Search
Search results
Rufus Wainwright recommended Blonde on Blonde by Bob Dylan in Music (curated)
Paul Morrissey recommended The Bank Dick (1940) in Movies (curated)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Judy (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Neither a true biopic nor a musical, a very sad and sombre film worth seeing for a sure-fire nominee for Zellweger for the Oscars.
Decline and Fall (Part 1).
This is an extremely sombre film. I will go as far as saying that it is well-and-truly a “Father Ted” film (see glossary).
The Story.
Young Judy Garland is a starlet in the MGM studio system run by Louis B. Mayer (a villainous Richard Cordery). She doesn’t have a life outside of the movies; is fed diet pills and “pep-pills” that destroy her sleep; and she is starting to get fed up with it all. No wonder then that she grows up to be an alcoholic insomniac with a trail of failed marriages and a temperamental nature.
Thus, through flash-backs to the young Judy (the English Darci Shaw, in her movie debut) we track the older Judy (Renée Zellweger) through the last tragic years of her life. Unable to work, due to a reputation that proceeds her, she is forced to take up the offer from Bernard Delfont (Michael Gambon) of a residency at London’s “Talk of the Town”. This separates her from her older daughter (Liza Minnelli played by Gemma-Leah Devereux) and, crucially, her younger children Lorna (Bella Ramsey) and Joey (Lewin Lloyd). (Their Dad is Sidney Luft (“Victoria’s” Rufus Sewell): hence Lorna being Lorna Luft). This separation increases Judy’s mental decline.
Also in a constant state of stress is Rosalyn Wilder (Jessie Buckley) who has the unenviable job of trying to keep Garland on the straight and narrow to perform every night.
A Towering Performance.
Whatever I think about the film overall (and we’ll come to that), this is 100% the “Renée Zellweger show”. It’s an extraordinary performance, and is pitch perfect, both in terms of capturing Garland’s mannerisms and vocal style. If Zellweger doesn’t get an Oscar nomination for this then I’ll eat my favourite orange baseball hat! I’ll have to review the final short-list, but I would not be remotely surprised if she won for this.
Elsewhere is the cast, Michael Gambon gives a reliable performance as Delfont (his second depiction this year after the turn by Rufus Jones in “Stan and Ollie“!) and the rising star that is Jessie Buckley is also effective as Wilder in a much quieter role than we’re used to seeing her in.
Musical? Or biopic?
Is this a musical? Or a biopic? Or neither? Actually, I would suggest it’s neither. There’s been a curious split in the last year between films like “Bohemian Rhapsody“, which were biopics with music, to “Rocketman” which was very much a musical based around a biopic.
“Judy” can’t be classed as a musical since (and I checked my watch) the first musical number doesn’t come until FORTY MINUTES into the picture. Neither is it a true biopic, focusing only on a few short months of Garland’s extensive career, the ‘young Judy’ scenes being nothing but short flashbacks to set the scene. This probably makes sense, else a true biopic of the wonder that was Judy Garland would have turned into a 4 hour plus epic!
A rough ride, but could I care?
Above all, it’s a depressing watch, like seeing a sick animal in distress. But I never felt the film got to the heart of the matter to really make me CARE enough. The nearest it gets is with a moving portion where Judy makes the evening (if not the lifetime) of some super-fans – Dan (Andy Nyman) and Stan (Daniel Cerqueira). She goes home with them for omelettes and a sing-song: a strong nod towards Garland’s extensive following, even today, among the gay community. The finale, where the couple try to salvage an on-stage psychiatric session by Judy is touching but, for me, not tear-inducing.
The screenplay is by Tom Edge, from the stage play by Peter Quilter. The director is relative movie-newcomer Rupert Goold.
I liked this movie, but did I like it enough to rush and see it again? No, not really. Worth seeing though to appreciate the odds-on favourite (surely!) for the Best Actress Oscar of this year.
This is an extremely sombre film. I will go as far as saying that it is well-and-truly a “Father Ted” film (see glossary).
The Story.
Young Judy Garland is a starlet in the MGM studio system run by Louis B. Mayer (a villainous Richard Cordery). She doesn’t have a life outside of the movies; is fed diet pills and “pep-pills” that destroy her sleep; and she is starting to get fed up with it all. No wonder then that she grows up to be an alcoholic insomniac with a trail of failed marriages and a temperamental nature.
Thus, through flash-backs to the young Judy (the English Darci Shaw, in her movie debut) we track the older Judy (Renée Zellweger) through the last tragic years of her life. Unable to work, due to a reputation that proceeds her, she is forced to take up the offer from Bernard Delfont (Michael Gambon) of a residency at London’s “Talk of the Town”. This separates her from her older daughter (Liza Minnelli played by Gemma-Leah Devereux) and, crucially, her younger children Lorna (Bella Ramsey) and Joey (Lewin Lloyd). (Their Dad is Sidney Luft (“Victoria’s” Rufus Sewell): hence Lorna being Lorna Luft). This separation increases Judy’s mental decline.
Also in a constant state of stress is Rosalyn Wilder (Jessie Buckley) who has the unenviable job of trying to keep Garland on the straight and narrow to perform every night.
A Towering Performance.
Whatever I think about the film overall (and we’ll come to that), this is 100% the “Renée Zellweger show”. It’s an extraordinary performance, and is pitch perfect, both in terms of capturing Garland’s mannerisms and vocal style. If Zellweger doesn’t get an Oscar nomination for this then I’ll eat my favourite orange baseball hat! I’ll have to review the final short-list, but I would not be remotely surprised if she won for this.
Elsewhere is the cast, Michael Gambon gives a reliable performance as Delfont (his second depiction this year after the turn by Rufus Jones in “Stan and Ollie“!) and the rising star that is Jessie Buckley is also effective as Wilder in a much quieter role than we’re used to seeing her in.
Musical? Or biopic?
Is this a musical? Or a biopic? Or neither? Actually, I would suggest it’s neither. There’s been a curious split in the last year between films like “Bohemian Rhapsody“, which were biopics with music, to “Rocketman” which was very much a musical based around a biopic.
“Judy” can’t be classed as a musical since (and I checked my watch) the first musical number doesn’t come until FORTY MINUTES into the picture. Neither is it a true biopic, focusing only on a few short months of Garland’s extensive career, the ‘young Judy’ scenes being nothing but short flashbacks to set the scene. This probably makes sense, else a true biopic of the wonder that was Judy Garland would have turned into a 4 hour plus epic!
A rough ride, but could I care?
Above all, it’s a depressing watch, like seeing a sick animal in distress. But I never felt the film got to the heart of the matter to really make me CARE enough. The nearest it gets is with a moving portion where Judy makes the evening (if not the lifetime) of some super-fans – Dan (Andy Nyman) and Stan (Daniel Cerqueira). She goes home with them for omelettes and a sing-song: a strong nod towards Garland’s extensive following, even today, among the gay community. The finale, where the couple try to salvage an on-stage psychiatric session by Judy is touching but, for me, not tear-inducing.
The screenplay is by Tom Edge, from the stage play by Peter Quilter. The director is relative movie-newcomer Rupert Goold.
I liked this movie, but did I like it enough to rush and see it again? No, not really. Worth seeing though to appreciate the odds-on favourite (surely!) for the Best Actress Oscar of this year.
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated Judy (2019) in Movies
Oct 2, 2019
If I am a legend, then why am I so lonely?
Judy is a fabulous and dazzling look into the finally years of an all time greats life and while it maybe paint by numbers at times Judy takes the surprisingly darker and more depressing route that many other biopics dont dare to. I was gobsmacked to find after that renee zellweger played judy garland as at no stage of the movie could you tell at all. Never been a real fan of Zellweger but here she really has surpassed herself and you literally would be forgiven for believing she was the actual Judy Garland at times, an award wining performance for sure. Judy's pain/struggles are plain to see here and the way Renee manages to portray the sheer depression behind those eyes as well as the switching on of 'the act' when she steps out onto stage to perform are both saddening and admirable (the way the camera shows her eyes change really is impressive). Its clear as a person she just longs to be loved, to belong/find happiness and to live a happy life with her children who adore her and bring her joy and completeness. Seemingly forced into showbusiness at a young age she never had a real chance to discover who she really is and what she enjoys and everyone she gets close to uses her as a puppet adding to the weight on her mind. Yet somewhere in all the sadness I find it so inspirational that she still found the strength and drive to put on a confident happy face and deliver powerful performances. Maybe deep down in a way being loved by the audience was her only glimpse of feeling true real love from someone when away from her children. Cinematography really impressed me as well giving a warm glamorous look when on stage with colours and lights that simply boom off the screen and then a cold, isolated and lonely feel when off stage really giving the movie a unique and immersive atmosphere. Costumes and sets also stun and dazzle as does the music which is filmed so well you feel at times you are sat in the room. Some dialog annoyed me near the beginning and two characters ruined the tone/felt forced but other than that I really did enjoyed this movie dare I say it more than I did Rocketman and Bohemian Rhapsody. A tragic/sad story that is well worth seeing
David McK (3188 KP) rated The Wizard of Oz in Books
Apr 28, 2020
"If only we had a song to sing that would help us on our way", said the Scarecrow ...
Or something similar, anyway, in the Audible Audiobook version of this story that I listened to: a bit of a sly dig, maybe, at the famous "We're off the see the wizard …" song from the Judy garland movie?
Talking about differences, in this it's magical silver shows that Dorothy wears (not ruby red), with the story making great play and numerous mentions of her having committed murder and being celebrated for the same (which is surprisingly messed up for a kids story) …
like, I'm sure, most of the rest of the population, I'm more familiar with that movie version than the original, so it's entertaining and informative to see just how close the two versions are, with the movie version (perhaps necessarily) taking in less events than this story does.
Or something similar, anyway, in the Audible Audiobook version of this story that I listened to: a bit of a sly dig, maybe, at the famous "We're off the see the wizard …" song from the Judy garland movie?
Talking about differences, in this it's magical silver shows that Dorothy wears (not ruby red), with the story making great play and numerous mentions of her having committed murder and being celebrated for the same (which is surprisingly messed up for a kids story) …
like, I'm sure, most of the rest of the population, I'm more familiar with that movie version than the original, so it's entertaining and informative to see just how close the two versions are, with the movie version (perhaps necessarily) taking in less events than this story does.
Jon Savage recommended A Hard Day's Night (1964) in Movies (curated)
Wayne Coyne recommended Wizard of Oz by Judy Garland in Music (curated)
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Judgment at Nuremberg (1961) in Movies
Feb 19, 2019
“He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone at her.”
It has been over 20 years since I first saw this as teenager, but watching it again with little memory of the specifics, I was both a little disappointed but also very impressed.
With a title like “Judgement at Nuremberg,” you can be forgiven for expecting a film about the trial of the Concentration Camp guards or Hermann Goering, but instead we are given something much more subtle and subversive. This follows a fictionalised account of the “Judges Trial”.
Here, Spencer Tracey’s U.S. Judge leads a panel of three peers as they preside over a trial of four NAZI judges, the focus of their crimes is not of there actions during the war but those in the mid 1930’s and their perversions of justice in aiding Hitler’s NAZI’s to oppress their own people.
The film also asked a myriad of uncomfortable questions, not only taking aim at the long dead National Socialist movement, but the world as a whole, including the U.S.A. Sighting parallels from Allied nations who claim cultural superiority after winning the war yet only being a stone’s throw away from the same attitudes.
But this is not just subverting the perceptions of jurist prudence, it is a drama, a head to head between Tracey and his German counterpart in the doc, Bert Lancaster. It is also a vehicle for a host of Oscar worthy performances from an all star cast, ALL of which excel in their roles, some more subtly than others.
The standouts are Montgomery Cliff and Judy Garland, both of whom would pass away soon after this film was release at relatively young ages. Kramer’s cinematography is impressive too, as it keeps the camera moving around the courtroom through the lengthy cross-examination scenes, keeping the tension high and the interest alive through this three-hour drama.
With a healthy dose of melancholy, jaded and brutalised characters and foreshadowing the impending Cold War, this is a film which understands war and the often forgotten fact that even though Wars have a start and and end date, they take decades to build up and never really end.
With a title like “Judgement at Nuremberg,” you can be forgiven for expecting a film about the trial of the Concentration Camp guards or Hermann Goering, but instead we are given something much more subtle and subversive. This follows a fictionalised account of the “Judges Trial”.
Here, Spencer Tracey’s U.S. Judge leads a panel of three peers as they preside over a trial of four NAZI judges, the focus of their crimes is not of there actions during the war but those in the mid 1930’s and their perversions of justice in aiding Hitler’s NAZI’s to oppress their own people.
The film also asked a myriad of uncomfortable questions, not only taking aim at the long dead National Socialist movement, but the world as a whole, including the U.S.A. Sighting parallels from Allied nations who claim cultural superiority after winning the war yet only being a stone’s throw away from the same attitudes.
But this is not just subverting the perceptions of jurist prudence, it is a drama, a head to head between Tracey and his German counterpart in the doc, Bert Lancaster. It is also a vehicle for a host of Oscar worthy performances from an all star cast, ALL of which excel in their roles, some more subtly than others.
The standouts are Montgomery Cliff and Judy Garland, both of whom would pass away soon after this film was release at relatively young ages. Kramer’s cinematography is impressive too, as it keeps the camera moving around the courtroom through the lengthy cross-examination scenes, keeping the tension high and the interest alive through this three-hour drama.
With a healthy dose of melancholy, jaded and brutalised characters and foreshadowing the impending Cold War, this is a film which understands war and the often forgotten fact that even though Wars have a start and and end date, they take decades to build up and never really end.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated A Star Is Born (1954) in Movies
Jun 29, 2020
A Long Winding Road In Need of a Detour
An aspiring actress gets a her big break when discovered by an alcoholic film star.
Acting: 10
Apparently her first film since four years prior, Judy Garland makes the stage sizzle playing the main role of Vicki Lester. I loved her passion and charisma and the way she delivers her lines with a charm that just lights up the screen. There are a number of other shining roles as well, including a fun performance from James Brown playing the role of Glenn Wiliams.
Beginning: 3
Characters: 10
Although you don’t really get to fully see her development until two thirds of the way into the movie, Vicki Lester is definitely a character an audience can get behind. I rooted for her success in hopes that she would steer clear of the trap the movie was clearly setting for her. That’s the thing about movies, sometimes the audience can see from a mile away something it takes ages for the characters themselves to see. The movie would have been unbearable without solid characters to carry it through.
Cinematography/Visuals: 8
Conflict: 8
There were a lot of pitfalls Vicki had to deal with along the way, namely her alcoholic husband who continues to bring her down. Had they delved into her backstory a lot quicker, I would’ve given this category a perfect score as her upbringing provided another potential pitfall for her future. Overall, with everything going on in the film, it’s clear the winding road is only leading to one place.
Entertainment Value: 8
Memorability: 7
Pace: 4
This version is the longest of the four coming in at almost three hours. Seeing how the other three were able to tell the same story with considerably less time, there is no reason for this version to be so long. It gets boring in a few spots and had me longing for the conclusion. While there are a number of shining moments, a slow pace kept this to a one-watch movie for me.
Plot: 10
Resolution: 10
Overall: 78
A Star is Born is just unnecessarily long. I was expecting a legit reason for the length but, after watching the other three movies, I was at a loss. To hold an audience’s attention for almost three hours means you need plenty of meat for your story. The movie is good, but merely one-watch good. Unfortunately that’s not quite good enough.
Acting: 10
Apparently her first film since four years prior, Judy Garland makes the stage sizzle playing the main role of Vicki Lester. I loved her passion and charisma and the way she delivers her lines with a charm that just lights up the screen. There are a number of other shining roles as well, including a fun performance from James Brown playing the role of Glenn Wiliams.
Beginning: 3
Characters: 10
Although you don’t really get to fully see her development until two thirds of the way into the movie, Vicki Lester is definitely a character an audience can get behind. I rooted for her success in hopes that she would steer clear of the trap the movie was clearly setting for her. That’s the thing about movies, sometimes the audience can see from a mile away something it takes ages for the characters themselves to see. The movie would have been unbearable without solid characters to carry it through.
Cinematography/Visuals: 8
Conflict: 8
There were a lot of pitfalls Vicki had to deal with along the way, namely her alcoholic husband who continues to bring her down. Had they delved into her backstory a lot quicker, I would’ve given this category a perfect score as her upbringing provided another potential pitfall for her future. Overall, with everything going on in the film, it’s clear the winding road is only leading to one place.
Entertainment Value: 8
Memorability: 7
Pace: 4
This version is the longest of the four coming in at almost three hours. Seeing how the other three were able to tell the same story with considerably less time, there is no reason for this version to be so long. It gets boring in a few spots and had me longing for the conclusion. While there are a number of shining moments, a slow pace kept this to a one-watch movie for me.
Plot: 10
Resolution: 10
Overall: 78
A Star is Born is just unnecessarily long. I was expecting a legit reason for the length but, after watching the other three movies, I was at a loss. To hold an audience’s attention for almost three hours means you need plenty of meat for your story. The movie is good, but merely one-watch good. Unfortunately that’s not quite good enough.
The Bandersnatch (199 KP) rated The Wonderful Wizard of Oz in Books
Nov 7, 2019
The Book was Published by George M. Hill Company with an advanced publication date of September 1900. The public heard of it at a book fair in Chicago around July 5th to 20th with its copyright registered by August 1st. The books sold out quickly and the second editions went just as quickly as the first. When Hills company became bankrupt in 1901, Bobbs-Merrill Company resumed publishing the book. By 1933 there were more than a million copies printed and by 1956 the sales had grown to three million printed. Because The Wizard of Oz was so popular it became the first in a thirteen book series.
I had known about the wizard of oz ever since I was a child but this was due to the 1939 Movie by MGM of the same name starring Judy Garland. As such I didn't read the book until I was nearly an adult. The book is highly different to the movie with Dorothy having to do more to get home and for both the Wizard and Oz as a whole. The major differences between book and movie is the fact that the Ruby slippers from the movie are silver in the book and the flying monkeys are controlled by a magical cap and Dorothy having protection from Glinda the good witch of the north. I have to admit I am a stickler for details and I prefer the book rather than the movie, despite the movie being good. I recommend this book to everyone and give the book a 9/10
Lyman Frank Baum was born May 15th 1856 in Chittenango, New York to a devout Methodist family the seventh of nine children of Cynthia and Benjamin Baum. Only Baum and five of his siblings survived to adulthood. Lyman hated his first name despite being named for an uncle and liked his middle name better, he was known as Frank for most of his life. Baum married his wife Maud Gage on November 9th 1882 and by 1888 had moved to Aberdeen, Dakota Territory where he operated his own store for a while before turning to writing full time which he loved to do since he was a child. By the time of his death on May 6th 1919 Baum had written the thirteen book Oz series, a plethora of other books and several musicals and radio plays. Baum had died of a stroke and passed away in his sleep, he's buried in Glendale's Forest Lawn Memorial Park Cemetery. L. Frank Baum certainly has my respect for both his writing of the Oz series and the craziness that his life had been.
I had known about the wizard of oz ever since I was a child but this was due to the 1939 Movie by MGM of the same name starring Judy Garland. As such I didn't read the book until I was nearly an adult. The book is highly different to the movie with Dorothy having to do more to get home and for both the Wizard and Oz as a whole. The major differences between book and movie is the fact that the Ruby slippers from the movie are silver in the book and the flying monkeys are controlled by a magical cap and Dorothy having protection from Glinda the good witch of the north. I have to admit I am a stickler for details and I prefer the book rather than the movie, despite the movie being good. I recommend this book to everyone and give the book a 9/10
Lyman Frank Baum was born May 15th 1856 in Chittenango, New York to a devout Methodist family the seventh of nine children of Cynthia and Benjamin Baum. Only Baum and five of his siblings survived to adulthood. Lyman hated his first name despite being named for an uncle and liked his middle name better, he was known as Frank for most of his life. Baum married his wife Maud Gage on November 9th 1882 and by 1888 had moved to Aberdeen, Dakota Territory where he operated his own store for a while before turning to writing full time which he loved to do since he was a child. By the time of his death on May 6th 1919 Baum had written the thirteen book Oz series, a plethora of other books and several musicals and radio plays. Baum had died of a stroke and passed away in his sleep, he's buried in Glendale's Forest Lawn Memorial Park Cemetery. L. Frank Baum certainly has my respect for both his writing of the Oz series and the craziness that his life had been.