Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Darkest Hour (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Not buggering it up.
As Doctor Who repeatedly points out, time is most definitely a tricksy thing. As I think I’ve commented on before, the events of 1940-45 are not in my lifetime but were sufficiently fresh to my parents that they were still actively talked about… so they still appear “current” to me. But I find it astonishing to realize that to a teen viewer this film is equivalent in timeframe to the sinking of the Titanic! #ancienthistory! So I suspect your connection to this film will be strongly affected by your age, and that was definitely reflected in the average age at my showing which must have been at least 60.
It’s 1940 and Western Europe is under siege. Neville Chamberlain (Ronald Pickup, “The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel“) is the Conservative Prime Minister but is voted out of office in an attempt to form a grand coalition government with Labour leader Clement Atlee (David Schofield). Despite appearing a shoe-in for the role, Viscount Halifax (Stephen Dillane) turns it down, thinking that his alternative (and bête noire) would drink from the poisoned chalice and be quickly be out of his (and Chamberlain’s) hair. For that alternative choice is the volatile and unpredictable Churchill (Gary Oldman), grudgingly invited into the job by King George VI (Ben Mendelsohn, “Rogue One“). With the Nazi’s bearing down on the 300,000 encircled troops at Dunkirk, and with calls from his war cabinet to capitulate and seek terms of settlement, this is indeed both Churchill’s, and the country’s, ‘darkest hour’.
Despite the woeful lack of historical knowledge among today’s youngsters, most will be at least aware of the story of Dunkirk, with many having absorbed Christopher Nolan’s film of last summer. This film is almost the matching bookend to that film, showing the terrifying behind-closed-door events that led up to that miracle. For it was terrifying seeing how close Britain came to the brink, and I’m not sure even I really appreciated that before. While this might have been a “thriller” if it had been a fictional story, we well know the outcome of the story: but even with this knowledge I still found the film to be extremely tense and claustrophobic as the net draws in around Churchill’s firmly-held beliefs.
Gary Oldman’s performance is extraordinary, and his award nominations are well-deserved. We have grown so used to some of his more over-the-top Russian portrayals in films like “Air Force One” and last year’s (pretty poor) “The Hitman’s Bodyguard” that it is easy to forget what a nuanced and flexible actor he is. Ever since that “No, surely not!” moment of that first glimpse of the film’s trailer, it has almost been impossible to ‘see’ Oldman behind the brilliant make-up of the character (Kazuhiro Tsuji gets a special credit for it). But his eyes are in there, and there are some extreme close-ups (for example, during a bizarre and tense phone call with Roosevelt (David Strathairn)) when you suddenly see “There you are!”.
The supportive wife – Clemmie (Kristin Scott Thomas) gives Winston (Gary Oldman) a hug.
While I have nothing against Brian Cox as an actor, I far prefer the portrayal of Churchill on show here compared to last year’s “Churchill“: true that that film was set three or four stressful years later, but Cox’s Churchill was portrayed as an incompetent fool, an embarrassment to the establishment that have to work around him. Oldman’s Churchill is irascible, unreasonable, but undeniably a leader and a great orator.
Mirroring “Churchill” though, the action is seen through the eyes of Churchill’s put-upon secretary, here played delightfully by Lily James (“Downton Abbey”, “Baby Driver“) who perfectly looks and sounds the part. The character is more successful than that of Ella Purnell’s Garrett in that she is given more room to develop her character and for the audience to warm to her. Oldman is getting all the kudos, but Lily James really deserves some for her touching and engaging performance here.
Perfectly cast: Lily James as Churchill’s secretary Elizabeth Layton.
Also in Oldman’s shadow is the always marvelous Kristin Scott Thomas (“Four Weddings and a Funeral”, “The English Patient”) as Clemmie Churchill, expressing all the love and frustration associated with being a long-suffering wife to an over-worked husband in the public service.
At the pen is “The Theory of Everything” writer Anthony McCarten, and I’d like to say its a great script but with most of the best lines (“a sheep in sheep’s clothing” – LoL) coming from Winston himself it’s difficult to tell. Some of the scenes can get a bit laborious and at 125 minutes – though not long by any means – the script could still perhaps have had a nip and tuck here and there.
Where some of this time is well spent though is in some sedate shots of London street life, across two separate scenes panning across everyday folk as the stresses of war start to become more evident. This is just one of the areas where director Joe Wright (“Atonement”, “Pride and Prejudice”) shows considerable panache, ably assisted by the cinematography of Bruno Delbonnel (“Inside Llewyn Davis“): a boy closes his telescope-fingers around Churchill’s plane; a bomb’s eye-view of the beleaguered Brigadier Nicholson in Calais; and – very impressively – the smoky imperiousness of the House of Commons set.
An atmospheric chamber: the recreation of the wartime House of Commons is spectacular (with production design by Sarah Greenwood (“Anna Karenina”, “Atonement”)).
And most-importantly Wright delivers what Christopher Nolan couldn’t deliver in “Dunkirk“: a properly CGI’d vista of hundred of small boats crossing the channel to Dunkirk. Now THAT is a scene that Kenneth Branagh could justly have looked in awe at!!!
There are a number of scenes that require disbelief to be suspended though: the biggest one being a tube train ride – very moving and effective I must say – but one that features the longest journey between any two stations on the District Line than has ever been experienced!
One stop on the District Line via Westminster…. via Harrow-on-the-Hill!
So this is a great film for really reliving a knife-edge moment in British history, and is highly recommended particularly for older viewers. If I’m honest though, between “Darkest Hour”, “Churchill” and John Lithgow’s excellent portrayal in “The Crown” I’m all over portrayals of the great man for a few years. Can we please move on now Hollywood?
It’s 1940 and Western Europe is under siege. Neville Chamberlain (Ronald Pickup, “The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel“) is the Conservative Prime Minister but is voted out of office in an attempt to form a grand coalition government with Labour leader Clement Atlee (David Schofield). Despite appearing a shoe-in for the role, Viscount Halifax (Stephen Dillane) turns it down, thinking that his alternative (and bête noire) would drink from the poisoned chalice and be quickly be out of his (and Chamberlain’s) hair. For that alternative choice is the volatile and unpredictable Churchill (Gary Oldman), grudgingly invited into the job by King George VI (Ben Mendelsohn, “Rogue One“). With the Nazi’s bearing down on the 300,000 encircled troops at Dunkirk, and with calls from his war cabinet to capitulate and seek terms of settlement, this is indeed both Churchill’s, and the country’s, ‘darkest hour’.
Despite the woeful lack of historical knowledge among today’s youngsters, most will be at least aware of the story of Dunkirk, with many having absorbed Christopher Nolan’s film of last summer. This film is almost the matching bookend to that film, showing the terrifying behind-closed-door events that led up to that miracle. For it was terrifying seeing how close Britain came to the brink, and I’m not sure even I really appreciated that before. While this might have been a “thriller” if it had been a fictional story, we well know the outcome of the story: but even with this knowledge I still found the film to be extremely tense and claustrophobic as the net draws in around Churchill’s firmly-held beliefs.
Gary Oldman’s performance is extraordinary, and his award nominations are well-deserved. We have grown so used to some of his more over-the-top Russian portrayals in films like “Air Force One” and last year’s (pretty poor) “The Hitman’s Bodyguard” that it is easy to forget what a nuanced and flexible actor he is. Ever since that “No, surely not!” moment of that first glimpse of the film’s trailer, it has almost been impossible to ‘see’ Oldman behind the brilliant make-up of the character (Kazuhiro Tsuji gets a special credit for it). But his eyes are in there, and there are some extreme close-ups (for example, during a bizarre and tense phone call with Roosevelt (David Strathairn)) when you suddenly see “There you are!”.
The supportive wife – Clemmie (Kristin Scott Thomas) gives Winston (Gary Oldman) a hug.
While I have nothing against Brian Cox as an actor, I far prefer the portrayal of Churchill on show here compared to last year’s “Churchill“: true that that film was set three or four stressful years later, but Cox’s Churchill was portrayed as an incompetent fool, an embarrassment to the establishment that have to work around him. Oldman’s Churchill is irascible, unreasonable, but undeniably a leader and a great orator.
Mirroring “Churchill” though, the action is seen through the eyes of Churchill’s put-upon secretary, here played delightfully by Lily James (“Downton Abbey”, “Baby Driver“) who perfectly looks and sounds the part. The character is more successful than that of Ella Purnell’s Garrett in that she is given more room to develop her character and for the audience to warm to her. Oldman is getting all the kudos, but Lily James really deserves some for her touching and engaging performance here.
Perfectly cast: Lily James as Churchill’s secretary Elizabeth Layton.
Also in Oldman’s shadow is the always marvelous Kristin Scott Thomas (“Four Weddings and a Funeral”, “The English Patient”) as Clemmie Churchill, expressing all the love and frustration associated with being a long-suffering wife to an over-worked husband in the public service.
At the pen is “The Theory of Everything” writer Anthony McCarten, and I’d like to say its a great script but with most of the best lines (“a sheep in sheep’s clothing” – LoL) coming from Winston himself it’s difficult to tell. Some of the scenes can get a bit laborious and at 125 minutes – though not long by any means – the script could still perhaps have had a nip and tuck here and there.
Where some of this time is well spent though is in some sedate shots of London street life, across two separate scenes panning across everyday folk as the stresses of war start to become more evident. This is just one of the areas where director Joe Wright (“Atonement”, “Pride and Prejudice”) shows considerable panache, ably assisted by the cinematography of Bruno Delbonnel (“Inside Llewyn Davis“): a boy closes his telescope-fingers around Churchill’s plane; a bomb’s eye-view of the beleaguered Brigadier Nicholson in Calais; and – very impressively – the smoky imperiousness of the House of Commons set.
An atmospheric chamber: the recreation of the wartime House of Commons is spectacular (with production design by Sarah Greenwood (“Anna Karenina”, “Atonement”)).
And most-importantly Wright delivers what Christopher Nolan couldn’t deliver in “Dunkirk“: a properly CGI’d vista of hundred of small boats crossing the channel to Dunkirk. Now THAT is a scene that Kenneth Branagh could justly have looked in awe at!!!
There are a number of scenes that require disbelief to be suspended though: the biggest one being a tube train ride – very moving and effective I must say – but one that features the longest journey between any two stations on the District Line than has ever been experienced!
One stop on the District Line via Westminster…. via Harrow-on-the-Hill!
So this is a great film for really reliving a knife-edge moment in British history, and is highly recommended particularly for older viewers. If I’m honest though, between “Darkest Hour”, “Churchill” and John Lithgow’s excellent portrayal in “The Crown” I’m all over portrayals of the great man for a few years. Can we please move on now Hollywood?
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Cinderella (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Throw together two beautiful faces from a couple of popular TV shows, award-winning veterans of the big screen, a director who loves to immerse viewers in story in the most spectacular of ways and what do you get? Sweet, magical enchantment.
Cinderella is Disney’s latest live-action translation of a classic animated film and under Kenneth Branagh’s deft direction it is simply wonderful. Retelling a beloved fairytale and making it feel fresh, delightful and satisfying is no small feat but Branagh does it with engaging actors, charming sets, captivating scenery and gorgeous costumes.
Lily James, recently of Downton Abbey, plays the heroine with sweet, innocent strength. Showered with love by her parents, played by Ben Chaplin and Hayley Atwell, Ella knows nothing about discontent or malice. Even after she loses her mother, and even after her father brings home an uncaring stepmother and disdainful stepsisters, Ella remains faithful to her mother’s dying wish for her daughter to “Have courage. Be Kind.”
Everyone knows how Ella became Cinderella and we all know just how badly she’s treated by her stepmother and stepsisters. Cate Blanchett is wickedly magnificent as the stepmother and Sophie McShera and Holliday Grainger bring new meaning to gaudy and garish.
I have to admit I’m a sucker for any fairytale that involves grand, sweeping ballroom scenes like Beauty and the Beast, Enchanted and now Cinderella. Of course, the scene could not have been possible without the help of a Fairy Godmother. Helena Bonham Carter is simply delightful in her role as Cinderella’s Fairy Godmother. The special effects used to give Cinderella a stunning gown as well as a horse-drawn carriage and driver and footmen were flawless
We also know how the story ends, but that didn’t stop the audience from sighing, holding its collective breath, and cheering when the prince, played handsomely by Richard Madden, finds the maiden whose foot fits perfectly in the glass slipper.
Days after our screener, my husband and I were still discussing the movie, that’s how much we enjoyed it. And when you can get your husband to easily agree to watch it again when it’s released, you know it’s a great movie.
Cinderella is Disney’s latest live-action translation of a classic animated film and under Kenneth Branagh’s deft direction it is simply wonderful. Retelling a beloved fairytale and making it feel fresh, delightful and satisfying is no small feat but Branagh does it with engaging actors, charming sets, captivating scenery and gorgeous costumes.
Lily James, recently of Downton Abbey, plays the heroine with sweet, innocent strength. Showered with love by her parents, played by Ben Chaplin and Hayley Atwell, Ella knows nothing about discontent or malice. Even after she loses her mother, and even after her father brings home an uncaring stepmother and disdainful stepsisters, Ella remains faithful to her mother’s dying wish for her daughter to “Have courage. Be Kind.”
Everyone knows how Ella became Cinderella and we all know just how badly she’s treated by her stepmother and stepsisters. Cate Blanchett is wickedly magnificent as the stepmother and Sophie McShera and Holliday Grainger bring new meaning to gaudy and garish.
I have to admit I’m a sucker for any fairytale that involves grand, sweeping ballroom scenes like Beauty and the Beast, Enchanted and now Cinderella. Of course, the scene could not have been possible without the help of a Fairy Godmother. Helena Bonham Carter is simply delightful in her role as Cinderella’s Fairy Godmother. The special effects used to give Cinderella a stunning gown as well as a horse-drawn carriage and driver and footmen were flawless
We also know how the story ends, but that didn’t stop the audience from sighing, holding its collective breath, and cheering when the prince, played handsomely by Richard Madden, finds the maiden whose foot fits perfectly in the glass slipper.
Days after our screener, my husband and I were still discussing the movie, that’s how much we enjoyed it. And when you can get your husband to easily agree to watch it again when it’s released, you know it’s a great movie.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Pride and Prejudice and Zombies (2016) in Movies
Jan 30, 2020 (Updated Jan 30, 2020)
Pride and Prejudice. Zombies. That's it pretty much!
The book was released a fair while back now, and it's a shame that a film adaption took so long to materialise - by 2016, countless 'quirky' zombie movies in a similar vain had saturated the market, and what we're presented with is a film that tries reasonably hard to be something 'out there' but ultimately feels uninspired.
The main issue I found with PPZ was the actual zombie side of things! The zombies themselves looked great, the make up used is gruesome and effective, but the scenes of horror are seldom, and just quite boring. The final act sees a massive horde introduced into the narrative, but said horde probably gets less than two minutes screen time.
The actual Pride and Prejudice side of things felt way more fun.
The cast is pretty strong, even if a few of the characters are insufferable. Lily James is a great lead as Elizabeth Bennet. Her and her sisters make for a strong band of kick-ass zombie slayers. Sam Riley as Mr. Darcy took a (really) long time to win me over, but I actually ended up enjoying him as well.
Lena Headey is entertaining as a badass eyepatched version of Lady Catherine, and it's clear in moments like this that PPZ is just a bit of fun horror comedy fluff that shouldn't be taken too seriously.
The undisputed highlight of the cast is Matt Smith though. His comedic timing is on point and got a few genuine laughs out of me.
Another thing I found frustrating is the story that we weren't being told...the film opens with an animated story book style flashback of how the zombie apocalypse came to be, and what happened in the ensuing chaos. Even the soothing tones of Charles Dance can't distract me from the fact that this exposition dump sounds like a far more interesting story!
Couple that with the fact that we only get glimpses in the distance of a zombie infested flaming London completely surrounded by a massive concrete wall, and you can't help but feel that the film is a bit of a missed opportunity.
Oh well - here's hoping we get a Sense and Sensibility and Sea Monsters adaption somewhere down the line!
The book was released a fair while back now, and it's a shame that a film adaption took so long to materialise - by 2016, countless 'quirky' zombie movies in a similar vain had saturated the market, and what we're presented with is a film that tries reasonably hard to be something 'out there' but ultimately feels uninspired.
The main issue I found with PPZ was the actual zombie side of things! The zombies themselves looked great, the make up used is gruesome and effective, but the scenes of horror are seldom, and just quite boring. The final act sees a massive horde introduced into the narrative, but said horde probably gets less than two minutes screen time.
The actual Pride and Prejudice side of things felt way more fun.
The cast is pretty strong, even if a few of the characters are insufferable. Lily James is a great lead as Elizabeth Bennet. Her and her sisters make for a strong band of kick-ass zombie slayers. Sam Riley as Mr. Darcy took a (really) long time to win me over, but I actually ended up enjoying him as well.
Lena Headey is entertaining as a badass eyepatched version of Lady Catherine, and it's clear in moments like this that PPZ is just a bit of fun horror comedy fluff that shouldn't be taken too seriously.
The undisputed highlight of the cast is Matt Smith though. His comedic timing is on point and got a few genuine laughs out of me.
Another thing I found frustrating is the story that we weren't being told...the film opens with an animated story book style flashback of how the zombie apocalypse came to be, and what happened in the ensuing chaos. Even the soothing tones of Charles Dance can't distract me from the fact that this exposition dump sounds like a far more interesting story!
Couple that with the fact that we only get glimpses in the distance of a zombie infested flaming London completely surrounded by a massive concrete wall, and you can't help but feel that the film is a bit of a missed opportunity.
Oh well - here's hoping we get a Sense and Sensibility and Sea Monsters adaption somewhere down the line!
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Baby Driver (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
After falling into debt with a crime boss, Baby (Ansel Elgort), must pay back what he owes by being the getaway driver for brazen daytime heists. The crime boss, Doc (Kevin Spacey), promises Baby that once the next job is done he will be debt free. Baby does the job and heads home feeling finally free and ready to start doing good things with his life. He meets a beautiful waitress, Debora (Lily James), and plans to drive across the country with her. It may be too good to be true. He soon learns that being debt free may not mean that he gets to walk away from the life of crime. Being an exceptional driver has made him indispensable to Doc. Now Baby has a choice between walking away, which Doc has promised to hurt him and those he cares about if he does, or do one more job, and hope he find a way out of the criminal world and onto the road with Debora.
Writer/Director Edgar Wright (Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz) does a masterful job of drawing the audience into the story with the soundtrack in a really fun and original way. From the chase scenes to the mundane task of getting coffee, the music immerses the viewer into Baby’s world. The film starts out with an exciting car chase sequence and keeps moving all the way to the end. All of the chase/driving scenes are really well done, which was expected for a movie with driver in the name, but impressive none the less. The pace of the film was consistent and it flowed all the way to the end. Kevin Spacey, Jamie Foxx, John Hamm, Eliza Gonzalez and the rest of the supporting cast did really well and all brought interesting characters to the film.
I loved the originality of the story and how it was executed. This is definitely a soundtrack I will have to listen to again. There were couple loose ends with some of the characters that didn’t get tied up but that was minimal. It is a fun ride and has a little bit of something for everyone. There is a love story, action, a compelling story, and a mixed in comedy that lightens the mood.
Writer/Director Edgar Wright (Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz) does a masterful job of drawing the audience into the story with the soundtrack in a really fun and original way. From the chase scenes to the mundane task of getting coffee, the music immerses the viewer into Baby’s world. The film starts out with an exciting car chase sequence and keeps moving all the way to the end. All of the chase/driving scenes are really well done, which was expected for a movie with driver in the name, but impressive none the less. The pace of the film was consistent and it flowed all the way to the end. Kevin Spacey, Jamie Foxx, John Hamm, Eliza Gonzalez and the rest of the supporting cast did really well and all brought interesting characters to the film.
I loved the originality of the story and how it was executed. This is definitely a soundtrack I will have to listen to again. There were couple loose ends with some of the characters that didn’t get tied up but that was minimal. It is a fun ride and has a little bit of something for everyone. There is a love story, action, a compelling story, and a mixed in comedy that lightens the mood.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Cinderella (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Sickly Sweet
Taking a look through Disney’s back catalogue of animation is like a lesson in film history. From Snow White to Bambi and The Lion King to The Princess & the Frog, there’s something in there for everyone to enjoy.
However, the studio has in recent times, taken to reimagining its classics as live-action adaptations with last year’s Maleficent starting a generation that will include Beauty & the Beast and a Tim Burton directed Dumbo. The latest offering is Cinderella, but does it hold a candle to its animated counterpart?
The plot of Cinderella needs no introduction, the classic tale of rags to riches and love conquering all doesn’t need an update and director Kenneth Branagh (Thor, Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit) is just the man for the job.
Following the story of young Ella as she comes to terms with the loss of her parents and the arrival of her overbearing step-cinderella_poster_a_psisters and step-mother, Cinderella is a wonderfully acted and beautifully realised film that borders on a little syrupy at times.
Downton Abbey’s Lily James takes on the title role with a brilliant Cate Blanchett giving her all as Ella’s wicked step-mother. Helena Bonham Carter also stars as Ella’s fairy godmother and brings her usual brand of crazy to the character.
What sets this adaptation apart from Angelina Jolie’s Maleficent is its stunning visuals. Where Maleficent was beautiful in its own way and suited the film’s dark tone, here Kenneth Branagh throws every colour on the spectrum at the screen in breath-taking fashion.
The outfits are to die for and the locations are an explosion of bright colours and textures that are juxtaposed exceptionally with the dark, damp quarters our princess is confined to.
Elsewhere, the performances are, on the whole, sublime. James is good in the titular role but the plodding script lets her down. She comes across, as awful as this sounds, a little idiotic and lacks the charming spirit of her animated counterpart. The same can be said for her prince, played by Richard Madden – though this could be down to the story rushing their love somewhat.
By far the standout is Cate Blanchett, who is truly mesmerising as stepmother Lady Tremaine. Her brash and ridiculously over-the-top performance suits the pantomime feel of the production down to the ground. Unfortunately, her evil is heavily restrained by the film’s U certification, even more so when compared alongside the 1950 film.
Nevertheless, the visuals are simply stunning. Everything from the palace to Ella’s iconic ball gown and all of it in between is nearly flawless with only a few lapses in cartoonish CGI letting things down – though this can be forgiven with the film’s pantomime-esque nature.
Overall, this live-action reimagining of the 1950s classic musical does not in any way attempt to better its predecessor. Instead it wishes to sit alongside it as the studio tries to pave the way for a whole new generation of children to fall in love with Disney’s princesses once again.
Only a few lapses in CGI, a plodding script and a sickly sweet tone stop it from being enjoyable for everyone in the family, instead of just the kids.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/03/31/sickly-sweet-cinderella-review/
However, the studio has in recent times, taken to reimagining its classics as live-action adaptations with last year’s Maleficent starting a generation that will include Beauty & the Beast and a Tim Burton directed Dumbo. The latest offering is Cinderella, but does it hold a candle to its animated counterpart?
The plot of Cinderella needs no introduction, the classic tale of rags to riches and love conquering all doesn’t need an update and director Kenneth Branagh (Thor, Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit) is just the man for the job.
Following the story of young Ella as she comes to terms with the loss of her parents and the arrival of her overbearing step-cinderella_poster_a_psisters and step-mother, Cinderella is a wonderfully acted and beautifully realised film that borders on a little syrupy at times.
Downton Abbey’s Lily James takes on the title role with a brilliant Cate Blanchett giving her all as Ella’s wicked step-mother. Helena Bonham Carter also stars as Ella’s fairy godmother and brings her usual brand of crazy to the character.
What sets this adaptation apart from Angelina Jolie’s Maleficent is its stunning visuals. Where Maleficent was beautiful in its own way and suited the film’s dark tone, here Kenneth Branagh throws every colour on the spectrum at the screen in breath-taking fashion.
The outfits are to die for and the locations are an explosion of bright colours and textures that are juxtaposed exceptionally with the dark, damp quarters our princess is confined to.
Elsewhere, the performances are, on the whole, sublime. James is good in the titular role but the plodding script lets her down. She comes across, as awful as this sounds, a little idiotic and lacks the charming spirit of her animated counterpart. The same can be said for her prince, played by Richard Madden – though this could be down to the story rushing their love somewhat.
By far the standout is Cate Blanchett, who is truly mesmerising as stepmother Lady Tremaine. Her brash and ridiculously over-the-top performance suits the pantomime feel of the production down to the ground. Unfortunately, her evil is heavily restrained by the film’s U certification, even more so when compared alongside the 1950 film.
Nevertheless, the visuals are simply stunning. Everything from the palace to Ella’s iconic ball gown and all of it in between is nearly flawless with only a few lapses in cartoonish CGI letting things down – though this can be forgiven with the film’s pantomime-esque nature.
Overall, this live-action reimagining of the 1950s classic musical does not in any way attempt to better its predecessor. Instead it wishes to sit alongside it as the studio tries to pave the way for a whole new generation of children to fall in love with Disney’s princesses once again.
Only a few lapses in CGI, a plodding script and a sickly sweet tone stop it from being enjoyable for everyone in the family, instead of just the kids.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/03/31/sickly-sweet-cinderella-review/
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Darkest Hour (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
As the Nazi’s sweep through Europe at the beginning of World War II the British face the difficult issue of replacing their Prime Minister. The people and members of Parliament have become disenchanted with Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain (Ronald Pickup). They feel his lack of action lead to the rise of Hitler and the Nazis. He agrees to step down and has to name a replacement. While he would prefer to have his protégé, Foreign Secretary Viscount Halifax (Stephen Dillane), there is only one member of his party that all of Parliament will accept, Winston Churchill (Gary Oldman). King George VI (Ben Mendelsohn) is also opposed to the brash and opinionated Churchill. Bowing to the will of the opposition Churchill the King agrees to appoint him the next Prime Minister. Although he is thrilled at finally achieving his lifelong dream he has no delusions that he is facing extremely difficult times ahead. The Nazis are tearing through Europe. They have already taken Belgium and Holland they now are invading France. The Nazis have also managed to surround nearly the entire British ground force on the French beaches with no way home. Not only does he have to worry about foreign foes but also his numerous political enemies in his own party. Many oppose his brash and unpredictable nature, while others think of him as heavy drinker that is no more than an exceptional orator with little capacity to make hard decisions. He must overcome all of this to protect the English people and prepare them for the tough days ahead.
Winston Churchill is a very well know historically figure. He was known for his powerful speeches and bigger than life personality. This film takes a look at the early days of him being Prime Minister, during some of the most volatile days in the history of Europe. Not only does the story delve into the politics and struggles of Churchill to put forth his agenda in a hostile climate but also shows him at his most vulnerable. One example is after delivering his first radio address to the nation he walks home alone and to talk with and be reassured by his wife, Clementine Churchill (Kristin Scott Thomas), that his speech was good and people could hear him.
Gary Oldman is spectacular in his role as Chruchill. From the iconic speeches to the light moments with his family and personal secretary, Elizabeth Layton (Lily James), he puts forth a great performance. The supporting cast is great as well, highlighted by Mendelsohn, Scott Thomas and James. The flow of the film really worked, under direction of Joe Wright (Atonement, The Soloist, and Pan). The two hour and five minute run time felt shorter and the movie really moved along. There were some points that they showed some battle scenes, after all it is a World War II era film, which did feel like afterthoughts and didn’t really add anything to the movie. The tension of the moment was well done even without these scenes. Besides those scenes the movie was shot well and added to the overall feel of the movie.
This film will appeal to those who are fans of history, the World War II era specifically, and historical figures. It also is powerful and heartfelt. Really the performances of the cast are what really stuck with me and will be the reason that I watch it again.
Winston Churchill is a very well know historically figure. He was known for his powerful speeches and bigger than life personality. This film takes a look at the early days of him being Prime Minister, during some of the most volatile days in the history of Europe. Not only does the story delve into the politics and struggles of Churchill to put forth his agenda in a hostile climate but also shows him at his most vulnerable. One example is after delivering his first radio address to the nation he walks home alone and to talk with and be reassured by his wife, Clementine Churchill (Kristin Scott Thomas), that his speech was good and people could hear him.
Gary Oldman is spectacular in his role as Chruchill. From the iconic speeches to the light moments with his family and personal secretary, Elizabeth Layton (Lily James), he puts forth a great performance. The supporting cast is great as well, highlighted by Mendelsohn, Scott Thomas and James. The flow of the film really worked, under direction of Joe Wright (Atonement, The Soloist, and Pan). The two hour and five minute run time felt shorter and the movie really moved along. There were some points that they showed some battle scenes, after all it is a World War II era film, which did feel like afterthoughts and didn’t really add anything to the movie. The tension of the moment was well done even without these scenes. Besides those scenes the movie was shot well and added to the overall feel of the movie.
This film will appeal to those who are fans of history, the World War II era specifically, and historical figures. It also is powerful and heartfelt. Really the performances of the cast are what really stuck with me and will be the reason that I watch it again.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Split (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“We are what we believe we are”.
M. Night Shyamalan fizzed into movie consciousness in 1999 with “The Sixth Sense” which – having rewatched it again recently – still has the power to unnerve and impress even after knowing the famous ‘twist’. Since that film and his next, “Unbreakable” in 2000, Shyamalan has ‘done a bit of an Orson Welles’ by never really living up to that early promise. Here with “Split” he returns to better form with a psychological thriller that is heavy on the psycho.
James McAvoy plays Kevin… and Dennis, and Patricia, and Hedwig, and Barry, and Orwell, and Jade, and… if the running time permitted… another 17 characters. But this is no “Kind Hearts and Coronets”: McAvoy plays all these varied personalities in the same body. For Kevin suffers from Multiple Personality Disorder, a rare condition where his different schisms not only affect his speech and attitude but also his whole physique. One personality for example is diabetic and needs insulin: all his others are fine.
Under the care of MPD specialist Dr Karen Fletcher (Betty Buckley, “Carrie”), Kevin seems to be making good progress. But all is not as it seems. Dennis, one of the more evil of Kevin’s personalities, has kidnapped three teens – Claire (Haley Lu Richardson), Marcia (Jessica Sula) and Casey (Anya Taylor-Joy) – and is holding them captive in his home.
It’s all going so well. Kevin (James McAvoy) getting much needed treatment from Dr Fletcher (Betty Buckley).
While Claire and Marcia are good friends, Casey is the wild-card in the pack: a moody and aloof teen that doesn’t fit in with the crowd. We see the abduction unfold largely through her intelligent and analytical eyes, with her experiences causing flashbacks to hunting trips in the woods as a five-year-old child with her father and uncle.
This is McAvoy’s film, with his different personalities being very well observed and the scenes where he switches from one to the other being particularly impressive as piece of acting. Of the youngsters, Anya Taylor-Joy is the most impressive, with the denouement of her particular sub-plot being my favourite part of the film.
Shyamalan, who also wrote the script, is treading a well worn cinematic path here (since often the MPD element is the surprise twist, to list any films here inevitably risks major spoilers – – but there is a decent list here). But this is a film that seems to have generated a lot of interest, particularly with a younger audience (I have seldom been quizzed more with the “Ooh, have you seen this yet” question). As a result this may be a modest sleeper hit.
Girl pray or Girl prey? Casey deep in the psycho’s lair.
Where I think the movie missteps is in its casting of the three cute and scantily dressed teens as the abductees. From the plot of the film that emerges this appears to be unnecessary and exploitative, especially since they are made to progressively dis-robe as the film progresses. The film would actually have been made more interesting if a family unit, or at least a mixed variety of individuals, had been taken.
Marcia (Jessica Sula) doesn’t necessarily appreciate the floral gift.
Unfortunately Shyamalan also over-gilds the lily for the finale by going from medical improbability into outright science fiction: and dilutes what was up to that point a stylish thriller. As a result it’s a decent popcorn film, and worth seeing for McAvoy’s clever performance, but its not going to go down in my book as a classic.
Watch out by the way for a nice final cameo scene: a clever reference to past glories.
James McAvoy plays Kevin… and Dennis, and Patricia, and Hedwig, and Barry, and Orwell, and Jade, and… if the running time permitted… another 17 characters. But this is no “Kind Hearts and Coronets”: McAvoy plays all these varied personalities in the same body. For Kevin suffers from Multiple Personality Disorder, a rare condition where his different schisms not only affect his speech and attitude but also his whole physique. One personality for example is diabetic and needs insulin: all his others are fine.
Under the care of MPD specialist Dr Karen Fletcher (Betty Buckley, “Carrie”), Kevin seems to be making good progress. But all is not as it seems. Dennis, one of the more evil of Kevin’s personalities, has kidnapped three teens – Claire (Haley Lu Richardson), Marcia (Jessica Sula) and Casey (Anya Taylor-Joy) – and is holding them captive in his home.
It’s all going so well. Kevin (James McAvoy) getting much needed treatment from Dr Fletcher (Betty Buckley).
While Claire and Marcia are good friends, Casey is the wild-card in the pack: a moody and aloof teen that doesn’t fit in with the crowd. We see the abduction unfold largely through her intelligent and analytical eyes, with her experiences causing flashbacks to hunting trips in the woods as a five-year-old child with her father and uncle.
This is McAvoy’s film, with his different personalities being very well observed and the scenes where he switches from one to the other being particularly impressive as piece of acting. Of the youngsters, Anya Taylor-Joy is the most impressive, with the denouement of her particular sub-plot being my favourite part of the film.
Shyamalan, who also wrote the script, is treading a well worn cinematic path here (since often the MPD element is the surprise twist, to list any films here inevitably risks major spoilers – – but there is a decent list here). But this is a film that seems to have generated a lot of interest, particularly with a younger audience (I have seldom been quizzed more with the “Ooh, have you seen this yet” question). As a result this may be a modest sleeper hit.
Girl pray or Girl prey? Casey deep in the psycho’s lair.
Where I think the movie missteps is in its casting of the three cute and scantily dressed teens as the abductees. From the plot of the film that emerges this appears to be unnecessary and exploitative, especially since they are made to progressively dis-robe as the film progresses. The film would actually have been made more interesting if a family unit, or at least a mixed variety of individuals, had been taken.
Marcia (Jessica Sula) doesn’t necessarily appreciate the floral gift.
Unfortunately Shyamalan also over-gilds the lily for the finale by going from medical improbability into outright science fiction: and dilutes what was up to that point a stylish thriller. As a result it’s a decent popcorn film, and worth seeing for McAvoy’s clever performance, but its not going to go down in my book as a classic.
Watch out by the way for a nice final cameo scene: a clever reference to past glories.
Dianne Robbins (1738 KP) rated Mamma Mia: Here We Go Again! (2018) in Movies
Apr 24, 2019
Seeing Donna's backstories with her lovers. (1 more)
Nice to see most of the cast together again.
Literally everything else (8 more)
The same dramatic hairstyles on two principal female characters for over twenty years, really? Talk about suspension of belief.
Lifeless.
No real heart to it.
Meryl Streep is in it for mere seconds.
Relationships between the characters. Disjointed and disconnected.
Not the best ABBA songs.
The Kissed the Teacher sequence. I mean, wth was that about?
Not much singing or a reason to sing.
Joyless
Contains spoilers, click to show
I loved the first one and have been known to watch the DVD or listen to the CD on a continuous loop for upwards of 12 hours. I'm not kidding. I adore Meryl Streep and everything she touches is gold. Except for this movie. Omg, it is so bad. It lost all the joy the first film had. Why?! Why did they have to destroy this movie so badly?
Spoiler alert: Donna, Meryl Streep's joyous character is dead at the start of this film. Her story is told through flashbacks with Lily James of Downton Abbey starring as recent college-grad, Donna, and her adventures in the Greek Isles as she meets each of the three men who may be her daughter, Sophie's father. Donna flits around as the bohemian she is but the character is too flighty to be believed and she certainly doesn't flesh out Meryl Streep's version of Donna. It seems pointless for her to even have tried.
The cast is very dated and stagnant, in reverse, as they are shown as their younger selves exactly as they are 20 or 30 years later, even down to the same clothing and hairstyles. It's ridiculous to think these fashionable women would never update their looks over the years or that their personalities and mannerisms had not changed either. Are they living in a vacuum? They're all just so one-note. Maybe the creators did it because they thought the movie would be easier to understand or figure out which character was whom, but it's just not realistic. I'll admit, dramas are my favorite genre and this is meant as much lighter fare but I wish they would have expected the audience to have half a brain and be able to figure out the younger cast and the elder versions of them. It felt dumbed down.
The modern plotline is morose, joyless, and lifeless, and missed all the heart, humor, and passion of the first.
And Cher's character, why bother? She didn't bring anything to the role other than her real-life celebrity.
I regret buying this DVD and even more so, wasting 2 hours of my life watching this dull, spoon-fed money grab.
Spoiler alert: Donna, Meryl Streep's joyous character is dead at the start of this film. Her story is told through flashbacks with Lily James of Downton Abbey starring as recent college-grad, Donna, and her adventures in the Greek Isles as she meets each of the three men who may be her daughter, Sophie's father. Donna flits around as the bohemian she is but the character is too flighty to be believed and she certainly doesn't flesh out Meryl Streep's version of Donna. It seems pointless for her to even have tried.
The cast is very dated and stagnant, in reverse, as they are shown as their younger selves exactly as they are 20 or 30 years later, even down to the same clothing and hairstyles. It's ridiculous to think these fashionable women would never update their looks over the years or that their personalities and mannerisms had not changed either. Are they living in a vacuum? They're all just so one-note. Maybe the creators did it because they thought the movie would be easier to understand or figure out which character was whom, but it's just not realistic. I'll admit, dramas are my favorite genre and this is meant as much lighter fare but I wish they would have expected the audience to have half a brain and be able to figure out the younger cast and the elder versions of them. It felt dumbed down.
The modern plotline is morose, joyless, and lifeless, and missed all the heart, humor, and passion of the first.
And Cher's character, why bother? She didn't bring anything to the role other than her real-life celebrity.
I regret buying this DVD and even more so, wasting 2 hours of my life watching this dull, spoon-fed money grab.
Mark Jaye (65 KP) rated The Conjuring (2013) in Movies
May 13, 2019
The Conjuring Review
Contains spoilers, click to show
Originally wrote in 2013:
As an avid fan of horror I look for a few little things which if aren't apparent within the first minute decide on whether I'm going to bother with the rest of the film. Usually the company releasing the movie is a good starting point, reputable/recognised director or producer, recognisable actor/s, good production values - that sort of thing. I've seen some hum-dingers over the years - those films where Johnny Nobody has gathered several of his buddies together with a cheap camcorder or two and filmed some alleged zombie epic in the woods at the back of their school.
**The Conjuring is not one of those**
I like to think I have a strong disposition when it comes to scares - usually it takes a lot to make me squint. Examples that come to mind are 'Sinister', 'The Grudge', the end of 'The Ring' (you know, the scary dark haired girl climbing out of the TV!). The Conjuring is one of those - I watched this in the middle of the morning and found it pretty scary in places.
James Wan certainly knows how to make a movie of this type and is great at evoking atmosphere and notching up the scares as the film develops. In a nutshell, this is the alleged real life story of the Perron family who in 1971 moved into a new farmhouse. It isn't long before the usual shenanigans begin - pictures pulled off walls, doors knocking in the dead of night, the children befriending mysterious 'imaginary' kids (who we all know watching are going to show up at some point). The film sticks to the tried and tested story - gradual possession of one of the adults (Lily Taylor), gradually increasing appearances by ghostly figures, calling in the ghostbusters, gathering the proof, then the exorcism. It may be join the dots territory but it works.
Patrick Wilson shines and seems to be making his mark in films of this nature (Insidious and Insidious Chapter 2) - he portrays real life paranormal investigator Ed Warren who with his wife Lorraine (played just as well by Vera Farmiga) become immersed in the life of the Perron's making themselves targets of the supernatural force at work in the process.
The demonic spirit at work is that of a witch who was married to the guy who built the house back in the 1800's who cursed the land before committing suicide after murdering their child whilst a few days old. There is one particularly pant browning scene where the witch makes her first appearance atop a bedroom wardrobe....and I'll leave it there!
Quality. Best horror I've seen since Sinister.
As an avid fan of horror I look for a few little things which if aren't apparent within the first minute decide on whether I'm going to bother with the rest of the film. Usually the company releasing the movie is a good starting point, reputable/recognised director or producer, recognisable actor/s, good production values - that sort of thing. I've seen some hum-dingers over the years - those films where Johnny Nobody has gathered several of his buddies together with a cheap camcorder or two and filmed some alleged zombie epic in the woods at the back of their school.
**The Conjuring is not one of those**
I like to think I have a strong disposition when it comes to scares - usually it takes a lot to make me squint. Examples that come to mind are 'Sinister', 'The Grudge', the end of 'The Ring' (you know, the scary dark haired girl climbing out of the TV!). The Conjuring is one of those - I watched this in the middle of the morning and found it pretty scary in places.
James Wan certainly knows how to make a movie of this type and is great at evoking atmosphere and notching up the scares as the film develops. In a nutshell, this is the alleged real life story of the Perron family who in 1971 moved into a new farmhouse. It isn't long before the usual shenanigans begin - pictures pulled off walls, doors knocking in the dead of night, the children befriending mysterious 'imaginary' kids (who we all know watching are going to show up at some point). The film sticks to the tried and tested story - gradual possession of one of the adults (Lily Taylor), gradually increasing appearances by ghostly figures, calling in the ghostbusters, gathering the proof, then the exorcism. It may be join the dots territory but it works.
Patrick Wilson shines and seems to be making his mark in films of this nature (Insidious and Insidious Chapter 2) - he portrays real life paranormal investigator Ed Warren who with his wife Lorraine (played just as well by Vera Farmiga) become immersed in the life of the Perron's making themselves targets of the supernatural force at work in the process.
The demonic spirit at work is that of a witch who was married to the guy who built the house back in the 1800's who cursed the land before committing suicide after murdering their child whilst a few days old. There is one particularly pant browning scene where the witch makes her first appearance atop a bedroom wardrobe....and I'll leave it there!
Quality. Best horror I've seen since Sinister.
James P. Sumner (65 KP) rated Yesterday (2019) in Movies
Jul 18, 2019
The best British film in years!
Despite not really being a fan of The Beatles or their music, when I first saw the trailer for this at the start of the year, I was genuinely intrigued by the concept. An aspiring musician (and huge Beatles fan) is hit by a bus during an inexplicable global blackout, only to wake up to a world in which The Beatles seemingly never existed. As the only one who remembers their songs, he releases them as his own and conquers the music world.
The trailer did a good job of letting you know what to expect without giving too much away, believe it or not. There are a few twists and turns along the way, which were a nice surprise. Ultimately, this IS a British rom-com underneath it all, and the final third is as predictable as every other film in the genre.
Yet this film oozes charm and whimsicality, and sets itself apart from everything that's come before it. Say what you want about Love Actually, but for me, that was the last British film to really make a splash on this level - which was 16 years ago!
The script is amazing. No scene feels unnecessary. No dialogue feels pointless. Richard Curtis, yet again, proves he's a true master of his craft. The lead roles are perfectly cast. Lily James, in particular, puts in another great performance, showing she's worthy of more heavyweight roles (although she's definitely found her niche in this type of film).
What I really loved about this film was how thought-provoking it was. Relative newcomer, Himesh Patel's portrayal of Jack Malek is spot-on, playing with your own emotions and morals, forcing you to ask yourself if you could remain as grounded and humble as he did if something like this happened to you. Despite being over the top at times, it all felt surprisingly real. I can imagine this is exactly how it would play out if something like this were to happen to someone - the media frenzy, the explosion of popularity online, the whirlwind of life-changing moments...
The film is about big moments in your life, and what you choose to do with them when they happen. It's about chasing your dreams and what you would do if you caught them. It's about how to follow your heart when it wants two things at once. I left the cinema smiling, but also genuinely thinking about my entire outlook on life.
Danny Boyle has done an excellent job with this film, and it deserves to go down as one of the best British films in recent years. Whether you're a fan of the music or not, this should not be missed. Near perfect!
The trailer did a good job of letting you know what to expect without giving too much away, believe it or not. There are a few twists and turns along the way, which were a nice surprise. Ultimately, this IS a British rom-com underneath it all, and the final third is as predictable as every other film in the genre.
Yet this film oozes charm and whimsicality, and sets itself apart from everything that's come before it. Say what you want about Love Actually, but for me, that was the last British film to really make a splash on this level - which was 16 years ago!
The script is amazing. No scene feels unnecessary. No dialogue feels pointless. Richard Curtis, yet again, proves he's a true master of his craft. The lead roles are perfectly cast. Lily James, in particular, puts in another great performance, showing she's worthy of more heavyweight roles (although she's definitely found her niche in this type of film).
What I really loved about this film was how thought-provoking it was. Relative newcomer, Himesh Patel's portrayal of Jack Malek is spot-on, playing with your own emotions and morals, forcing you to ask yourself if you could remain as grounded and humble as he did if something like this happened to you. Despite being over the top at times, it all felt surprisingly real. I can imagine this is exactly how it would play out if something like this were to happen to someone - the media frenzy, the explosion of popularity online, the whirlwind of life-changing moments...
The film is about big moments in your life, and what you choose to do with them when they happen. It's about chasing your dreams and what you would do if you caught them. It's about how to follow your heart when it wants two things at once. I left the cinema smiling, but also genuinely thinking about my entire outlook on life.
Danny Boyle has done an excellent job with this film, and it deserves to go down as one of the best British films in recent years. Whether you're a fan of the music or not, this should not be missed. Near perfect!