Search
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Jumanji: The Next Level (2019) in Movies
Dec 27, 2019
Ensemble cast (1 more)
Plain good fun
Rebooted again, and just as fun.
One of the pleasant movie surprises of Christmas 2017 for me was "Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle". I expected it to be a tired retread of the original classic, but instead it turned into a highly entertaining action comedy. Reading my review again, I was rather po-faced about it and scored it with a rather measly 7/10. But this rather belies my secret love of the movie: it is a film that I can invariably watch and enjoy again and again.
This was also a film that raked in a HUGE return at the box office, getting close to the billion dollar number on its $90 million budget. During the spring of 2018, this was an almost permanent resident at the multiplexes (until "The Greatest Showman" and "Mamma Mia: Here We Go Again" took over the residence for the rest of the year!) . A sequel was inevitable
We rejoin the cast some time after the events of the first film, and the geeky teenage lovers - Spencer and Bethany - are trying, unsuccessfully, to carry on their long distance relationship while at separate colleges. Spencer is struggling mentally; lacking in confidence and momentum and desperate to feel like 'Smoulder' Bravestone again.
On returning to his home town for the holidays, Spencer fixes the shattered game. But the console is unpredictable and when the game sucks people into Jumanji this time it's not just Spencer and two of his friends that go in, but Spencer's Grandpa Eddie (Danny DeVito) and his old friend Milo (Danny Glover).
When they get there though, things have changed and the mission is a different one. A "next level" indeed!
This is very much 'much of the same' from the first film. Yes, there's a different backdrop with desert and mountain 'levels' to play through. But the same fun, with exploding avatars and dangerous cake, is to be had again. The script team had to do something different here, and they did that by mixing up the avatars (including a surprising equine player) and throwing in the 'pensioners' to the mix. There is new fun to be mined here from the now nimble-again Eddie and the slow-talking and laconic Milo never quite getting to the point in time.
The stars were all persuaded back for another ride. The four avatar leads (Dwayne Johnson, Karen Gillan, Jack Black and Kevin Hart) all return, together with the young teens (Alex Wolff, Morgan Turner, Ser'Darius Blain and Madison Iseman). Nick Jonas and his older real-life player Colin Hanks are back. Even Nigel "Welcome to Jumanji" Billingsley (Rhys Darby) returns, this time swapping his jeep for a plane.
The newcomers to the cast are also welcome. Glover and DeVito are at their cranky best, and introduce a genuinely touching moment into the film. And a new avatar - Ming Fleetfoot - is fabulous in the form of Awkwafina, so brilliant in this year's "The Farewell".
There's not much more to say on this. If you liked the original, you'll enjoy this one too. Many of the same jokes are trotted out again. The villain (here Rory McCann) is as forgettable as in the first film. It's not breaking any records in terms of originality, but the producers won't mind about that as long as it drags the crowds in again. At the time of writing it has made $320K on its $125K budget, so that seems to be working.
Jake Kasdan is again at the helm. But I really hope enough is enough, and they leave it at this. The mid-credits scene might suggest though that greed is going to dictate a Jumanji 4 (or 5 in some people's books). The returns, I fear, from the franchise will be ever diminishing from this point forwards.
(For the full graphical review go here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/12/27/one-manns-movies-film-review-jumanji-the-next-level-2019/ .)
This was also a film that raked in a HUGE return at the box office, getting close to the billion dollar number on its $90 million budget. During the spring of 2018, this was an almost permanent resident at the multiplexes (until "The Greatest Showman" and "Mamma Mia: Here We Go Again" took over the residence for the rest of the year!) . A sequel was inevitable
We rejoin the cast some time after the events of the first film, and the geeky teenage lovers - Spencer and Bethany - are trying, unsuccessfully, to carry on their long distance relationship while at separate colleges. Spencer is struggling mentally; lacking in confidence and momentum and desperate to feel like 'Smoulder' Bravestone again.
On returning to his home town for the holidays, Spencer fixes the shattered game. But the console is unpredictable and when the game sucks people into Jumanji this time it's not just Spencer and two of his friends that go in, but Spencer's Grandpa Eddie (Danny DeVito) and his old friend Milo (Danny Glover).
When they get there though, things have changed and the mission is a different one. A "next level" indeed!
This is very much 'much of the same' from the first film. Yes, there's a different backdrop with desert and mountain 'levels' to play through. But the same fun, with exploding avatars and dangerous cake, is to be had again. The script team had to do something different here, and they did that by mixing up the avatars (including a surprising equine player) and throwing in the 'pensioners' to the mix. There is new fun to be mined here from the now nimble-again Eddie and the slow-talking and laconic Milo never quite getting to the point in time.
The stars were all persuaded back for another ride. The four avatar leads (Dwayne Johnson, Karen Gillan, Jack Black and Kevin Hart) all return, together with the young teens (Alex Wolff, Morgan Turner, Ser'Darius Blain and Madison Iseman). Nick Jonas and his older real-life player Colin Hanks are back. Even Nigel "Welcome to Jumanji" Billingsley (Rhys Darby) returns, this time swapping his jeep for a plane.
The newcomers to the cast are also welcome. Glover and DeVito are at their cranky best, and introduce a genuinely touching moment into the film. And a new avatar - Ming Fleetfoot - is fabulous in the form of Awkwafina, so brilliant in this year's "The Farewell".
There's not much more to say on this. If you liked the original, you'll enjoy this one too. Many of the same jokes are trotted out again. The villain (here Rory McCann) is as forgettable as in the first film. It's not breaking any records in terms of originality, but the producers won't mind about that as long as it drags the crowds in again. At the time of writing it has made $320K on its $125K budget, so that seems to be working.
Jake Kasdan is again at the helm. But I really hope enough is enough, and they leave it at this. The mid-credits scene might suggest though that greed is going to dictate a Jumanji 4 (or 5 in some people's books). The returns, I fear, from the franchise will be ever diminishing from this point forwards.
(For the full graphical review go here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/12/27/one-manns-movies-film-review-jumanji-the-next-level-2019/ .)
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Jumanji: The Next Level (2019) in Movies
Dec 15, 2019
I said this when I reviewed Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle, but Jumanji was one of my favorite movies going up. I was extremely reluctant to see the 2017 film. However, I walked out of the theater happy as can be. The movie wasn’t perfect, but it was charming and entertaining, and I felt it was a good modernization of the Jumanji experience.
Then they announced the sequel, and all that fear and panic (not much, but you know… melodrama) kicked back in. Given the state of some sequels these days, I couldn’t imagine how they would be able to do this, and do this well. But I had hopes considering how good the previous entry in the franchise was. Could it be just as good?
The Jumanji: The Next Level releases 2 years after Welcome to the Jungle, and just as much time has passed for our four heroes: Spencer (Alex Wolff), Fridge (Ser’Darius Blain), Bethany (Madison Iseman), and Martha (Morgan Turner). We see the four friends leading their different lives and getting excited to reunite over the holidays.
Everyone, except for Spencer that is. Spencer missed the feeling he had as Doctor Smolder Bravestone (Dwayne Johnson) in Jumanji, so he decides to try and fix the game and re-enter to recapture that feeling. The game was smashed to pieces in the last movie, but Spencer retrieved it and it’s been sitting his basement ever since.
The next day, when the four adventurers are supposed to be meeting for brunch, the remaining three get worried when Spencer doesn’t show. So they head over to Spencer’s place to find Spencer’s Grandfather, Eddie (Danny Devito), and an old friend, Milo (Danny Glover), who also don’t know where he is. Soon they discover the broken remnants of the game and that they’ve been fixed (sorta) and eventually they realize that Spencer has gone into the game again.
They decide to head back in, but somethings a little different this time around, as both Eddie and Milo get pulled into the game as well. All our game characters return: Bravestone, Professor Sheldon “Shelly” Oberon (Jack Black), Franklin “Mouse” Finbar (Kevin Hart), and Ruby Roundhouse (Karen Gillan). But will our young adventurers be controlling the same characters, and what of Eddie and Milo? I can’t say without spoiling so much more.
Now that we have the description out of the way, I will say that I loved this film. Not quite as much as the previous entry, though. I didn’t have high hopes for The Next Level as the trailers and commercials just seemed to be overselling certain aspects of the film, but the film was great.
A good follow up story, excellent acting from our four mains, and enough changeup to allow it to not be essentially the same movie as the first. The acting is great. The plot, while a little predictable, was good as well. The music and score really set the tone and pace of the new Jumanji movies, and in such a good way.
One of the only real criticism I had was that Johnson became a little annoying with his characterization for most of the movie in this film, but that could be intended. A good pallet cleanser, though, was Kevin Hart as he literally played the polar opposite and it was a good balance. The other issue I had was that the finale of the third act seemed a little cheated. It was so rushed, relied heavily on the video game trope and never explained why what happened did happen.
Overall, though, this film is a worthy successor to Welcome to the Jungle and you should definitely check it out. Good for the family, just like the first. I personally cannot wait to see what happens in the next film. There is an obvious set up for third in the reboot, or it could be just left as is. Such is the way of Jumanji.
4 out of 5 stars.
Then they announced the sequel, and all that fear and panic (not much, but you know… melodrama) kicked back in. Given the state of some sequels these days, I couldn’t imagine how they would be able to do this, and do this well. But I had hopes considering how good the previous entry in the franchise was. Could it be just as good?
The Jumanji: The Next Level releases 2 years after Welcome to the Jungle, and just as much time has passed for our four heroes: Spencer (Alex Wolff), Fridge (Ser’Darius Blain), Bethany (Madison Iseman), and Martha (Morgan Turner). We see the four friends leading their different lives and getting excited to reunite over the holidays.
Everyone, except for Spencer that is. Spencer missed the feeling he had as Doctor Smolder Bravestone (Dwayne Johnson) in Jumanji, so he decides to try and fix the game and re-enter to recapture that feeling. The game was smashed to pieces in the last movie, but Spencer retrieved it and it’s been sitting his basement ever since.
The next day, when the four adventurers are supposed to be meeting for brunch, the remaining three get worried when Spencer doesn’t show. So they head over to Spencer’s place to find Spencer’s Grandfather, Eddie (Danny Devito), and an old friend, Milo (Danny Glover), who also don’t know where he is. Soon they discover the broken remnants of the game and that they’ve been fixed (sorta) and eventually they realize that Spencer has gone into the game again.
They decide to head back in, but somethings a little different this time around, as both Eddie and Milo get pulled into the game as well. All our game characters return: Bravestone, Professor Sheldon “Shelly” Oberon (Jack Black), Franklin “Mouse” Finbar (Kevin Hart), and Ruby Roundhouse (Karen Gillan). But will our young adventurers be controlling the same characters, and what of Eddie and Milo? I can’t say without spoiling so much more.
Now that we have the description out of the way, I will say that I loved this film. Not quite as much as the previous entry, though. I didn’t have high hopes for The Next Level as the trailers and commercials just seemed to be overselling certain aspects of the film, but the film was great.
A good follow up story, excellent acting from our four mains, and enough changeup to allow it to not be essentially the same movie as the first. The acting is great. The plot, while a little predictable, was good as well. The music and score really set the tone and pace of the new Jumanji movies, and in such a good way.
One of the only real criticism I had was that Johnson became a little annoying with his characterization for most of the movie in this film, but that could be intended. A good pallet cleanser, though, was Kevin Hart as he literally played the polar opposite and it was a good balance. The other issue I had was that the finale of the third act seemed a little cheated. It was so rushed, relied heavily on the video game trope and never explained why what happened did happen.
Overall, though, this film is a worthy successor to Welcome to the Jungle and you should definitely check it out. Good for the family, just like the first. I personally cannot wait to see what happens in the next film. There is an obvious set up for third in the reboot, or it could be just left as is. Such is the way of Jumanji.
4 out of 5 stars.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Instant Family (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Enjoyable and harmless comedy laced with a degree of sentimentality.
The Plot
Pete (Mark Wahlberg) and Ellie (Rose Byrne) are focused and business-oriented home designers. They’ve talked about having kids “sometime in the future” but the years – as years are want to do – are motoring away from them. Pete is concerned that if they have their own kids now then he will end up being an “old dad” (cue very funny, black-comedy, flashback). This leads them into contact with the State’s fostering service – led by Karen (Octavia Spencer) and Sharon (Tig Notaro) – and they progress into foster training. This introduces into their ‘perfect adult lives’ 15-year old Lizzy (Isabela Moner) and her younger siblings Juan (Gustavo Quiroz) and Lita (Julianna Gamiz). As these guys come from a troubled background Pete and Ellie find they have their work cut out. Who will crack first?
The turns
You’ve got to admire Mark Wahlberg as an actor. In the same vein as Steve Carell, he seems to be able to flex from dramatic (in his case, tough-guy action roles) to comedy without a blink. He’s nowhere near the calibre of actor as Carell, but he brings to all his roles a sense of menace – derived no doubt from his torrid criminal background in younger days. (His wiki page makes your eyes water: there’s a great biopic screenplay waiting to be written there! ) It must have made the kid actor who plays Charlie (Carson Holmes) actually soil himself at a key point in the film!
Wahlberg and the excellent Rose Byrne make a believable driven-couple, and Byrne has such a range of expressive faces that she can’t help but make you laugh.
Of the child actors, Nickelodeon star Isabella Moner shines with genuine brilliance, both in terms of her acting as the fiercely loyal Lizzy but also in terms of her musical ability (she sings the impressive end-title song). With Hollywood in ‘post-La-La-Showman: Here we go again’ mode, this is a talented young lady I predict might be in big demand over the next few years.
Top of my list of the most stupid “where the hell have I seen her before bang-my-head-against-the-cinema-wall” moments is the actress playing Ellie’s mother Jan. She is OF COURSE Julie Hagerty, air-hostess supreme from “Airplane!”.
Also good value, and topping my list of “I know her from lots of films but don’t know her name” is Margo Martindale* as Pete’s exuberant and easily bought mother Sandy. (*Must write this out 100 times before her picture appears in the Picturehouse Harbour Lights film quiz!).
A well-crafty script with some wayward characters
The script by director Sean (“Daddy’s Home”) Anders and John Morris zips along at a fine pace, albeit in a wholly predictable direction. It helps that I struggle the think of many films about the adoption process itself. Sure there have been lots of movies about children that have been adopted – Manchester By The Sea and Lion being two recent examples – but the only film I can immediately think of (and not in a good way) with foster care at its heart was the Katherine Heigl comedy from a few years ago “Life as we know it”. So this is good movie territory to mine.
There are some fine running jokes, notably young Juan’s penchant for constantly getting injured. However, the script also lapses as did Anders’ “Daddy’s Home 2” from last year – into moments of slushy sentimentality. (My dear departed Dad always used to affect an exaggerated snore at such points, and I could hear him in my head at regular intervals during the film!). I would have preferred a harder and blacker edge to the comedy: something that last year’s excellent “Game Night” pulled off so well.
There are also a couple of characters in the film that were poorly scripted and which just didn’t work. While Octavia Spencer was fine (channelling an almost identical version of her wisecracking and sardonic character from “The Shape of Water“), I just had no idea what her colleague Sharon (Tig Notaro) was supposed to be. The tone was all over the place. Similarly, who should pop up on a balcony in an unexpected cameo but the great Joan Cusack. And very funny she is too for the 10 second interruption. But the writers having got her there just couldn’t leave alone and we get a plain embarrassing extended interruption that strikes a duff note in the flow of the film.
Summary
The film is amusing and harmless without taxing many brain cells. Most notably unlike many so-called American ‘comedies’ it did actually make me laugh at multiple points. I should also point out that my wife absolutely loved it, rating it a strong 4* going on 5*.
But the really cute thing is that…
…the film is “inspired by a true family”: namely Anders’ own. He and his wife fostered three kids out of the US foster service, so the script is undoubtedly loosely based on their own experiences, which give it an extra impact for some of Peter and Ellie’s lines. In an essay for TIME (source: bustle.com) Anders wrote:
My wife Beth and I had been talking for years about whether we should have kids,” he wrote. “For the longest time we just felt like we couldn’t afford it. Then I sold a couple of scripts and was feeling like I might have a career, but we were in our 40s and worried we had left it too long. We knew kids would make our life bigger, so one day I joked, ‘Why don’t we just adopt a five-year-old and it will be like we got started five years ago?'”
It gives you a completely different perspective on the film knowing this. My wife after the film was saying “I’m not sure how accurately it portrays the fostering process”. But it clearly does.
Pete (Mark Wahlberg) and Ellie (Rose Byrne) are focused and business-oriented home designers. They’ve talked about having kids “sometime in the future” but the years – as years are want to do – are motoring away from them. Pete is concerned that if they have their own kids now then he will end up being an “old dad” (cue very funny, black-comedy, flashback). This leads them into contact with the State’s fostering service – led by Karen (Octavia Spencer) and Sharon (Tig Notaro) – and they progress into foster training. This introduces into their ‘perfect adult lives’ 15-year old Lizzy (Isabela Moner) and her younger siblings Juan (Gustavo Quiroz) and Lita (Julianna Gamiz). As these guys come from a troubled background Pete and Ellie find they have their work cut out. Who will crack first?
The turns
You’ve got to admire Mark Wahlberg as an actor. In the same vein as Steve Carell, he seems to be able to flex from dramatic (in his case, tough-guy action roles) to comedy without a blink. He’s nowhere near the calibre of actor as Carell, but he brings to all his roles a sense of menace – derived no doubt from his torrid criminal background in younger days. (His wiki page makes your eyes water: there’s a great biopic screenplay waiting to be written there! ) It must have made the kid actor who plays Charlie (Carson Holmes) actually soil himself at a key point in the film!
Wahlberg and the excellent Rose Byrne make a believable driven-couple, and Byrne has such a range of expressive faces that she can’t help but make you laugh.
Of the child actors, Nickelodeon star Isabella Moner shines with genuine brilliance, both in terms of her acting as the fiercely loyal Lizzy but also in terms of her musical ability (she sings the impressive end-title song). With Hollywood in ‘post-La-La-Showman: Here we go again’ mode, this is a talented young lady I predict might be in big demand over the next few years.
Top of my list of the most stupid “where the hell have I seen her before bang-my-head-against-the-cinema-wall” moments is the actress playing Ellie’s mother Jan. She is OF COURSE Julie Hagerty, air-hostess supreme from “Airplane!”.
Also good value, and topping my list of “I know her from lots of films but don’t know her name” is Margo Martindale* as Pete’s exuberant and easily bought mother Sandy. (*Must write this out 100 times before her picture appears in the Picturehouse Harbour Lights film quiz!).
A well-crafty script with some wayward characters
The script by director Sean (“Daddy’s Home”) Anders and John Morris zips along at a fine pace, albeit in a wholly predictable direction. It helps that I struggle the think of many films about the adoption process itself. Sure there have been lots of movies about children that have been adopted – Manchester By The Sea and Lion being two recent examples – but the only film I can immediately think of (and not in a good way) with foster care at its heart was the Katherine Heigl comedy from a few years ago “Life as we know it”. So this is good movie territory to mine.
There are some fine running jokes, notably young Juan’s penchant for constantly getting injured. However, the script also lapses as did Anders’ “Daddy’s Home 2” from last year – into moments of slushy sentimentality. (My dear departed Dad always used to affect an exaggerated snore at such points, and I could hear him in my head at regular intervals during the film!). I would have preferred a harder and blacker edge to the comedy: something that last year’s excellent “Game Night” pulled off so well.
There are also a couple of characters in the film that were poorly scripted and which just didn’t work. While Octavia Spencer was fine (channelling an almost identical version of her wisecracking and sardonic character from “The Shape of Water“), I just had no idea what her colleague Sharon (Tig Notaro) was supposed to be. The tone was all over the place. Similarly, who should pop up on a balcony in an unexpected cameo but the great Joan Cusack. And very funny she is too for the 10 second interruption. But the writers having got her there just couldn’t leave alone and we get a plain embarrassing extended interruption that strikes a duff note in the flow of the film.
Summary
The film is amusing and harmless without taxing many brain cells. Most notably unlike many so-called American ‘comedies’ it did actually make me laugh at multiple points. I should also point out that my wife absolutely loved it, rating it a strong 4* going on 5*.
But the really cute thing is that…
…the film is “inspired by a true family”: namely Anders’ own. He and his wife fostered three kids out of the US foster service, so the script is undoubtedly loosely based on their own experiences, which give it an extra impact for some of Peter and Ellie’s lines. In an essay for TIME (source: bustle.com) Anders wrote:
My wife Beth and I had been talking for years about whether we should have kids,” he wrote. “For the longest time we just felt like we couldn’t afford it. Then I sold a couple of scripts and was feeling like I might have a career, but we were in our 40s and worried we had left it too long. We knew kids would make our life bigger, so one day I joked, ‘Why don’t we just adopt a five-year-old and it will be like we got started five years ago?'”
It gives you a completely different perspective on the film knowing this. My wife after the film was saying “I’m not sure how accurately it portrays the fostering process”. But it clearly does.
BackToTheMovies (56 KP) rated Child's Play (2019) in Movies
Jun 21, 2019
After moving to a new city, young Andy Barclay receives a special present from his mother. A seemingly innocent Buddi doll that becomes his best friend. When the doll suddenly takes on a life of its own, Andy unites with other neighborhood children to stop the sinister toy from wreaking bloody havoc.
For months I’ve been hating on this reboot. Whilst I still don’t necessarily agree with the politics of how this film came to be. I left the theatre quite surprised at how much I enjoyed this movie. Child’s Play is reimagined for a modern generation. Whilst this film is an alternate timeline twist to the original it still manages to throw in that classic Chucky humor we all know and love. Here’s my Child’s Play 2019 review.
Lars Klevberg tells the story of Buddi, an artificial intelligence robot that can control your home appliances and become your best friend. He will play with you, interact with you like a real human being and you can do activities together. After a man is fired at the Buddi factory he reprograms one of the dolls to disobey its commands and the reign of Chucky begins when it falls into the hands of young Andy (Gabriel Bateman) given to him as a present by his mum Karen (Aubrey Plaza). What follows is a thoroughly enjoyable feature that flies by. Chucky’s murderous rage ramps up to artificial intelligence warfare with epic results.
Disregarding the original storyline of a serial killer whose soul inhabits a Good Guys doll the new Child’s Play tells a more chilling tale. The movie runs a very close to home social commentary about our reliance on technology and the implications that could follow. Buddi is your walking, talking Amazon Echo. Every home device is controlled at his fingertips from TV’s to telephones and even as far as automated cars. You can only imagine the terror that unfolds as Chucky learns to utilize his technological surroundings for evil.
Chucky starts off innocent enough. He’s programmed to be Andy’s best friend but what starts out as a unique interaction between boy and robot instantly changes when Chucky becomes sentient. Influenced by those around him and watching horror movies with Andy suddenly Buddi becomes more sinister in nature. Instead of a treasured companion, Chucky becomes possessive and will protect Andy by any means necessary. Quite the different approach from that of previous installments. Even when Chucky begins his reign of terror Andy is still loyal to him to some degree. Whilst he cannot understand why Chucky is doing the things he does there’s a loneliness about Andy’s character that almost seems to justify Chucky’s behavior. He doesn’t agree with it but at the same time, he has a friend, albeit a murderous little rampaging doll.
Child’s Play has some incredible humour mixed in throughout which allows the film to flow freely. Whilst Seed of Chucky and Bride of Chucky had free-speaking souls it’s harder to convey this type of humour within a robotic doll. Instead, the doll spills one-liners and is influenced by those around him leading to some comical results. Chucky’s infamous one-liners come to the fold and various facial expressions on the doll are hysterical.
The vocal work and comedic delivery from Mark Hamil is nothing short of wonderful. There is nothing this man cannot do. The force is strong with him even in a Chucky movie. Whilst more robotic in nature the way the lines are delivered with such dry-pan straight-faced edge is just brilliant. But once again we cannot compare this new Chucky to the sublime work of Brad Dourif. Brad is delivering dialogue as a human being whereas Mark is delivering lines as a robotic entity. They just cannot be compared and it would be a stupid comparison to make. All in all the voice work is great It’s just a shame I can’t take this ugly doll seriously for one second!
Whoever designed the Buddi doll in pre-production needs a serious talking to! I’m not quite sure what look they were going for with this but it certainly isn’t a good one. The film becomes even more of a comedy the more you look at it. The old dolls had that look of innocence in the originals, this one is just so damn weird. I can’t picture a production meeting where everyone in the room agreed that this is the final look of the doll without intense laughing involved. It’s like the production team are openly fucking with us. No one on this planet can take this doll seriously and for me, Child’s Play is way more of a comedy than it will ever be a horror movie.
For the most part, casting within Child’s Play is very strong. Gabriel Bateman (Andy) puts in a strong performance single-handedly carrying the film. Brian Tyree Henry (Mike) who plays a neighbor/detective is also a nice comedic relief within the feature. Ty Consiglio, Beatrice Kitsos and Carlease Burke also play strong supporting roles. Where casting failed for me however was Aubrey Plaza. I’ve seen Aubrey in comedies where her humor never really hits home in any roles she’s in.
Arrogant and annoying in many roles this cookie cutter casting has her playing the same role in every film she’s in. Playing Andy’s mum in this film doesn’t work for me whatsoever. There’s no conviction, no depth, no family dynamic feel of any sort. She almost plays an annoying older sister rather than a mother. Thankfully, she doesn’t play a key role as such to Andy’s arc and thus I can overlook her involvement as such. I think Aubrey should have played a sister role or similar, it would have played to her on-screen strengths.
When Chucky starts killing is when this movie comes into its own. It has nothing to compare it to previous Chucky films. Our new technologically manipulative little doll runs havoc on the millennial generation of mobile phone and gadget addicted humans. The death scenes are gory and for the most part, all have comedy elements to them. Whilst the kills are unimaginative it’s how Chucky delivers those kills that really add that star gore power to proceedings.
Endearing, gory and mostly hilarious. The contrast of tone in Child’s Play may even persuade the die-hard fans to enjoy this one. It shouldn’t really be compared to the originals in any way shape or form although it does have an 80’s flair to it. Child’s Play has taken a new direction but has stayed relevant to modern times and whilst it’s taking a different path than the upcoming TV series, it’s safe to say Chucky really is back!
Thanks for checking out my Child’s Play 2019 review. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did!
https://backtothemovies.com/childs-play-2019-review/
For months I’ve been hating on this reboot. Whilst I still don’t necessarily agree with the politics of how this film came to be. I left the theatre quite surprised at how much I enjoyed this movie. Child’s Play is reimagined for a modern generation. Whilst this film is an alternate timeline twist to the original it still manages to throw in that classic Chucky humor we all know and love. Here’s my Child’s Play 2019 review.
Lars Klevberg tells the story of Buddi, an artificial intelligence robot that can control your home appliances and become your best friend. He will play with you, interact with you like a real human being and you can do activities together. After a man is fired at the Buddi factory he reprograms one of the dolls to disobey its commands and the reign of Chucky begins when it falls into the hands of young Andy (Gabriel Bateman) given to him as a present by his mum Karen (Aubrey Plaza). What follows is a thoroughly enjoyable feature that flies by. Chucky’s murderous rage ramps up to artificial intelligence warfare with epic results.
Disregarding the original storyline of a serial killer whose soul inhabits a Good Guys doll the new Child’s Play tells a more chilling tale. The movie runs a very close to home social commentary about our reliance on technology and the implications that could follow. Buddi is your walking, talking Amazon Echo. Every home device is controlled at his fingertips from TV’s to telephones and even as far as automated cars. You can only imagine the terror that unfolds as Chucky learns to utilize his technological surroundings for evil.
Chucky starts off innocent enough. He’s programmed to be Andy’s best friend but what starts out as a unique interaction between boy and robot instantly changes when Chucky becomes sentient. Influenced by those around him and watching horror movies with Andy suddenly Buddi becomes more sinister in nature. Instead of a treasured companion, Chucky becomes possessive and will protect Andy by any means necessary. Quite the different approach from that of previous installments. Even when Chucky begins his reign of terror Andy is still loyal to him to some degree. Whilst he cannot understand why Chucky is doing the things he does there’s a loneliness about Andy’s character that almost seems to justify Chucky’s behavior. He doesn’t agree with it but at the same time, he has a friend, albeit a murderous little rampaging doll.
Child’s Play has some incredible humour mixed in throughout which allows the film to flow freely. Whilst Seed of Chucky and Bride of Chucky had free-speaking souls it’s harder to convey this type of humour within a robotic doll. Instead, the doll spills one-liners and is influenced by those around him leading to some comical results. Chucky’s infamous one-liners come to the fold and various facial expressions on the doll are hysterical.
The vocal work and comedic delivery from Mark Hamil is nothing short of wonderful. There is nothing this man cannot do. The force is strong with him even in a Chucky movie. Whilst more robotic in nature the way the lines are delivered with such dry-pan straight-faced edge is just brilliant. But once again we cannot compare this new Chucky to the sublime work of Brad Dourif. Brad is delivering dialogue as a human being whereas Mark is delivering lines as a robotic entity. They just cannot be compared and it would be a stupid comparison to make. All in all the voice work is great It’s just a shame I can’t take this ugly doll seriously for one second!
Whoever designed the Buddi doll in pre-production needs a serious talking to! I’m not quite sure what look they were going for with this but it certainly isn’t a good one. The film becomes even more of a comedy the more you look at it. The old dolls had that look of innocence in the originals, this one is just so damn weird. I can’t picture a production meeting where everyone in the room agreed that this is the final look of the doll without intense laughing involved. It’s like the production team are openly fucking with us. No one on this planet can take this doll seriously and for me, Child’s Play is way more of a comedy than it will ever be a horror movie.
For the most part, casting within Child’s Play is very strong. Gabriel Bateman (Andy) puts in a strong performance single-handedly carrying the film. Brian Tyree Henry (Mike) who plays a neighbor/detective is also a nice comedic relief within the feature. Ty Consiglio, Beatrice Kitsos and Carlease Burke also play strong supporting roles. Where casting failed for me however was Aubrey Plaza. I’ve seen Aubrey in comedies where her humor never really hits home in any roles she’s in.
Arrogant and annoying in many roles this cookie cutter casting has her playing the same role in every film she’s in. Playing Andy’s mum in this film doesn’t work for me whatsoever. There’s no conviction, no depth, no family dynamic feel of any sort. She almost plays an annoying older sister rather than a mother. Thankfully, she doesn’t play a key role as such to Andy’s arc and thus I can overlook her involvement as such. I think Aubrey should have played a sister role or similar, it would have played to her on-screen strengths.
When Chucky starts killing is when this movie comes into its own. It has nothing to compare it to previous Chucky films. Our new technologically manipulative little doll runs havoc on the millennial generation of mobile phone and gadget addicted humans. The death scenes are gory and for the most part, all have comedy elements to them. Whilst the kills are unimaginative it’s how Chucky delivers those kills that really add that star gore power to proceedings.
Endearing, gory and mostly hilarious. The contrast of tone in Child’s Play may even persuade the die-hard fans to enjoy this one. It shouldn’t really be compared to the originals in any way shape or form although it does have an 80’s flair to it. Child’s Play has taken a new direction but has stayed relevant to modern times and whilst it’s taking a different path than the upcoming TV series, it’s safe to say Chucky really is back!
Thanks for checking out my Child’s Play 2019 review. I hope you enjoy it as much as I did!
https://backtothemovies.com/childs-play-2019-review/
Tui Snider has long since been a favorite author of non-fiction of mine. Her research when it comes to her books is impeccable. I try to never miss an opportunity to read a book by Tui Snider, so when I was presented with the opportunity to read 6 Feet Under Texas by Tui Snider, I jumped at the chance!
6 Feet Under Texas by Tui Snider is a book for those who love history as well as for those who have an appreciation for cemeteries and the people who are buried there. Snider goes all over (mostly) north Texas to talk about the history behind some of the graves famous, infamous, and the just plain interesting. As always, Tui Snider has done excellent research for her book, and it really does show the dedication behind it all. In fact, Tui Snider solved the mystery about the identity of the one legged rope walker who's buried in Corsicana. The photos included in the book aren't in color, but I enjoyed them just the same. It was nice to place the story to the photo. I also appreciated Tui Snider placing each city in alphabetical order for easy findings. She also includes the address to where each cemetery is located after each story in case you wanted to visit.
I will admit that many books, I skip the intro. However, I know that Tui Snider never writes a dull and boring intro for her books. 6 Feet Under Texas' intro did not disappoint. Snider talks about how cemeteries are not morbid at all and how cemeteries are actually for the living. Seriously, read the intro. It is short and so very interesting!
I learned so much reading 6 Feet Under Texas. For example, did you know there was such thing as a backronym? I sure didn't until I read about Amber Hagerman, the little girl from which the AMBER Alert was invented. Tui Snider discusses about Amber's case and gives us an English lesson as well! There's also a touching story about a reverend who took in single mothers back in 1894, a time when society shunned those who weren't married. That story really warmed my heart. In Danville, a young woman by the name of Karen Silkwood is buried. She died under mysterious circumstances back in 1974. The mystery of Silkwood's death definitely left me intrigued. Her story was also very interesting. I learned that in the olden days, scraped graveyards were commonplace. Tui Snider explains that the grass from cemeteries was scraped because the lawn mower actually wasn't invented until 1830, and lawn grasses weren't a thing until the 1930s. Grass, back then, was home to all sorts of snakes and insects, and dry grass could catch on fire easily. So back then, people would get rid of all the grass growing around graves. It's pretty interesting to read about. I also read about Marlene Johnson in 6 Feet Under Texas. Marlene Johnson was the first female postmaster for Eastland, Texas. She made a huge mural out of millions of postage stamps. I loved reading about Mrs. Johnson, and I believe others will too. I was intrigued by Anthony Bascilli's grave. He went all out for his grave including having brick walls around his coffin, doors leading down to his coffin, and pipes sticking out of his coffin where keys to the door were to be dropped. Those pipes are still visible above ground if you take a trip out to the cemetery in Thurber, Texas.
It's not just humans that Tui Snider includes in her book 6 Feet Under Texas. Did you know that back in the day, it was a normal thing to have your limbs buried? For example, there are true stories of people burying amputated limbs and having grave markers made for them. What I really loved was how Tui Snider also mentions animal burials. She discusses the Alamo cats who are buried at the Alamo. (I had no idea that the Alamo had official cats!) She also writes about other animals that were special in some form, but I really loved reading about the Texas horned lizard that had been buried alive for thirty-one years and came back to life when he was exhumed.
I could go on and on about how amazing Tui Snider's newest book is, but you are better off just reading it for yourself. This was one of those books where I never wanted it to end. Luckily, Tui Snider is making a volume 2! I would definitely recommend 6 Feet Under Texas by Tui Snider to everyone that would love to go on a real life adventure without leaving wherever their reading Snider's book from. Seriously, pick up your copy of 6 Feet Under Texas so you can understand why I gushed so much on this book!
--
(A special thank you to Lone Star Literary Life for providing me with a paperback copy of 6 Feet Under Texas by Tui Snider in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.)
6 Feet Under Texas by Tui Snider is a book for those who love history as well as for those who have an appreciation for cemeteries and the people who are buried there. Snider goes all over (mostly) north Texas to talk about the history behind some of the graves famous, infamous, and the just plain interesting. As always, Tui Snider has done excellent research for her book, and it really does show the dedication behind it all. In fact, Tui Snider solved the mystery about the identity of the one legged rope walker who's buried in Corsicana. The photos included in the book aren't in color, but I enjoyed them just the same. It was nice to place the story to the photo. I also appreciated Tui Snider placing each city in alphabetical order for easy findings. She also includes the address to where each cemetery is located after each story in case you wanted to visit.
I will admit that many books, I skip the intro. However, I know that Tui Snider never writes a dull and boring intro for her books. 6 Feet Under Texas' intro did not disappoint. Snider talks about how cemeteries are not morbid at all and how cemeteries are actually for the living. Seriously, read the intro. It is short and so very interesting!
I learned so much reading 6 Feet Under Texas. For example, did you know there was such thing as a backronym? I sure didn't until I read about Amber Hagerman, the little girl from which the AMBER Alert was invented. Tui Snider discusses about Amber's case and gives us an English lesson as well! There's also a touching story about a reverend who took in single mothers back in 1894, a time when society shunned those who weren't married. That story really warmed my heart. In Danville, a young woman by the name of Karen Silkwood is buried. She died under mysterious circumstances back in 1974. The mystery of Silkwood's death definitely left me intrigued. Her story was also very interesting. I learned that in the olden days, scraped graveyards were commonplace. Tui Snider explains that the grass from cemeteries was scraped because the lawn mower actually wasn't invented until 1830, and lawn grasses weren't a thing until the 1930s. Grass, back then, was home to all sorts of snakes and insects, and dry grass could catch on fire easily. So back then, people would get rid of all the grass growing around graves. It's pretty interesting to read about. I also read about Marlene Johnson in 6 Feet Under Texas. Marlene Johnson was the first female postmaster for Eastland, Texas. She made a huge mural out of millions of postage stamps. I loved reading about Mrs. Johnson, and I believe others will too. I was intrigued by Anthony Bascilli's grave. He went all out for his grave including having brick walls around his coffin, doors leading down to his coffin, and pipes sticking out of his coffin where keys to the door were to be dropped. Those pipes are still visible above ground if you take a trip out to the cemetery in Thurber, Texas.
It's not just humans that Tui Snider includes in her book 6 Feet Under Texas. Did you know that back in the day, it was a normal thing to have your limbs buried? For example, there are true stories of people burying amputated limbs and having grave markers made for them. What I really loved was how Tui Snider also mentions animal burials. She discusses the Alamo cats who are buried at the Alamo. (I had no idea that the Alamo had official cats!) She also writes about other animals that were special in some form, but I really loved reading about the Texas horned lizard that had been buried alive for thirty-one years and came back to life when he was exhumed.
I could go on and on about how amazing Tui Snider's newest book is, but you are better off just reading it for yourself. This was one of those books where I never wanted it to end. Luckily, Tui Snider is making a volume 2! I would definitely recommend 6 Feet Under Texas by Tui Snider to everyone that would love to go on a real life adventure without leaving wherever their reading Snider's book from. Seriously, pick up your copy of 6 Feet Under Texas so you can understand why I gushed so much on this book!
--
(A special thank you to Lone Star Literary Life for providing me with a paperback copy of 6 Feet Under Texas by Tui Snider in exchange for an honest and unbiased review.)
Zuky the BookBum (15 KP) rated American Psycho in Books
Mar 15, 2018
http://bookbum.weebly.com/book-reviews/american-psycho-by-bret-easton-ellis
<b><i>...there is an idea of a Patrick Bateman, some kind of abstraction, but there is no real me, only an entity, something illusory, and though I can hide my cold gaze and you can shake my hand and feel flesh gripping yours and maybe you can even sense our lifestyles are probably comparable: I am simply not there.</b></i>
I have no idea how to verbalise the fact that this has become a new favourite book of mine, because I absolutely <i>love</i> it, but I dont want people to think Im a maniac I wasnt expecting to not love this, I mean the film is one of my favourites, so I was really looking forward to giving this a read, but I didnt expect to love it as much as I do! I feel all kinds of wrong being so amazed by this book but I cant help it. Its funny, its dark, its brutal, its shocking and its eye opening.
<img src="https://media.giphy.com/media/KYNywoibU1PQ4/giphy.gif"; width="500" height="210" alt="leo dicaprio shrug"/>
So, Patrick Bateman, our one and only POV of this story. Batemen is a young, middle class, good looking, sophisticated and intelligent stockbroker. Hes charming and arrogant, but hes also an ax and knife and nail gun wielding mad man.
<img src="http://media0.giphy.com/media/YfdumeFM14CGc/giphy.gif"; width="500" height="213" alt="americanppsychogif"/>
But hes also a total <b>goofy dork!</b> <i><b>Im clam, I mean calm, I say, breathing in hard, trying to smile</b></i> Bateman cant get a grip on himself <i>at all.</i> Not only does he have moments where hes running around Manhattan screaming like a banshee, sweating profusely, and having, what can only be described as, a mental breakdown, but hes also just a mess at all times. Hes constantly getting himself in a tizz, experiencing panic attacks all over the place. I mean he started talking about the ozone layer and then instantly told a couple of knock knock jokes, thats not smooth Bateman. This constant goofiness of Bateman is what makes this book so funny for me. Ellis is excellent at adding this clumsy human characteristic to an otherwise robotic man.
Bateman is troubled, in more ways than one. Not only is he a serial killer but hes also an outsider and he knows it. <b><i>Because, I say, staring directly at her, I want to fit.... in.</b></i> This is why hes always trying so hard to impress people, and why hes obsessed with being the best.
Normally I hate when there are long paragraphs in books that simply list things about what a person is doing or wearing, for example in Maestra I couldnt care less, but this excessive listing of things, unimportant materialist things, is such an important element of this book. These tiresome, obsessive lists give us such a clear insight, right from the start of the novel, into the incredibly paranoid, jealous and demented mind of Bateman. When we near the end of the novel Ellis does something absolutely mind blowing; he changes to third person. This sudden change on narrative has such a strong impact on the reader and is the perfect, <i>perfect</i> way of representing Patricks detachment to life.
Please, please, please do not read this book if youre faint hearted or youve gone through some terrible things in your life. I dont think this book needs specific trigger warnings, but in case you havent already guessed it, this book includes some very, <i>very</i> graphic and grotesque descriptions of torture, murder and rape. I think its quite hard to shock me, but this book made me wince and gasp quite often. I even had to put the book down briefly after reading some of the descriptions, breathe, and then get back to reading. It can be really tough on your imagination, thats for sure. <b>The rat scene </b> <spoiler>I mean I thought the scene with Bethany was bad but I had a whole other thing coming! It seriously worries me how well Ellis can describe this brutal torture. I could actually feel the bile rising in my throat when I was reading about the things Bateman did to Tiffany.</spoiler>
<img src="http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Jim-From-Office-Shiver.gif"; width="300" height="169" alt="jim from office shudder"/>
Im not going to go in depth on the claim that this is a misogynistic book, all you need to know is that I dont agree with that statement in the slightest. If you want to read some more on why that notion is ridiculous please look at <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/109385399?book_show_action=false&from_review_page=1">karens review.</a>
This book is definitely a new favourite of mine and I can feel it becoming one of those books I read over and over again. Im so happy I finally sat down and read this, I dont regret a moment of it, plus I got it for only £2.99. Thank you Ellis for this wonderful piece of literature, I hope your other novels brings me the same joy as this did.
<i>P.S. Isnt it funny how Donald Trump is mentioned in this book over and over and over because Trump is the greatest example of everything this book represents.</i>
<b><i>...there is an idea of a Patrick Bateman, some kind of abstraction, but there is no real me, only an entity, something illusory, and though I can hide my cold gaze and you can shake my hand and feel flesh gripping yours and maybe you can even sense our lifestyles are probably comparable: I am simply not there.</b></i>
I have no idea how to verbalise the fact that this has become a new favourite book of mine, because I absolutely <i>love</i> it, but I dont want people to think Im a maniac I wasnt expecting to not love this, I mean the film is one of my favourites, so I was really looking forward to giving this a read, but I didnt expect to love it as much as I do! I feel all kinds of wrong being so amazed by this book but I cant help it. Its funny, its dark, its brutal, its shocking and its eye opening.
<img src="https://media.giphy.com/media/KYNywoibU1PQ4/giphy.gif"; width="500" height="210" alt="leo dicaprio shrug"/>
So, Patrick Bateman, our one and only POV of this story. Batemen is a young, middle class, good looking, sophisticated and intelligent stockbroker. Hes charming and arrogant, but hes also an ax and knife and nail gun wielding mad man.
<img src="http://media0.giphy.com/media/YfdumeFM14CGc/giphy.gif"; width="500" height="213" alt="americanppsychogif"/>
But hes also a total <b>goofy dork!</b> <i><b>Im clam, I mean calm, I say, breathing in hard, trying to smile</b></i> Bateman cant get a grip on himself <i>at all.</i> Not only does he have moments where hes running around Manhattan screaming like a banshee, sweating profusely, and having, what can only be described as, a mental breakdown, but hes also just a mess at all times. Hes constantly getting himself in a tizz, experiencing panic attacks all over the place. I mean he started talking about the ozone layer and then instantly told a couple of knock knock jokes, thats not smooth Bateman. This constant goofiness of Bateman is what makes this book so funny for me. Ellis is excellent at adding this clumsy human characteristic to an otherwise robotic man.
Bateman is troubled, in more ways than one. Not only is he a serial killer but hes also an outsider and he knows it. <b><i>Because, I say, staring directly at her, I want to fit.... in.</b></i> This is why hes always trying so hard to impress people, and why hes obsessed with being the best.
Normally I hate when there are long paragraphs in books that simply list things about what a person is doing or wearing, for example in Maestra I couldnt care less, but this excessive listing of things, unimportant materialist things, is such an important element of this book. These tiresome, obsessive lists give us such a clear insight, right from the start of the novel, into the incredibly paranoid, jealous and demented mind of Bateman. When we near the end of the novel Ellis does something absolutely mind blowing; he changes to third person. This sudden change on narrative has such a strong impact on the reader and is the perfect, <i>perfect</i> way of representing Patricks detachment to life.
Please, please, please do not read this book if youre faint hearted or youve gone through some terrible things in your life. I dont think this book needs specific trigger warnings, but in case you havent already guessed it, this book includes some very, <i>very</i> graphic and grotesque descriptions of torture, murder and rape. I think its quite hard to shock me, but this book made me wince and gasp quite often. I even had to put the book down briefly after reading some of the descriptions, breathe, and then get back to reading. It can be really tough on your imagination, thats for sure. <b>The rat scene </b> <spoiler>I mean I thought the scene with Bethany was bad but I had a whole other thing coming! It seriously worries me how well Ellis can describe this brutal torture. I could actually feel the bile rising in my throat when I was reading about the things Bateman did to Tiffany.</spoiler>
<img src="http://gifrific.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Jim-From-Office-Shiver.gif"; width="300" height="169" alt="jim from office shudder"/>
Im not going to go in depth on the claim that this is a misogynistic book, all you need to know is that I dont agree with that statement in the slightest. If you want to read some more on why that notion is ridiculous please look at <a href="https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/109385399?book_show_action=false&from_review_page=1">karens review.</a>
This book is definitely a new favourite of mine and I can feel it becoming one of those books I read over and over again. Im so happy I finally sat down and read this, I dont regret a moment of it, plus I got it for only £2.99. Thank you Ellis for this wonderful piece of literature, I hope your other novels brings me the same joy as this did.
<i>P.S. Isnt it funny how Donald Trump is mentioned in this book over and over and over because Trump is the greatest example of everything this book represents.</i>
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Mary Poppins Returns (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
A valiant attempt to recreate a masterpiece.
How do you repaint a masterpiece: the Mona Lisa of children’s fantasy cinema? Some would say “You shouldn’t try”.
As I’ve said before, Mary Poppins was the first film I saw when it came out (or soon afterwards) at a very impressionable age…. I was said to have bawled my eyes out with “THE MAGIC NANNY IS GOING AWAY!!” as Julie Andrews floated off! So as my last cinema trip of 2018 I went to see this sequel, 54 years after the original, with a sense of dread. I’m relieved to say that although the film has its flaws it’s by no means the disaster I envisaged.
The plot
It’s a fairly lightweight story. Now all grown up, young Michael from the original film (Ben Whishaw) has his own family. His troubles though come not singly but in battalions since not only is he grieving a recent loss but he is also about to be evicted from 17 Cherry Tree Lane. Help is at hand in that his father, George Banks, had shares with the Fidelity Fiduciary Bank. But despite their best efforts neither he, his sister Jane (Emily Mortimer) nor their chirpy “strike a light” lamplighter friend Jack (Lin-Manuel Miranda) can find the all-important share certificates. With the deadline from bank manager Wilkins (Colin Firth) approaching, it’s fortuitous that Mary Poppins (Emily Blunt) drops in to look after the Banks children – John (Nathanael Saleh), Anabel (Pixie Davies) and Georgie (Joel Dawson) – in her own inimitable fashion.
Songs that are more Meh-ry Poppins
I know musical taste is very personal. My biggest problem with the film though was that the songs by Marc Shaiman were, to me, on the lacklustre side. Only one jumped out and struck me: the jaunty vaudeville number “A Cover is not the Book”. Elsewhere they were – to me – unmemorable and nowhere near as catchy as those of “The Greatest Showman“. (What amplified this for me was having some of the classic Sherman-brothers themes woven into the soundtrack that just made me realise what I was missing!) Richard M Sherman – now 90 – was credited with “Music Consultant” but I wonder how much input he actually had?
The other flaws
Another issue I had with the film was that it just tried WAAYYY too hard to tick off the key attributes of the original:
‘Mary in the mirror’ – check
‘Bottomless carpet bag’ – check
‘Initial fun in the nursery’ – check
‘Quirky trip to a cartoon land’ – check
‘Dance on the ceiling with a quirky relative’ – check
‘Chirpy chimney sweeps’ – check (“Er… Mr Marshall… we couldn’t get chimney sweeps… will lamplighters do?” “Yeah, good enough”)
Another thing that struck me about the film – particularly as a film aimed at kids – is just how long it is. At 2 hours and 10 minutes it’s a bladder-testing experience for adults let alone younger children. (It’s worth noting that this is still 9 minutes shorter than the original, but back in the 60’s we had FAR fewer options to be stimulated by entertainment and our attention spans were – I think – much longer as a result!)
What it does get right
But with this whinging aside, the film does get a number of things spit-spot on.
Emily Blunt is near perfection as Poppins. (In the interests of balance my wife found her bizarrely clipped accent very grating, but I suspect P.L. Travers would have approved!). Broadway star Lin-Manuel Miranda also does a good job as Jack, although you wonder whether the ‘society of cockney actors’ must again be in a big grump about the casting! I found Emily Mortimer just delightful as the grown-up Jane, although Ben Whishaw‘s Michael didn’t particularly connect with me.
Almost unrecognisable was David Warner as the now wheelchair-bound Admiral Boom. His first mate is none other than Jim Norton of “Father Ted” Bishop Brennan fame (thanks to my daughter Jenn for pointing that one out)!
Also watch out (I’d largely missed it before I realised!) for a nice pavement cameo by Karen Dotrice, the original Jane, asking directions to number 19 Cherry Tree Lane.
What the film also gets right is to implement the old-school animation of the “Jolly Holidays” segment of the original. That’s a really smart move. Filmed at Shepperton Studios in London, this is once again a great advert for Britain’s film technicians. The London sets and the costumes (by the great Sandy Powell) are just superb.
Some cameo cherries on the cake
Finally, the aces in the hole are the two cameos near the end of the film. And they would have been lovely surprises as well since neither name appears in the opening credits. It’s therefore a CRYING SHAME that they chose to let the cat out of the bag in the trailer (BLOODY MARKETING EXECS!). In case you haven’t seen the trailer, I won’t spoil it for you here. But as a magical movie experience the first of those cameos moved me close to tears. He also delivers a hum-dinger of a plot twist that is a genuinely welcome crossover from the first film.
Final Thoughts
Rob Marshall directs, and with a pretty impossible task he delivers an end-product that, while it didn’t completely thrill me, did well not to trash my delicate hopes and dreams either. Having just listened to Kermode and Mayo’s review (and it seems that Mark Kermode places Poppins on a similar pedestal to me) the songs (and therefore the “Place Where Lost Things Go” song) just didn’t resonate with me in the same way, and so, unlike Kermode, I mentally never bridged the gap to safely enjoying it.
But what we all think is secondary. Because if some three or four year old out there gets a similarly lifelong love of the cinema by watching this, then that’s all that matters.
As I’ve said before, Mary Poppins was the first film I saw when it came out (or soon afterwards) at a very impressionable age…. I was said to have bawled my eyes out with “THE MAGIC NANNY IS GOING AWAY!!” as Julie Andrews floated off! So as my last cinema trip of 2018 I went to see this sequel, 54 years after the original, with a sense of dread. I’m relieved to say that although the film has its flaws it’s by no means the disaster I envisaged.
The plot
It’s a fairly lightweight story. Now all grown up, young Michael from the original film (Ben Whishaw) has his own family. His troubles though come not singly but in battalions since not only is he grieving a recent loss but he is also about to be evicted from 17 Cherry Tree Lane. Help is at hand in that his father, George Banks, had shares with the Fidelity Fiduciary Bank. But despite their best efforts neither he, his sister Jane (Emily Mortimer) nor their chirpy “strike a light” lamplighter friend Jack (Lin-Manuel Miranda) can find the all-important share certificates. With the deadline from bank manager Wilkins (Colin Firth) approaching, it’s fortuitous that Mary Poppins (Emily Blunt) drops in to look after the Banks children – John (Nathanael Saleh), Anabel (Pixie Davies) and Georgie (Joel Dawson) – in her own inimitable fashion.
Songs that are more Meh-ry Poppins
I know musical taste is very personal. My biggest problem with the film though was that the songs by Marc Shaiman were, to me, on the lacklustre side. Only one jumped out and struck me: the jaunty vaudeville number “A Cover is not the Book”. Elsewhere they were – to me – unmemorable and nowhere near as catchy as those of “The Greatest Showman“. (What amplified this for me was having some of the classic Sherman-brothers themes woven into the soundtrack that just made me realise what I was missing!) Richard M Sherman – now 90 – was credited with “Music Consultant” but I wonder how much input he actually had?
The other flaws
Another issue I had with the film was that it just tried WAAYYY too hard to tick off the key attributes of the original:
‘Mary in the mirror’ – check
‘Bottomless carpet bag’ – check
‘Initial fun in the nursery’ – check
‘Quirky trip to a cartoon land’ – check
‘Dance on the ceiling with a quirky relative’ – check
‘Chirpy chimney sweeps’ – check (“Er… Mr Marshall… we couldn’t get chimney sweeps… will lamplighters do?” “Yeah, good enough”)
Another thing that struck me about the film – particularly as a film aimed at kids – is just how long it is. At 2 hours and 10 minutes it’s a bladder-testing experience for adults let alone younger children. (It’s worth noting that this is still 9 minutes shorter than the original, but back in the 60’s we had FAR fewer options to be stimulated by entertainment and our attention spans were – I think – much longer as a result!)
What it does get right
But with this whinging aside, the film does get a number of things spit-spot on.
Emily Blunt is near perfection as Poppins. (In the interests of balance my wife found her bizarrely clipped accent very grating, but I suspect P.L. Travers would have approved!). Broadway star Lin-Manuel Miranda also does a good job as Jack, although you wonder whether the ‘society of cockney actors’ must again be in a big grump about the casting! I found Emily Mortimer just delightful as the grown-up Jane, although Ben Whishaw‘s Michael didn’t particularly connect with me.
Almost unrecognisable was David Warner as the now wheelchair-bound Admiral Boom. His first mate is none other than Jim Norton of “Father Ted” Bishop Brennan fame (thanks to my daughter Jenn for pointing that one out)!
Also watch out (I’d largely missed it before I realised!) for a nice pavement cameo by Karen Dotrice, the original Jane, asking directions to number 19 Cherry Tree Lane.
What the film also gets right is to implement the old-school animation of the “Jolly Holidays” segment of the original. That’s a really smart move. Filmed at Shepperton Studios in London, this is once again a great advert for Britain’s film technicians. The London sets and the costumes (by the great Sandy Powell) are just superb.
Some cameo cherries on the cake
Finally, the aces in the hole are the two cameos near the end of the film. And they would have been lovely surprises as well since neither name appears in the opening credits. It’s therefore a CRYING SHAME that they chose to let the cat out of the bag in the trailer (BLOODY MARKETING EXECS!). In case you haven’t seen the trailer, I won’t spoil it for you here. But as a magical movie experience the first of those cameos moved me close to tears. He also delivers a hum-dinger of a plot twist that is a genuinely welcome crossover from the first film.
Final Thoughts
Rob Marshall directs, and with a pretty impossible task he delivers an end-product that, while it didn’t completely thrill me, did well not to trash my delicate hopes and dreams either. Having just listened to Kermode and Mayo’s review (and it seems that Mark Kermode places Poppins on a similar pedestal to me) the songs (and therefore the “Place Where Lost Things Go” song) just didn’t resonate with me in the same way, and so, unlike Kermode, I mentally never bridged the gap to safely enjoying it.
But what we all think is secondary. Because if some three or four year old out there gets a similarly lifelong love of the cinema by watching this, then that’s all that matters.