a huge Broadway stage show in 1997, winning further awards and proving to be one of the most popular shows ever. Some movie sequels quietly came and went, along with a couple of TV series, but it's the original movie which is still loved by millions to this day. While Disney currently feels the need to rework their animated back catalogue, and with considerable advances in photorealistic computer animation technology, it was only a matter of time before The Lion King had it's turn in landing a remake.
Right now, I'm neither for or against this current wave of remakes. I don't think they're entirely necessary, but I've been pleasantly surprised by one or two of them so far, so I'm happy to give them my time for now. The Lion King is the third remake to emerge this year though, following the disappointing Dumbo and the not as bad as I was expecting Aladdin. The term 'live action' has been used to describe this version of The Lion King, although it's not really live - more of a CGI upgrade - and it's been getting a lot of negativity online too, more so than any other Disney remake so far. Most of the backlash appears to be down to the fact that this is a beloved film, with the remake being more of a shot by shot recreation than any of the others so far, supposedly rendering it unnecessary in the eyes of the haters. But, while I agree that the original is an incredible movie, that certainly didn't stop me, or millions of others, from going to view the stage show production of The Lion King - a retelling and re-imagining of the story and characters you know and love, just with a different set of tools to do the job. So, why not treat this new movie in the same way, at least until you've actually seen it? And, even if you do hate the new version, the original is still going to be there for you to enjoy afterwards.
The story here, as mentioned earlier, is the same as the original movie, with a pretty impressive cast lending their voices to the characters. We follow young lion cub Simba (JD McCrary), who is destined to succeed his father, Mufasa (James Earl Jones reprising his 1994 performance), as King of the African Pride Lands. But his uncle Scar (Chiwetel Ejiofor) has other plans, murdering Mufasa and forcing Simba into exile where he meets a warthog called Pumbaa (Seth Rogen) and a meerkat named Timon (Billy Eichner). As an adult, Simba (now voiced by Donald Glover) reconnects with childhood friend Nala (voiced by Shahadi Wright Joseph as a child, Beyoncé as an adult) and mandrill Rafkiki (John Kani) and returns to the Pride Lands in order to take his rightful place as King. The circle of life, etc...
The visuals are incredible. Director Jon Favreau, who also directed the 2016 version of The Jungle Book, has taken what was done on that movie to a whole new level here. But the imagery is both the movies strength and it's weakness. As we sweep across the African landscape, in and around the animals as they go about their lives, you feel as though you are in a beautifully well shot documentary, the animals are that realistic. But that realism also means that animals cannot realistically convey human expressions or emotions, and there's a lot to be conveyed in the story of The Lion King - laughter, anger, sadness - and the majority of the voice cast cannot seem to stop it all from just feeling a bit flat and lifeless.
The first half meanders along, hitting all the right beats and songs from the original, but never really feeling like an improvement on it. And then Timon and Pumbaa arrive on the scene, providing much needed laughs and proving to be the movie's saviours. The film finds its feet, lightens up a little and becomes more enjoyable for its remainder, but it isn't enough. This is yet another remake where it's all style and not enough substance. Worth seeing, but certainly not better than the original.
https://www.cinechat.co.uk/the-lion-king-2019-review/
Right now, I'm neither for or against this current wave of remakes. I don't think they're entirely necessary, but I've been pleasantly surprised by one or two of them so far, so I'm happy to give them my time for now. The Lion King is the third remake to emerge this year though, following the disappointing Dumbo and the not as bad as I was expecting Aladdin. The term 'live action' has been used to describe this version of The Lion King, although it's not really live - more of a CGI upgrade - and it's been getting a lot of negativity online too, more so than any other Disney remake so far. Most of the backlash appears to be down to the fact that this is a beloved film, with the remake being more of a shot by shot recreation than any of the others so far, supposedly rendering it unnecessary in the eyes of the haters. But, while I agree that the original is an incredible movie, that certainly didn't stop me, or millions of others, from going to view the stage show production of The Lion King - a retelling and re-imagining of the story and characters you know and love, just with a different set of tools to do the job. So, why not treat this new movie in the same way, at least until you've actually seen it? And, even if you do hate the new version, the original is still going to be there for you to enjoy afterwards.
The story here, as mentioned earlier, is the same as the original movie, with a pretty impressive cast lending their voices to the characters. We follow young lion cub Simba (JD McCrary), who is destined to succeed his father, Mufasa (James Earl Jones reprising his 1994 performance), as King of the African Pride Lands. But his uncle Scar (Chiwetel Ejiofor) has other plans, murdering Mufasa and forcing Simba into exile where he meets a warthog called Pumbaa (Seth Rogen) and a meerkat named Timon (Billy Eichner). As an adult, Simba (now voiced by Donald Glover) reconnects with childhood friend Nala (voiced by Shahadi Wright Joseph as a child, Beyoncé as an adult) and mandrill Rafkiki (John Kani) and returns to the Pride Lands in order to take his rightful place as King. The circle of life, etc...
The visuals are incredible. Director Jon Favreau, who also directed the 2016 version of The Jungle Book, has taken what was done on that movie to a whole new level here. But the imagery is both the movies strength and it's weakness. As we sweep across the African landscape, in and around the animals as they go about their lives, you feel as though you are in a beautifully well shot documentary, the animals are that realistic. But that realism also means that animals cannot realistically convey human expressions or emotions, and there's a lot to be conveyed in the story of The Lion King - laughter, anger, sadness - and the majority of the voice cast cannot seem to stop it all from just feeling a bit flat and lifeless.
The first half meanders along, hitting all the right beats and songs from the original, but never really feeling like an improvement on it. And then Timon and Pumbaa arrive on the scene, providing much needed laughs and proving to be the movie's saviours. The film finds its feet, lightens up a little and becomes more enjoyable for its remainder, but it isn't enough. This is yet another remake where it's all style and not enough substance. Worth seeing, but certainly not better than the original.
https://www.cinechat.co.uk/the-lion-king-2019-review/
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Us (2019) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
We’ve all heard that somewhere out in the world there is a true Doppelganger for each and every one of us. An almost exact copy which may not behave the same but would otherwise be indistinguishable from the other. In a common instance a Doppelganger might be a set of identical twins who share the same DNA, or in pop culture references we might look to the definition of a Doppelganger in Dungeons and Dragons, defined as a monstrous humanoid able to change the shape and read the minds of their intended target to mimic them completely. Somewhere in the middle is where Jordan Peele’s latest masterpiece takes us.
The film begins in the mid 80’s, when Michael Jackson’s Thriller is topping the charts and Hands Across America was a very real idea (worth looking up for younger readers who may not even know what I’m talking about). A young Adelaide Wilson is exploring the boardwalk on a beach in Santa Cruz with her parents. When her father is distracted by a game of Whack a’ Mole something draws Adelaide down to the beach where she passes a man holding a sign referencing Jeremiah 11:11, one of the first messages that foreshadows what is to come. On the beach she encounters an empty and sinister looking hall of mirrors attraction. Wandering through the hall of mirrors a young Adelaide encounters a girl in the mirror, an exact duplicate of herself whose encounter is so traumatic that it leaves her unable to speak.
The film transitions to present day where the now adult Adelaide (Lupita Nyong’o) is traveling with her husband Gabriel (Winston Duke) and her two children Zora (Shahadi Wright Joseph) and youngest son Jason (Evan Alex) to her parents’ home near the beach in Santa Cruz. Adelaide has resisted going back to the very same boardwalk where she had encountered her doppelganger as a young child. With her husband and children pressing her to go to the beach, she reluctantly agrees as long as they promise to be home before dark. The day at the beach is relatively uneventful until it is nearing time to go home and the family has lost sight of young Jason. Adelaide in a panic frantically searches for him, finally finding him returning from the bathroom.
The incident, while minor, convinces Adelaide that they should never have come back and wants to leave immediately. Various subtle “coincidences” occur that leave her feeling as though a black cloud hangs over her and a sense of dread that something terrible is about to happen. Before the family turns in for the evening, Jason sees “A family” at the edge of their driveway. Gabriel attempts to get to the bottom of who these mysterious visitors are, only for a night of unimaginable terror to ensue.
Us takes queues from several other movie types, The Strangers, Night of the Living Dead and Invasion of the Body Snatchers mashing them together to weave its frightening (and often funny) tale. It takes a little time to gain momentum, but once it does It never once lets off the gas. While at first it seems nothing more than a home invasion from characters who look exactly like the Wilson family, it quickly grows into something substantially more terrifying. The backdrop varies between a somewhat isolated house in the woods, to the bustling beach, giving a sense of isolation even at the most crowded of places. The boardwalk is a place that is both wonderous and terrifying at the same time, reminiscent of the early scenes in the 80’s classic The Lost Boys. While lacking in both clowns or vampires, it holds its own secrets (and terrors).
Us is a movie that is unlike any other and is refreshing when stacked against similar fright films that have been released recently. If you are a fan of Jordan Peele’s Get Out, you will find a lot to like here as well. It maintains its dark humor without ever going over board and has plenty of thrills and scares to keep you on your toes at all times. It’s not a movie that will keep you up all night hiding under your covers, but it may cause you to rethink your next vacation to the beach or the boardwalk. In the end, I feel this is another film that is sure to become a cult classic, enjoyable for fans of the genre.
The film begins in the mid 80’s, when Michael Jackson’s Thriller is topping the charts and Hands Across America was a very real idea (worth looking up for younger readers who may not even know what I’m talking about). A young Adelaide Wilson is exploring the boardwalk on a beach in Santa Cruz with her parents. When her father is distracted by a game of Whack a’ Mole something draws Adelaide down to the beach where she passes a man holding a sign referencing Jeremiah 11:11, one of the first messages that foreshadows what is to come. On the beach she encounters an empty and sinister looking hall of mirrors attraction. Wandering through the hall of mirrors a young Adelaide encounters a girl in the mirror, an exact duplicate of herself whose encounter is so traumatic that it leaves her unable to speak.
The film transitions to present day where the now adult Adelaide (Lupita Nyong’o) is traveling with her husband Gabriel (Winston Duke) and her two children Zora (Shahadi Wright Joseph) and youngest son Jason (Evan Alex) to her parents’ home near the beach in Santa Cruz. Adelaide has resisted going back to the very same boardwalk where she had encountered her doppelganger as a young child. With her husband and children pressing her to go to the beach, she reluctantly agrees as long as they promise to be home before dark. The day at the beach is relatively uneventful until it is nearing time to go home and the family has lost sight of young Jason. Adelaide in a panic frantically searches for him, finally finding him returning from the bathroom.
The incident, while minor, convinces Adelaide that they should never have come back and wants to leave immediately. Various subtle “coincidences” occur that leave her feeling as though a black cloud hangs over her and a sense of dread that something terrible is about to happen. Before the family turns in for the evening, Jason sees “A family” at the edge of their driveway. Gabriel attempts to get to the bottom of who these mysterious visitors are, only for a night of unimaginable terror to ensue.
Us takes queues from several other movie types, The Strangers, Night of the Living Dead and Invasion of the Body Snatchers mashing them together to weave its frightening (and often funny) tale. It takes a little time to gain momentum, but once it does It never once lets off the gas. While at first it seems nothing more than a home invasion from characters who look exactly like the Wilson family, it quickly grows into something substantially more terrifying. The backdrop varies between a somewhat isolated house in the woods, to the bustling beach, giving a sense of isolation even at the most crowded of places. The boardwalk is a place that is both wonderous and terrifying at the same time, reminiscent of the early scenes in the 80’s classic The Lost Boys. While lacking in both clowns or vampires, it holds its own secrets (and terrors).
Us is a movie that is unlike any other and is refreshing when stacked against similar fright films that have been released recently. If you are a fan of Jordan Peele’s Get Out, you will find a lot to like here as well. It maintains its dark humor without ever going over board and has plenty of thrills and scares to keep you on your toes at all times. It’s not a movie that will keep you up all night hiding under your covers, but it may cause you to rethink your next vacation to the beach or the boardwalk. In the end, I feel this is another film that is sure to become a cult classic, enjoyable for fans of the genre.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Bohemian Rhapsody (2018) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
How many of these reviews are going to start with “Is this the real life? Is this just fantasy?” A lot I am willing to bet. The thing is, it’s a good way to start. Bohemian Rhapsody has been a highly anticipated film for many years. I remember back when they were considering Johnny Depp for Freddie Mercury. Then it was Sasha Baren Cohen. And then they announced Rami Malek, and a majority of the country went, “Who?” Rami Malek is mostly known for his work as the lead in the USA Network series Mr. Robot. He got his start in the Night at the Museum series, and has scene big screen time in Need for Speed and, most recently, Papillion alongside Charlie Hunnam. I think it’s safe to say that after November 2, 2018, people will definitely know who he is.
Named for Queen’s most successful song in their portfolio, Bohemian Rhapsody tells the story of Freddie Mercury and how he rose from being a baggage boy at Heathrow, to a literal rock legend. We see how the band Queen was formed, how they got their name, how they made it big, and what made Queen… well Queen. Rami Malek delivers a powerful performance as the front man of the legendary band. For me, it started off a little shaky at first (coming from someone who is fan of Malek), but he quickly made the role his own and personified the late Mercury like no other can. Even Mercury’s own sister saw Malek in full costume and said, “There’s my Freddie.”
Not to downplay the rest of the cast. Rounding at the rest of the band is Joseph Mazzello as John Deacon, Ben Hardy as Roger Taylor, and Gwilym Lee as Brian May. All delivered powerful performances in their own right, and the chemistry between the 4 actors is undeniable. Veterans Aidan Gillen (as John Reid) and Tom Hollander (Jim Beach) deliver in their supporting roles, as does Lucy Boynton, who played Mary Austin. If some of these names do not seem familiar, get ready to learn a lot of the background of Queen in their rise, fall, and then rise again. Also, Mike Myers makes an appearance for a fun cameo as Ray Foster.
Clearly a majority of the film’s score revolves around the band’s expansive portfolio. But it wasn’t just the in your face, obvious music that was there. They did a great job with subtle melodies or bars from the band’s repertoire hanging in the background of impactful scenes throughout the film. Sometimes you’ll miss it, sometimes it’s obvious, and sometimes it might just make you cry.
The story begins with Mercury meeting Taylor and May, and ends with the ever-famous Live-Aid in 1985. While the film is essentially a love-story dedicated to Mercury, I feel it may have left out the rest of the members of the band. We see May, Taylor and Deacon, but we know little about their outside lives other than fleeting statements about their wives and kids, and what they were studying in university prior to Queen taking off. It’s a shame because Queen was not just about Mercury. The film did a really good job stating this, showing how they all contribute, all support each other, and how they are all different. But the focus is still on one man. Queen, the rock band, is an entity. Not an individual. But, I understand the decision behind the path that was chosen. Mercury, to many, was the embodiment of Queen. I am just glad the movie did put out there that he didn’t feel that way.
All of that aside, this film was fantastic. I have been a fan of Queen since I was in diapers, despite a majority of the band’s career having taken place before I was born. It was good to see this story told on screen, though slightly dramatized at points. It was an excellent telling of the story, and people may learn a lot about Freddie Mercury, like his love of cats, and who the love of his life is. Unless you’re absolutely cold-hearted, expect to get goosebumps as you progress through the band’s rise to the top, and to laugh as you how they interacted and developed their music. The movie is not without flaws, but they are so minor that looking past them is easy. Enjoy the film. Enjoy the music. Rock on.
Named for Queen’s most successful song in their portfolio, Bohemian Rhapsody tells the story of Freddie Mercury and how he rose from being a baggage boy at Heathrow, to a literal rock legend. We see how the band Queen was formed, how they got their name, how they made it big, and what made Queen… well Queen. Rami Malek delivers a powerful performance as the front man of the legendary band. For me, it started off a little shaky at first (coming from someone who is fan of Malek), but he quickly made the role his own and personified the late Mercury like no other can. Even Mercury’s own sister saw Malek in full costume and said, “There’s my Freddie.”
Not to downplay the rest of the cast. Rounding at the rest of the band is Joseph Mazzello as John Deacon, Ben Hardy as Roger Taylor, and Gwilym Lee as Brian May. All delivered powerful performances in their own right, and the chemistry between the 4 actors is undeniable. Veterans Aidan Gillen (as John Reid) and Tom Hollander (Jim Beach) deliver in their supporting roles, as does Lucy Boynton, who played Mary Austin. If some of these names do not seem familiar, get ready to learn a lot of the background of Queen in their rise, fall, and then rise again. Also, Mike Myers makes an appearance for a fun cameo as Ray Foster.
Clearly a majority of the film’s score revolves around the band’s expansive portfolio. But it wasn’t just the in your face, obvious music that was there. They did a great job with subtle melodies or bars from the band’s repertoire hanging in the background of impactful scenes throughout the film. Sometimes you’ll miss it, sometimes it’s obvious, and sometimes it might just make you cry.
The story begins with Mercury meeting Taylor and May, and ends with the ever-famous Live-Aid in 1985. While the film is essentially a love-story dedicated to Mercury, I feel it may have left out the rest of the members of the band. We see May, Taylor and Deacon, but we know little about their outside lives other than fleeting statements about their wives and kids, and what they were studying in university prior to Queen taking off. It’s a shame because Queen was not just about Mercury. The film did a really good job stating this, showing how they all contribute, all support each other, and how they are all different. But the focus is still on one man. Queen, the rock band, is an entity. Not an individual. But, I understand the decision behind the path that was chosen. Mercury, to many, was the embodiment of Queen. I am just glad the movie did put out there that he didn’t feel that way.
All of that aside, this film was fantastic. I have been a fan of Queen since I was in diapers, despite a majority of the band’s career having taken place before I was born. It was good to see this story told on screen, though slightly dramatized at points. It was an excellent telling of the story, and people may learn a lot about Freddie Mercury, like his love of cats, and who the love of his life is. Unless you’re absolutely cold-hearted, expect to get goosebumps as you progress through the band’s rise to the top, and to laugh as you how they interacted and developed their music. The movie is not without flaws, but they are so minor that looking past them is easy. Enjoy the film. Enjoy the music. Rock on.
Becs (244 KP) rated The Crucible in Books
Oct 2, 2019
I absolutely love Arthur Miller and anything regarding witches/ the Salem Trials. So, the crucible for me is a five-star novel. Can we just take a moment to admire the writers of the 50’s and older as they don’t seem to be getting much hype lately? Like, literary classics are deemed school reads and not your typical everyday read. THIS NEEDS TO CHANGE.
Reading these in school and then giving them a reread five years after graduating, has shown a new light onto these novels. And has made me appreciate them more as a whole compared to when I read them in high school. If you haven’t read many literary classics, I recommend starting with something by Arthur Miller or George Orwell. Yes, they may be a bit hard to get into at first, but give it time. That’s the key when reading any book!
The Crucible by Arthur Miller
Genre: Literary Classic, Historical Fiction, Plays, Drama
Synopsis: “I believe that the reader will discover here the essential nature of one of the strangest and most awful chapters in human history,” Arthur Miller wrote of his classic play about the witch-hunts and trials in seventeenth-century Salem, Massachusetts. Based on historical people and real events, Miller’s drama is a searing portrait of a community engulfed by hysteria. In the rigid theocracy of Salem, rumors that women are practicing witchcraft galvanize the town’s most basic fears and suspicions; and when a young girl accuses Elizabeth Proctor of being a witch, self-righteous church leaders and townspeople insist that Elizabeth be brought to trial. The ruthlessness of the prosecutors and the eagerness of neighbor to testify against neighbor brilliantly illuminate the destructive power of socially sanctioned violence.
Written in 1953, The Crucible is a mirror Miller uses to reflect the anti-communist hysteria inspired by Senator Joseph McCarthy’s “witch-hunts” in the United States. Within the text itself, Miller contemplates the parallels, writing, “Political opposition… is given an inhumane overlay, which then justifies the abrogation of all normally applied customs of civilized behavior. A political policy is equated with moral right, and opposition to it with diabolical malevolence.”
WIth an introduction by Christopher Bigsby.
Audience/ Reading Level: High School +
Interests: Plays, Drama, Witches, the Salem Trials, Arthur Miller, Literary Classics.
Point of View: Third Person Omniscient
Difficulty Reading: With every literary classic, you run into the problem of the first 30% of the novel being a bore or hard to get into. The Crucible was only a bore in parts but taking the novel as a whole, it was a pretty easy read.
Promise: “I believe that the reader will discover here the essential nature of one of the strangest and most awful chapters in human history.”
Insights: The Crucible is based on true events and Arthur Miller has a way of explaining everything that was wrong with the way people lived. I.E. Woman did not have rights until the early 1920’s. This didn’t stop some countries/states to still not allow the woman to have rights. But taking The Crucible into perspective, the women that were charged with witchcraft were unable to explain themselves to the men. The men believed the accusers either because they were sleeping with them or because they were their family. Luckily, nowadays we don’t have this extreme of situations but it still does exist. The Crucible teaches all of its readers, young or old, many valuable lessons that are sometimes hard to witness. Plus, Miller correlates the events in the Crucible to the anti-communist McCarthyism of the 1950s.
Favorite Quotes: “I speak my own sins; I cannot judge another. I have no tongue for it.”
“Because it is my name! Because I cannot have another in my life! Because I lie and sign myself to lies! Because I am not worth the dust on the feet of them that hang! How may I live without my name? I have given you my soul; leave me my name!”
“You are pulling down heaven and raising up a whore”
What will you gain: A love for another literary classic and a love for Arthur Miller if you do not already love his writing. Plus, a great historical read.
Aesthetics: The witches, the trials, the way people take sides, I mean I can’t say much more without giving spoilers away. We wouldn’t want that, now would we?
“It is rare for people to be asked the question which puts them squarely in front of themselves”
Reading these in school and then giving them a reread five years after graduating, has shown a new light onto these novels. And has made me appreciate them more as a whole compared to when I read them in high school. If you haven’t read many literary classics, I recommend starting with something by Arthur Miller or George Orwell. Yes, they may be a bit hard to get into at first, but give it time. That’s the key when reading any book!
The Crucible by Arthur Miller
Genre: Literary Classic, Historical Fiction, Plays, Drama
Synopsis: “I believe that the reader will discover here the essential nature of one of the strangest and most awful chapters in human history,” Arthur Miller wrote of his classic play about the witch-hunts and trials in seventeenth-century Salem, Massachusetts. Based on historical people and real events, Miller’s drama is a searing portrait of a community engulfed by hysteria. In the rigid theocracy of Salem, rumors that women are practicing witchcraft galvanize the town’s most basic fears and suspicions; and when a young girl accuses Elizabeth Proctor of being a witch, self-righteous church leaders and townspeople insist that Elizabeth be brought to trial. The ruthlessness of the prosecutors and the eagerness of neighbor to testify against neighbor brilliantly illuminate the destructive power of socially sanctioned violence.
Written in 1953, The Crucible is a mirror Miller uses to reflect the anti-communist hysteria inspired by Senator Joseph McCarthy’s “witch-hunts” in the United States. Within the text itself, Miller contemplates the parallels, writing, “Political opposition… is given an inhumane overlay, which then justifies the abrogation of all normally applied customs of civilized behavior. A political policy is equated with moral right, and opposition to it with diabolical malevolence.”
WIth an introduction by Christopher Bigsby.
Audience/ Reading Level: High School +
Interests: Plays, Drama, Witches, the Salem Trials, Arthur Miller, Literary Classics.
Point of View: Third Person Omniscient
Difficulty Reading: With every literary classic, you run into the problem of the first 30% of the novel being a bore or hard to get into. The Crucible was only a bore in parts but taking the novel as a whole, it was a pretty easy read.
Promise: “I believe that the reader will discover here the essential nature of one of the strangest and most awful chapters in human history.”
Insights: The Crucible is based on true events and Arthur Miller has a way of explaining everything that was wrong with the way people lived. I.E. Woman did not have rights until the early 1920’s. This didn’t stop some countries/states to still not allow the woman to have rights. But taking The Crucible into perspective, the women that were charged with witchcraft were unable to explain themselves to the men. The men believed the accusers either because they were sleeping with them or because they were their family. Luckily, nowadays we don’t have this extreme of situations but it still does exist. The Crucible teaches all of its readers, young or old, many valuable lessons that are sometimes hard to witness. Plus, Miller correlates the events in the Crucible to the anti-communist McCarthyism of the 1950s.
Favorite Quotes: “I speak my own sins; I cannot judge another. I have no tongue for it.”
“Because it is my name! Because I cannot have another in my life! Because I lie and sign myself to lies! Because I am not worth the dust on the feet of them that hang! How may I live without my name? I have given you my soul; leave me my name!”
“You are pulling down heaven and raising up a whore”
What will you gain: A love for another literary classic and a love for Arthur Miller if you do not already love his writing. Plus, a great historical read.
Aesthetics: The witches, the trials, the way people take sides, I mean I can’t say much more without giving spoilers away. We wouldn’t want that, now would we?
“It is rare for people to be asked the question which puts them squarely in front of themselves”
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Bohemian Rhapsody (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
“Fame and fortune and everything that goes with it”.
Sometimes a trailer generates a bit of a buzz of excitement with a cinema audience and the first showings of the trailer for “Bohemian Rhapsody” was a case in point. But would the film live up to the potential?
The Plot
Farrokh Bulsara (Rami Malek), born in Zanzibar to Indian parents, is a shy boy with a dramatic singing voice. At a concert he meets Mary (Lucy Boynton) who becomes the “love of his life”. When a space for a lead singer becomes available in a college band, Farrokh leaps at the chance and onstage becomes an exuberant extrovert. The band, of course, changes its name to Queen and with Farrokh assuming the name of Freddie Mercury they are set for global success. But Freddie is a complex character, and the demands and temptations of global super-stardom take a terrible toll.
The Review
Wow! What a great film on so many different levels. As a biopic of Mercury and a history of one of the greatest ever rock bands, the film is highly entertaining. But I wasn’t prepared for how emotional I would find it. Mercury’s life is befitting of a Shakespearian tragedy: an estrangement from his ‘conservative’ father (Ace Bhatti); a public extravert, but privately an insecure and needy bi-sexual, constantly searching for his perch in life; a meteoric rise and an equally spectacular and historic fall.
Do you remember where you were (if anywhere!) during the historic Live Aid concert at Wembley in July 1985? My eagle-minded wife had to remind me that we were travelling to Hampshire to house hunt because of my graduate job offer from IBM Hursley Park. My 3 month old daughter was rolling around, unstrapped, in a carry cot on the back seat: different times; different rules! Why this is relevant is that the film culminates in a recreation of the band’s spectacular 20 minute set for 1985’s Live Aid concert at Wembley. It’s a spectacular piece of cinema and one that – for me – puts the much hyped concert scenes from “A Star is Born” back in its box. Aside from a few niggles (the sound engineers in the booth were, if I’m not mistaken, all the size of Hagrid!) it’s a spectacular piece of CGI work.
It’s also worth remembering that whilst today’s massive stadium concerts from the likes of Adele and Coldplay are commonplace, back in the UK of 1985 most of the bands played in more traditional theatre venues: this really was an historic event on so many levels.
If I’m being critical, there are a few bits of the movie that are a tad tacky and twee. A whizz around the world of tour locations is composed of some pretty ropy animations that didn’t work for me. And a few of the ‘creations’ of classic songs – particularly “Another One Bites the Dust” – are a bit forced. Countering that though, the “Bohemian Rhapsody” is mesmerising.
The Turns
I’ll just put it right out there, Rami Malek is just sensational as Mercury! I first called out Malek as someone to watch in “Need For Speed“, but since then he’s gone on to major fame in the TV series “Mr Robot”. Here he is a force of nature on the screen and you literally can’t take your eyes off him. Every nuance of Mercury’s tortured soul is up there. I would love to see the performance recognized in the Awards season, with the showreel clip being a brilliant standoff in the rain with Paul Prenter (“Downton’s” Allen Leech).
The rest of the band – Ben Hardy as drummer Roger Taylor; Gwilym Lee as lead guitar Brian May; and Joseph Mazzello (yes, young Tim from “Jurassic Park”!) as bass guitarist John Deacon – all work well together, with Lee looking more like Brian May than Brian May!
Lucy Boynton, so great in “Sing Street“, gets a meaty dramatic role to sink her teeth into, and the ever-reliable Tom Hollander is great as the band’s legal rep/manager Jim “Miami” Beech: his ‘knowing looks’ near the end of the film are brilliantly done.
The surprise piece of casting though was the very welcome return of Mike Myers as the exec Ray Foster: only seen spasmodically on screen since 2009’s “Inglorious Basterds”. It’s a role that reminded me of Tom Cruise‘s turn in “Tropic Thunder”! But it’s well done. After making “Bohemian Rhapsody” famous again in “Wayne’s World”, how could he have refused? I say “Welcome back Mr Myers”: you’ve been missed.
And a final shout out to Paul Jones, my son-in-law’s brother, who gets a full screen appearance in the crowd, arms outstretched, during the “Fat Bottomed Girls” set! (I must admit, I missed it, so will have to go and see it again!)
Final Thoughts
This is a film that grabs you and propels you through the story at a fast lick. It’s a surprisingly moving story, with a well-known and tragic finale. It’s not a perfect film, but it is up there wih the year’s best as a high-energy cinema experience.
The Plot
Farrokh Bulsara (Rami Malek), born in Zanzibar to Indian parents, is a shy boy with a dramatic singing voice. At a concert he meets Mary (Lucy Boynton) who becomes the “love of his life”. When a space for a lead singer becomes available in a college band, Farrokh leaps at the chance and onstage becomes an exuberant extrovert. The band, of course, changes its name to Queen and with Farrokh assuming the name of Freddie Mercury they are set for global success. But Freddie is a complex character, and the demands and temptations of global super-stardom take a terrible toll.
The Review
Wow! What a great film on so many different levels. As a biopic of Mercury and a history of one of the greatest ever rock bands, the film is highly entertaining. But I wasn’t prepared for how emotional I would find it. Mercury’s life is befitting of a Shakespearian tragedy: an estrangement from his ‘conservative’ father (Ace Bhatti); a public extravert, but privately an insecure and needy bi-sexual, constantly searching for his perch in life; a meteoric rise and an equally spectacular and historic fall.
Do you remember where you were (if anywhere!) during the historic Live Aid concert at Wembley in July 1985? My eagle-minded wife had to remind me that we were travelling to Hampshire to house hunt because of my graduate job offer from IBM Hursley Park. My 3 month old daughter was rolling around, unstrapped, in a carry cot on the back seat: different times; different rules! Why this is relevant is that the film culminates in a recreation of the band’s spectacular 20 minute set for 1985’s Live Aid concert at Wembley. It’s a spectacular piece of cinema and one that – for me – puts the much hyped concert scenes from “A Star is Born” back in its box. Aside from a few niggles (the sound engineers in the booth were, if I’m not mistaken, all the size of Hagrid!) it’s a spectacular piece of CGI work.
It’s also worth remembering that whilst today’s massive stadium concerts from the likes of Adele and Coldplay are commonplace, back in the UK of 1985 most of the bands played in more traditional theatre venues: this really was an historic event on so many levels.
If I’m being critical, there are a few bits of the movie that are a tad tacky and twee. A whizz around the world of tour locations is composed of some pretty ropy animations that didn’t work for me. And a few of the ‘creations’ of classic songs – particularly “Another One Bites the Dust” – are a bit forced. Countering that though, the “Bohemian Rhapsody” is mesmerising.
The Turns
I’ll just put it right out there, Rami Malek is just sensational as Mercury! I first called out Malek as someone to watch in “Need For Speed“, but since then he’s gone on to major fame in the TV series “Mr Robot”. Here he is a force of nature on the screen and you literally can’t take your eyes off him. Every nuance of Mercury’s tortured soul is up there. I would love to see the performance recognized in the Awards season, with the showreel clip being a brilliant standoff in the rain with Paul Prenter (“Downton’s” Allen Leech).
The rest of the band – Ben Hardy as drummer Roger Taylor; Gwilym Lee as lead guitar Brian May; and Joseph Mazzello (yes, young Tim from “Jurassic Park”!) as bass guitarist John Deacon – all work well together, with Lee looking more like Brian May than Brian May!
Lucy Boynton, so great in “Sing Street“, gets a meaty dramatic role to sink her teeth into, and the ever-reliable Tom Hollander is great as the band’s legal rep/manager Jim “Miami” Beech: his ‘knowing looks’ near the end of the film are brilliantly done.
The surprise piece of casting though was the very welcome return of Mike Myers as the exec Ray Foster: only seen spasmodically on screen since 2009’s “Inglorious Basterds”. It’s a role that reminded me of Tom Cruise‘s turn in “Tropic Thunder”! But it’s well done. After making “Bohemian Rhapsody” famous again in “Wayne’s World”, how could he have refused? I say “Welcome back Mr Myers”: you’ve been missed.
And a final shout out to Paul Jones, my son-in-law’s brother, who gets a full screen appearance in the crowd, arms outstretched, during the “Fat Bottomed Girls” set! (I must admit, I missed it, so will have to go and see it again!)
Final Thoughts
This is a film that grabs you and propels you through the story at a fast lick. It’s a surprisingly moving story, with a well-known and tragic finale. It’s not a perfect film, but it is up there wih the year’s best as a high-energy cinema experience.
The Bandersnatch (199 KP) rated The Hunchback of Notre-Dame in Books
Nov 7, 2019
The Hunchback of Notre Dame is set in 1829's Paris, France where the gypsy Esmeralda (Born Agnes) captures the hearts of several men including captain Phoebus and Pierre Gringoire but especially Quasimodo the bell ringer and his guardian the Archdeacon Claude Frollo.
Frollo orders Quasimodo to bring Esmeralda to him and after a lot of chaos where the guards under Phoebus capture Quasimodo, Gringoire is knocked out and only rescued from hanging when Esmeralda saves him with promise of marriage and Quasimodo flogged and placed on a pillory for several hours of public exposure. When Esmeralda is accused of attempted murder Quasimodo helps by giving her space in the cathedral of Notre Dame under law of sanctuary. Frollo finds out that the court of parliament has voted the removal of Esmeralda's right for sanctuary and orders her to be taken and killed. Clopin the head of the gypsies hears this and leads a rescue party to help Esmeralda. During the chaos Quasimodo mistakes who is wanting to help the Gypsy he loves and ends up in aiding in her arrest. Frollo after failing to win her love betrays Esmeralda and sends her to be hung. Frollo laughs as Esmeralda dies and is pushed from the top of the Cathedral by Quasimodo. Quasimodo dies of starvation after joining Esmeralda's body in the cemetery.
Victor Hugo began writing the book in 1829The novels original title was Notre Dame de Paris, it was largely to make his contemporaries more aware of the value of the Gothic architecture, Notre Dame Cathedral had been in disrepair at the time and along with other buildings which were neglected and often destroyed to be replaced by new buildings or defaced by replacement of parts of buildings in a newer style. During the summer of 1830 Gosselin demanded that Hugo complete the book by February 1831, Hugo -starting in September 1830- worked non stop on the book finishing it six months later. Several ballets, comics, TV show, theatre, music, musical theatre and films have been inspired by The Hunchback of Notre Dame most notably has been the 1996 Walt Disney animated movie of the same name.
I think that The Hunchback of Notre Dame is a very prolific book which promotes the fact that it doesn't matter what you look like on the outside, its how you deal with people and what is on the inside that counts. The books portrayal of the romantic era as an extreme through the architecture, passion and religion as well as the exploration of determinism, revolution and social strife adds to the ultimately magical make up of the book. I believe that most people would see themselves in the position of Quasimodo, Esmeralda and Phoebus rather than that of Frollo. I know I certainly wouldn't see myself otherwise.
Victor Marie Hugo was born on February 26th 1802 in Besançon. eastern Franche-Combe as the third son of Joseph Leopold Sigisbert Hugo (1774-1828) and Sophie Trebuchet (1772-1821). Victor was a French poet, novelist and dramatist of the romantic movement, he's also considered one of the greatest and best known French writers. Victors childhood was a period of national political turmoil with Napoleon being proclaimed Emperor two years after he was born and the Bourbon monarchy was restored before his 13th birthday. His parents held vastly different political and religious views which prompted a brief separation in 1803, during that time Hugo's mother dominated his education and upbringing. Hugos work reflected her devotion to king and faith. However during the events leading up to France's 1848 revolution, Hugos work changed to that of Republicanism and free thought. Hugo went on to married to his childhood sweetheart Adele Foucher in 1822 and they had five children.
Victor Hugo's works hold a vast collection of poetry, novels and music. His first Novel Han D'Islande was published in 1823 and he published five volumes of poetry between 1829 and 1840 which cemented his reputation as a great elagiac and lyric poet. Hugos first mature work of fiction was published in February 1829 by Charles Gosselin without his name attached, this would infuse with his later work Le Dernier Jour d'un Condamne (The last day of a Condemned man) and go on to not only influence other writers including Charles Dickens and Albert Camus, and be a precursor to Hugo's work Les Miserables published in 1862.
After three attempts Hugo was finally elected to Academie francaise in 1841and in 1845 King Louis-Phillipe elevated him to the peerage and in 1848 he was elected to the national assembly of the second republic. When Louis Napoleon the 3rd seized power in 1851 Hugo openly declared him a traitor to France then relocated to Brussels, Jersey (where he was thrown out of for supporting a paper criticising Queen Victoria) and ending up in guernsey where he remained an exile until 1870. after returning to France a hero in 1870 Hugo spent the rest of his life writing and just living and died from pneumonia on may 22nd 1885 at the age of 83. He was given a state funeral by degree of president Jules Grevy, more than two million people joined his funeral procession in Paris which went form the Arc Du Triomphe to the Pantheon where he was consequently buried, he shared a crypt with Alexandre Dumas and Emile Zola. Most French towns and cities have streets named after him.
Victor Hugo in my opinion is one of those naturally born creative souls who had felt compelled to both write and at least try to make the world a better place. He definitely attempted to do so from the positions he accumulated in his life time and despite this the three mistresses he had in his later years definitely shows that his love life left something to be desired.
And there you have it a book for all the ages, its definitely under the banner of AWESOME!!!.
Frollo orders Quasimodo to bring Esmeralda to him and after a lot of chaos where the guards under Phoebus capture Quasimodo, Gringoire is knocked out and only rescued from hanging when Esmeralda saves him with promise of marriage and Quasimodo flogged and placed on a pillory for several hours of public exposure. When Esmeralda is accused of attempted murder Quasimodo helps by giving her space in the cathedral of Notre Dame under law of sanctuary. Frollo finds out that the court of parliament has voted the removal of Esmeralda's right for sanctuary and orders her to be taken and killed. Clopin the head of the gypsies hears this and leads a rescue party to help Esmeralda. During the chaos Quasimodo mistakes who is wanting to help the Gypsy he loves and ends up in aiding in her arrest. Frollo after failing to win her love betrays Esmeralda and sends her to be hung. Frollo laughs as Esmeralda dies and is pushed from the top of the Cathedral by Quasimodo. Quasimodo dies of starvation after joining Esmeralda's body in the cemetery.
Victor Hugo began writing the book in 1829The novels original title was Notre Dame de Paris, it was largely to make his contemporaries more aware of the value of the Gothic architecture, Notre Dame Cathedral had been in disrepair at the time and along with other buildings which were neglected and often destroyed to be replaced by new buildings or defaced by replacement of parts of buildings in a newer style. During the summer of 1830 Gosselin demanded that Hugo complete the book by February 1831, Hugo -starting in September 1830- worked non stop on the book finishing it six months later. Several ballets, comics, TV show, theatre, music, musical theatre and films have been inspired by The Hunchback of Notre Dame most notably has been the 1996 Walt Disney animated movie of the same name.
I think that The Hunchback of Notre Dame is a very prolific book which promotes the fact that it doesn't matter what you look like on the outside, its how you deal with people and what is on the inside that counts. The books portrayal of the romantic era as an extreme through the architecture, passion and religion as well as the exploration of determinism, revolution and social strife adds to the ultimately magical make up of the book. I believe that most people would see themselves in the position of Quasimodo, Esmeralda and Phoebus rather than that of Frollo. I know I certainly wouldn't see myself otherwise.
Victor Marie Hugo was born on February 26th 1802 in Besançon. eastern Franche-Combe as the third son of Joseph Leopold Sigisbert Hugo (1774-1828) and Sophie Trebuchet (1772-1821). Victor was a French poet, novelist and dramatist of the romantic movement, he's also considered one of the greatest and best known French writers. Victors childhood was a period of national political turmoil with Napoleon being proclaimed Emperor two years after he was born and the Bourbon monarchy was restored before his 13th birthday. His parents held vastly different political and religious views which prompted a brief separation in 1803, during that time Hugo's mother dominated his education and upbringing. Hugos work reflected her devotion to king and faith. However during the events leading up to France's 1848 revolution, Hugos work changed to that of Republicanism and free thought. Hugo went on to married to his childhood sweetheart Adele Foucher in 1822 and they had five children.
Victor Hugo's works hold a vast collection of poetry, novels and music. His first Novel Han D'Islande was published in 1823 and he published five volumes of poetry between 1829 and 1840 which cemented his reputation as a great elagiac and lyric poet. Hugos first mature work of fiction was published in February 1829 by Charles Gosselin without his name attached, this would infuse with his later work Le Dernier Jour d'un Condamne (The last day of a Condemned man) and go on to not only influence other writers including Charles Dickens and Albert Camus, and be a precursor to Hugo's work Les Miserables published in 1862.
After three attempts Hugo was finally elected to Academie francaise in 1841and in 1845 King Louis-Phillipe elevated him to the peerage and in 1848 he was elected to the national assembly of the second republic. When Louis Napoleon the 3rd seized power in 1851 Hugo openly declared him a traitor to France then relocated to Brussels, Jersey (where he was thrown out of for supporting a paper criticising Queen Victoria) and ending up in guernsey where he remained an exile until 1870. after returning to France a hero in 1870 Hugo spent the rest of his life writing and just living and died from pneumonia on may 22nd 1885 at the age of 83. He was given a state funeral by degree of president Jules Grevy, more than two million people joined his funeral procession in Paris which went form the Arc Du Triomphe to the Pantheon where he was consequently buried, he shared a crypt with Alexandre Dumas and Emile Zola. Most French towns and cities have streets named after him.
Victor Hugo in my opinion is one of those naturally born creative souls who had felt compelled to both write and at least try to make the world a better place. He definitely attempted to do so from the positions he accumulated in his life time and despite this the three mistresses he had in his later years definitely shows that his love life left something to be desired.
And there you have it a book for all the ages, its definitely under the banner of AWESOME!!!.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Bohemian Rhapsody (2018) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
In the search for a way to watch the 92nd Academy Awards live from Hollywood tonight I was led to a subscription for Now TV, which is basically the online platform for Sky Cinema. And there I found all the missing films I had yet to see from last year that aren’t available “free” on Amazon Prime or Netflix. I should really have worked it out before now that a free trial might be available, having assumed that a Sky subscription was beyond my means at the moment. Imagine my excitement to not only secure the Oscars but a 7 day pass to catch up on some big titles. It’s the small things in life…
Having made a 20 strong watch list, I wasted no time in heading straight for the Queen biopic, Bohemian Rhapsody, winner of 4 awards last February, including one for Rami Malek as Freddy Mercury that I applauded very loudly at the time, without having seen it, due to my love for him as Elliot Alderson in my favourite TV show of the last 5 years, the incredible and mindbendingly brilliant Mr. Robot.
My connection to Queen as a fan isn’t an especially strong one; I have always thought they were fine, and enjoyed their biggest hits as much as anyone. But it is the story, charisma and undeniable singing talent of Mercury that attracts me. From the opening scenes it is apparent that what we are going to get here is a fairly straightforward, by the numbers recounting of events, punctuated by some serious tunes and some glorious 70s fashions. Having read that this was the main criticism of it going in, it really didn’t bother me at all to find it wasn’t going to make bolder artistic and dramatic choices. It was very much about sitting back and enjoying the show!
In fact, there is something comforting and unchallenging about its format that I liked. The pattern of abc that is a) some background to Freddy’s life, b) a build up to how they came across their big hits, and c) a rendition of that hit, didn’t strike me as cheap, but rather unpretentious and to the point. The whole thing clipped along nicely with very little dead air; Malek is a joy to watch in every moment; the clothes and scenery of the 70s and later 80s is a treat; and the music stands for itself, with you often forgetting how good the tunes are until you hear them in this context.
Of course, at times it is almost laughable how well known facts and details are crow-barred into the narrative, with some of the darker elements glossed over, as if this were almost a Disney retelling. But, again, it doesn’t matter, because as an entertainment it is all so enjoyable. Not to say the dark side of the story isn’t touched upon, because it is to an extent, just that it is clear this is a celebration of a life and a talent, not an exposé. Which is fine. As with the superior Walk The Line, and the recently inferior Rocketman, we know a seedier story of Johnny Cash and Elton John exists, but we accept that revelling in the genius of the music is more fun than trawling through the trash.
Malek is a wonder to behold! It has to be said. Once you (and he) get used to the false teeth and bite down on the energy and drive of Mercury, it is impossible to take your eyes off him! He handles the dramatic moments and nuance of this fragile mind with ease, but it is the performances that stand out: his movement is so fluid and accurate that you forget at times you aren’t watching archive footage, which is some trick! Gwilym Lee and Ben Hardy as Brian May and Roger Taylor are also to be praised for this, despite having less to do. With Joseph Mazzello as John Deacon largely merging into the background inoffensively, much as his real life counterpart did.
There is some solid support too. Lucy Boynton is completely charming if largely uninteresting; Tom Hollander quietly steals several scenes as the lawyer who doesn’t just work for them but idolises them as much as any fan; and an unrecognisable Mike Myers is a lot of fun as the manager who missed out on the vision and lives to regret it. Honourable mention also to Allen Leech as the villain of the piece, who walks the tightrope of cartoonish nastiness with some skill, serving the story well in the latter half.
My favourites parts were, unsurprisingly, the genesis and evolution of the big tunes, which was invariably very satisfying. Love of My Life, We Will Rock You, We are the Champions and of course Bohemian Rhapsody are treated like holy texts, with fascinating detail and a reverence that never seems over-egged. Building to the climax of Live Aid; a twenty minute segment at the end of the film that brings a genuine lump to the throat. The magnitude of the event and its natural energy are so well realised, every minor foible of the film up to that point are forgiven, and you walk away from it feeling elated and glad that this moment exists in music history.
Artistically, it isn’t a movie to get too caried away about, but the art of creating a spectacle that pleases on a basic, uncomplicated level is. Director Bryan Singer knows a trick or two, and the trick here is what is left out. There just isn’t a moment to be bored, and I find myself wishing that films of this kind took a leaf out of that book more often. In conclusion, I think this movie will endure the test of time, which is a lot more than most biopic genre films can say. But who wants to live forever anyway?
Having made a 20 strong watch list, I wasted no time in heading straight for the Queen biopic, Bohemian Rhapsody, winner of 4 awards last February, including one for Rami Malek as Freddy Mercury that I applauded very loudly at the time, without having seen it, due to my love for him as Elliot Alderson in my favourite TV show of the last 5 years, the incredible and mindbendingly brilliant Mr. Robot.
My connection to Queen as a fan isn’t an especially strong one; I have always thought they were fine, and enjoyed their biggest hits as much as anyone. But it is the story, charisma and undeniable singing talent of Mercury that attracts me. From the opening scenes it is apparent that what we are going to get here is a fairly straightforward, by the numbers recounting of events, punctuated by some serious tunes and some glorious 70s fashions. Having read that this was the main criticism of it going in, it really didn’t bother me at all to find it wasn’t going to make bolder artistic and dramatic choices. It was very much about sitting back and enjoying the show!
In fact, there is something comforting and unchallenging about its format that I liked. The pattern of abc that is a) some background to Freddy’s life, b) a build up to how they came across their big hits, and c) a rendition of that hit, didn’t strike me as cheap, but rather unpretentious and to the point. The whole thing clipped along nicely with very little dead air; Malek is a joy to watch in every moment; the clothes and scenery of the 70s and later 80s is a treat; and the music stands for itself, with you often forgetting how good the tunes are until you hear them in this context.
Of course, at times it is almost laughable how well known facts and details are crow-barred into the narrative, with some of the darker elements glossed over, as if this were almost a Disney retelling. But, again, it doesn’t matter, because as an entertainment it is all so enjoyable. Not to say the dark side of the story isn’t touched upon, because it is to an extent, just that it is clear this is a celebration of a life and a talent, not an exposé. Which is fine. As with the superior Walk The Line, and the recently inferior Rocketman, we know a seedier story of Johnny Cash and Elton John exists, but we accept that revelling in the genius of the music is more fun than trawling through the trash.
Malek is a wonder to behold! It has to be said. Once you (and he) get used to the false teeth and bite down on the energy and drive of Mercury, it is impossible to take your eyes off him! He handles the dramatic moments and nuance of this fragile mind with ease, but it is the performances that stand out: his movement is so fluid and accurate that you forget at times you aren’t watching archive footage, which is some trick! Gwilym Lee and Ben Hardy as Brian May and Roger Taylor are also to be praised for this, despite having less to do. With Joseph Mazzello as John Deacon largely merging into the background inoffensively, much as his real life counterpart did.
There is some solid support too. Lucy Boynton is completely charming if largely uninteresting; Tom Hollander quietly steals several scenes as the lawyer who doesn’t just work for them but idolises them as much as any fan; and an unrecognisable Mike Myers is a lot of fun as the manager who missed out on the vision and lives to regret it. Honourable mention also to Allen Leech as the villain of the piece, who walks the tightrope of cartoonish nastiness with some skill, serving the story well in the latter half.
My favourites parts were, unsurprisingly, the genesis and evolution of the big tunes, which was invariably very satisfying. Love of My Life, We Will Rock You, We are the Champions and of course Bohemian Rhapsody are treated like holy texts, with fascinating detail and a reverence that never seems over-egged. Building to the climax of Live Aid; a twenty minute segment at the end of the film that brings a genuine lump to the throat. The magnitude of the event and its natural energy are so well realised, every minor foible of the film up to that point are forgiven, and you walk away from it feeling elated and glad that this moment exists in music history.
Artistically, it isn’t a movie to get too caried away about, but the art of creating a spectacle that pleases on a basic, uncomplicated level is. Director Bryan Singer knows a trick or two, and the trick here is what is left out. There just isn’t a moment to be bored, and I find myself wishing that films of this kind took a leaf out of that book more often. In conclusion, I think this movie will endure the test of time, which is a lot more than most biopic genre films can say. But who wants to live forever anyway?