Search

Search only in certain items:

40x40

TheDefunctDiva (304 KP) rated Bohemian Rhapsody (2018) in Movies

Feb 17, 2019 (Updated Feb 17, 2019)  
Bohemian Rhapsody (2018)
Bohemian Rhapsody (2018)
2018 | Biography, Drama, Music
Malek. Costuming. Crowd Scenes (0 more)
The writing. The length. The late Mercury...some things should last forever (0 more)
I want it all. I want it all. I want it all. And I want it now
Contains spoilers, click to show
“I want it all. I want it all. I want it all. And I want it now.”
“I Want It All,” Queen, The Miracle, 1989

I am hating having to write this review though I feel compelled to do so. I bought this movie knowing I would like it. I didn’t have much money left in my checking account, but I thought, yes, this would be worth what little I had left to spend. I gifted it to my kiddo for Valentine’s Day knowing she would surely love it, too.

I didn’t love it. I didn’t even really like it.

I haven’t made a mistake this bad since the much-renowned Lost in Translation. Why the ire? Because Bohemian Rhapsody taught me some things, but not enough. Not what I wanted to know. I wanted to learn more than what a rudimentary Google search would have taught me about the band. Instead, I obtained only basic information about the band’s success. I think to really do the band justice you would need a series. Maybe that is my problem. The film had too much general information crammed into it, and I needed MORE, PEOPLE.

I should have liked this film because it revolved around Queen’s music. The best thing about this film is the soundtrack. I think contemplating some of Queen’s lyrics throughout would have really enhanced the film, though. They talked about the poetry but didn’t examine it. And I was disappointed.

Malek’s Mercury just didn’t do it for me though I admire his dedication to the craft. I do think he did an excellent job, but there was something missing that I can’t put my finger on. It felt very much like pretending. And I can’t even adequately explain why. I did love the costuming though. Especially the hair. The transformation of Mercury from boy to man was impressive. It made me want to grow a mustache.

The supporting characters were stereotypical. The supporting cast members might have been cardboard cutouts for all of the attachment I felt to them. The film also didn’t undertake the concept of what it meant to be LGBT in that era. Therefore, it didn’t fully explore the ramifications of the risks that Mercury was taking both professionally and personally. Conflicts just didn’t resonate with the high drama I felt they should have especially considering the in-your-face elements of Mercury’s personality. The passion just wasn’t there. And a real miracle would have been adequately examining the collaboration between the musicians.

I also felt the film was generally stilted by the writing, which seemed comprised of the most overused clichés in the English language.

Bohemian Rhapsody didn’t delve into the AIDS crisis deep enough to evoke much of an emotional response in me. I appreciate that Freddie Mercury didn’t want his life to be a “cautionary tale.” I get that. But the tragedy of his death seemed really downplayed to me for some reason. I wasn’t expecting the emotional response you would get from a film like Philadelphia. But something close would have been nice. Maybe I’ve seen too many films that focus on tragedy and expected to be weeping by the end of the film. Or the beginning of the film, or at any point during the film. But I was left feeling hollow.

The crowd scene from Live Aid and the Live Aid performance rightfully stole what remained of this show. The looks on the faces of the crowd. The expanse of the crowd. The scene reflected what it must have felt like to be a performer or a fan in such a large venue. Malek was awesome in this scene and deserves his due. It might be what earns him the Oscar.

I hate to say it, but I liked Mark Wahlberg and Rock Star (2001) better than I liked this movie. I just felt they could have done a better job with it. It didn’t live up to the hype.

And now I’ve touched upon the real issue. I could never get enough of this band, or of Mercury, and DAMNIT. The experience they provided fans around the world was just gone too soon.
And I just don’t feel the movie did the band or Mercury’s life justice.

I spent my Saturday listening to music in my car, wondering what a septuagenarian Mercury would have thought of today’s saturated music market. I imagine he would have been like my late father, fascinated by both the popular and the underground.

Ok, NOW I’m crying.

But touch my tears, with your lips
Touch my world, with your fingertips.
And we can have forever
And we can love forever
Forever is our today…

Queen, “Who Wants to Live Forever,” It’s Kind of Magic, 1986
  
40x40

Allison Anders recommended Monterey Pop (1968) in Movies (curated)

 
Monterey Pop (1968)
Monterey Pop (1968)
1968 |
(0 Ratings)
Movie Favorite

"Most people think that the concert at Altamont was the antithesis of Woodstock. But one of my students at UCSB recently commented that you could tell a lot about what went wrong at Altamont by watching what went right at Monterey. I couldn’t agree more . . . It’s fascinating to watch both of these films and compare what happened just a few years and less than a hundred miles apart. First off, Monterey Pop, which may be my favorite of all Criterion DVD packages. The booklet is printed on nature-rough hippy-grade paper stock that you would have first encountered on the streets of Haight-Ashbury, in the form of a free press or psychedelic poster on a telephone pole, and later on your thrift-store coffee table with a pile of pot about to be rolled next to it! Yes, it is this evocative! The DVD box set includes amazing outtake performances with Laura Nyro, Quicksilver Messenger Service, TINY TIM (!), and Buffalo Springfield . . . and another DVD, Jimi Plays Monterey and Shake! Otis at Monterey, contains the complete performances by Jimi Hendrix and Otis Redding (with commentary by the ever-enlightening Peter Guralnick, who knows the history of Memphis musicians better than anyone alive). The accompanying doc of a conversation between record producer Lou Adler and filmmaker D. A. Pennebaker is such a coup—not only do you hear how the concert came together and how it was organized during the entire event, but you also get to hear Lou Adler’s story. A lot of people don’t know (although smarty-pants me did) that Adler started his music career with Herb Alpert, as songwriting and producing partners . . . and he has awesome stories of Paul McCartney hanging out at Cass Elliot’s house in Laurel Canyon . . . There’s endless music-nerd gold like that! The color in the film is all that psychedelia had to offer—vibrant, otherworldly, and hyperreal. There’s an innocence throughout Monterey Pop that exceeds the “positive vibes” of Woodstock a few years later and that is of course completely nonexistent in Gimme Shelter. You can also see in Monterey Pop the cops in the crowd (who were replaced by Hells Angels at Altamont) and SEATING! My student pointed out there were folding chairs on the lawns at Monterey—very civilized. Now that wasn’t throughout the concert grounds, but it was more in the tradition of the Newport Folk Festival than the mayhem to follow in Altamont. Also like Newport, the performers were in the audience—they were not in some rarefied backstage area, cut off from the fans or their fellow performers—and you get to see the moment when Mama Cass Elliot in the audience has her mind blown by the powerful performance of young Janis Joplin. There’s a fabulous interview with Papa John Phillips, who cofounded the event with Adler, and a gorgeous photo exhibit by photographer Elaine Mayes. Gimme Shelter director Albert Maysles was one of seven cameramen on Monterey Pop. And I need to point out that you do see a few Hells Angels on the lawn toward the end of Monterey Pop. So the Angels already had a presence at large outdoor rock events that far back. I’ve talked to a lot of people who were at Altamont as performers, friends of bands, and audience members, and the consensus is that nothing in this film was manipulated in the least: the vibe was bad from the very start, and the filmmakers didn’t create that in the editing room. Interestingly, the film is shot much darker than the saturated colors in Monterey Pop—but then again colors were becoming less vibrant in pop culture and fashion at that time too. But interestingly—here you have some of the same players—you have Jefferson Airplane, who are almost humble on the Monterey Pop stage (despite the fact that Grace Slick shows off her powerful rock pipes at Monterey—she was the first true female rock singer and very underrated in my opinion), having to stop their set at Altamont when singer Marty Balin is dragged off the stage and beat up by the Hells Angels. The Grateful Dead play a soothing jam at Monterey and don’t even make it to the stage at Altamont. Chris Hillman with the Byrds plays an evening set to the Monterey audience, and in Gimme Shelter his band, the Flying Burrito Brothers, only get two songs done before the mayhem drives them off the stage at the Speedway. Watching Charlie Watts listening to the interviews with the promoter and with Hells Angel Sonny Barger makes Watts your favorite member of the band if he wasn’t already . . . His quiet devastation over the murder at his band’s concert is profound to witness (and you do feel as though you are let in on a very private event)."

Source
  
40x40

Marc Riley recommended Hex Enduction Hour by The Fall in Music (curated)

 
Hex Enduction Hour by The Fall
Hex Enduction Hour by The Fall
1982 | Punk
6.3 (3 Ratings)
Album Favorite

"I've read since that Hex Enduction Hour was going to be the last Fall album and that Mark was going to split the band up if it didn't work. The rest of us weren't aware of this. I guess it could have been like David Bowie splitting up the Spiders From Mars onstage at the Hammersmith Odeon, but obviously this proved not to be the case. I put this in here because it was the last Fall album that I did, and everything that we'd learned just came together. I was on Live At The Witch Trials, but that was a pop album. It sounds like a totally different group… well, it did have different musicians on it, I guess. Mark obviously wasn't clear on what he wanted The Fall to sound like at that point in time; Dragnet was just the sound of a load of kids who couldn't play being thrown in a studio and being excited and being in their favourite band but… [laughs] well, Dragnet is a mystery to me, that album… I remember recording it and the production… it never sounded the same twice. I realised that wasn't how we sounded live. It didn't sound like The Fall. It sounded amazing in its own way but it didn't sound like The Fall. It didn't capture what we were doing. But with Hex Enduction Hour, everything came together at that one point. We did some of it live in a cinema in Hitchin and some of it in a studio in Iceland that had lava walls. Apparently it's still talked about to this day, The Fall's stay in Iceland. No one went to Iceland then, The Stranglers had played there, Jaz Coleman ran off there to find the ley lines, but that was it. I think we first went there because we were invited by Einar from the Sugarcubes. He instigated it. It was so bleak there. There was no tourism. And the mentality of the Icelandic people was like that of The Fall, to be honest. It was a real case of us versus them. They were out on a limb. Iceland didn't integrate. It was a really strange community of people. They were really nice but otherworldly. That was my swansong really. I mean I'm on that Room To Live album as well, but I listen to Hex and I hear a glorious racket. I think that's when Mark really got to grips with what he wanted The Fall to sound like, and ironically you find out later that it was going to be the last Fall album. Mark's stream of consciousness really comes together, the way he makes words up like in the title, he really got a handle on where he wanted to take his own art. And with the band it was all because we'd been playing together for a long time. Steve Hanley couldn't play bass when we were together in [pre-Fall group] The Sirens, I taught him the root notes and I couldn't play guitar either… I still can't, if I'm honest. Steve found his feet and found his sound, so he became the engine room of The Fall. The sound of it is right, despite being recorded in these two totally different environments. I remember when I heard 'Hip Priest' on Silence Of The Lambs, because I was the only person left in the cinema when it came on… I tell a lie, it was just me and the wife. Jonathan Demme was a massive Fall fan. Yeah, it was peculiar that… but then again it's the music that a serial killer's playing in his house, so is it really that weird? Mark's given me grief over the years, but how can you take any of it to heart? Anything he says is water off a duck's back. He's a character… almost a cartoon character. I've got a massive soft spot for Mark and I'm a massive fan. Round the corner from here there used to be a venue called The Arches Bar and a mate of mine was having his birthday party in there in the mid-80s. I was upstairs, and my mate said Mark Smith's downstairs and he wants a pint with you. So I thought, right, well, we've both grown up since then, let's have a drink and put it all behind us. So I had a couple of pints with him, and we had a really good time together. I'd been listening to The Fall, he said – and he'll deny this – I've got your album and I'm keeping an eye on what you're doing and I think it's great. I mean we were both drunk, but by the end of it we were kind of mates again. Then about three months later they reissued a load of Fall albums on Cog Sinister, so I rang him up and said, 'Am I going to get paid for any of this?' And he said, 'No you're not!' [makes noise of phone being slammed down] So it was straight back to square one."

Source
  
Old (2021)
Old (2021)
2021 | Fantasy, Horror, Thriller
5
6.1 (12 Ratings)
Movie Rating
Having been out of the "coming soon" game for quite a while so this one came as a surprise when I saw the trailer. It looked good, but there's always that "what is Shyamalan going to do" feeling.

An idyllic resort, a glorious beach. What starts out to be a pleasant day trip turns into tragedy and horror as the guests start ageing at an accelerated rate. What's going on and why can't they seem to do anything about it?

I'm going to mix this up a bit from my usual reviews because it seems appropriate for this oddity of a film.

As a whole, the film probably has a place in the Lost extended universe (especially considering Miles' role in it). Mystery and generalised horror abound, and you're left for prolonged periods of time with more questions than answers. Let's cover the biggie though.

That whole ageing thing... it is in the trailer so I'm going to do my best not to be spoilery.

Let's face it... there's a massive inconsistency. I'm happy to go with the fact that kids will change more physically with age than the adults will initially... no problem with that bit. But the assembled people on the beach have been there for (more or less) two different periods of time. While I don't remember it being established when the first arrived, I would have expected a more pronounced visual than the one we were presented with.

When the group get to the beach, Maddox is 11 and her brother Trent is 6. then there's Kara who is also 6. They progressively age throughout the events and we end up with three teenage looking kids. I'm still on board here, perfectly "logical". But here is also where I start to tail off into what could be a massive psychological debate... their bodies age, but their minds are only exposed to what is around them in that time, so are their actions in line with that?

Thomasin McKenzie seemed to have the right balance, with her character at a starting age of 11 she has the best chance of getting away with it, and her effort was good. I'm not sure the same is true of Alex Wolff and Eliza Scanlen though. Their storyline together, and their behaviour, didn't feel consistent. Particularly with Trent. Mentally the pair should still have been 6, or at least more immature than their look, but that didn't come across very effectively.

We're introduced to all of the characters in fairly quick succession at the beginning, but you do get a very clear idea about what you can expect from them going forward. They don't all really work together, and if chaos wasn't a necessary part of the film then I think I would have tired quickly of them all. As it was, I didn't particularly like any of the characters, including the parents of Trent and Maddox, but at least their journey evolved well through the film.

I feel like I need to mention the dubious sexualisation of the kids, in particular when we have Thomasin McKenzie as Maddox. When they discover the kids have aged up, Mum tells her to change into a swimsuit she has in her bag. The swimsuit she was already wearing covered everything relatively well, and actually has more cloth on it than the alternative. When I think about the things I bring to a beach in my bag with me, I bring a t-shirt, shorts, a sarong... never a second bikini. Would it not have been more logical to give her something different to wear? And was it really necessary to be there at all? I also have another point under this, but it would constitute spoilers I'm afraid.

Old's beach location is stunning, and some of the features allow for a slightly sinister edge. But a lot of the atmosphere is brought in with the cameras, and at one point I felt a rage come over me because of a collection of panning shots of the group. Yes, I know there are better things to be annoyed about, but it bugged me, I couldn't help it!

As a quick round-up of other points:
- I quite enjoyed Shyamalan's role
- Listening to people pronounce my surname wrong gives me palpitations, and
- The one bit of massively noticeable CGI was bad, so very, very, bad.

I'm interested to read the source material and see how its ending compares to what Shyamalan conjured. It's difficult to discuss the end without spoilers, but that's probably just as well because it'll lead to another heavy discussion. The actual resolution though does have a satisfying moment, even though it felt a little wrong.

Now for my overall feelings on the film... I enjoyed the mystery of it, and there are plenty of debates that arise. But the inconsistent moments in the ageing and how the ending comes around, sadly ate into my total score.

Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/08/old-movie-review.html
  
A Quiet Place (2018)
A Quiet Place (2018)
2018 | Drama, Horror, Thriller
“There’s a kind of hush, all over the world tonight”.
What a masterpiece this is! The most novel, the most tense, the most exhilarating, the most edge-of-your-seat Indie horror movie I could hope to see this year.

It’s 2020 and 89 days after “it” happens, the world is a very different place. Making any noise at all becomes a death sentence…. that bad cold could kill you and nothing seems to be able to prevent mankind from being annihilated one sneeze at a time.

In what could be a nice “Cloverfield”-style series, the action here focuses in on the resourceful Abbott family: the father Lee (John Krasinski, “Away We Go”) is handy with electronics and back-woods skills; the mother Evelyn (Emily Blunt, “The Girl on the Train“; “Edge of Tomorrow“) has medical training. So they are well suited then to take care of their offspring: the profoundly deaf Regan (Millicent Simmonds); Marcus (Noah Jupe); and their youngest Beau (a cute Cade Woodward). It’s a battle of brains against vicious, relentless and malevolent alien brawn: how far will Lee and Evelyn go to keep their family safe?

Man, this is a tense film! It doesn’t pull its punches from the get-go and thereafter there is an air of brooding and ever-building menace that gets right under your skin. This is certainly not helped by the fact that there is a ticking clock of an oncoming ‘event’ – no spoilers here – to worry about. As incessantly and inevitably as the rising tide in “The Shallows” a clock ticks down. Thank heavens then that the ‘event’ and the outcome of that ‘event’ are both traditionally such quiet affairs!

While all of the buzz at the moment is on the 80’s Easter Eggs in “Ready Player One”, here is a movie packed with delights for movie lovers. There are recognisable elements here from such classics as “The Road”, “Signs”, “Witness”, “Alien”, “Jurassic Park”, “Jaws”…. even (traumatically) “Home Alone”! So is it then just a rag-bag collection of stolen moments from other films? No – not at all. This stands tall and proud as a master work in its own right, the standout and unique quality of the movie being its use (or rather absence) of sound… something that works so magnificently as a concept in a movie-theatre.

I was lucky enough in the late September of 1979 to see (at 10 am in the morning as I remember!) in the Odeon Leicester Square in London, the first ever UK (and probably worldwide) showing of a little film called “Alien”. The cinema was pretty empty, but I have never sat through such an electric viewing. This had some of the same aura about it: a hushed audience, totally gripped. (I agree with Simon Mayo and Ali Plumb on this though that all snacks, and especially popcorn in scrapy SCRAPY cardboard boxes, should be banned from these screenings… I had to physically move seats away a noisy muncher as the film started!). But for sure, distractions accepted, this is a classic communal movie experience and so is a movie you should most DEFINITELY see in the cinema.

If there is one Oscar for February 2019 that I think should already be a shoe-in for a nomination, if not a win, it is the sound team led by Erik Aadahl and Ethan Van der Ryn: breathtakingly spectacular. This is assisted enormously by the musical score of Marco Beltrami (“Logan“, “The Shallows“) which helps augment and annotate the action jump-scares brilliantly.

Another critical member of the crew for a film like this is the editor, and here Christopher Tellefsen (“Joy“) delivers the goods with tight and effective execution of those cuts (the film sort!) that made me vertically leave my seat at least a couple of times.

Real life couple Krasinski and Blunt share such obvious and tender chemistry that it is impossible to not get emotionally involved. A shared iPhone listening moment, as a lull in the action, is very moving. Millicent Simmonds, who is actually deaf from childhood in an inspired piece of storytelling/casting, is also an acting force to be reckoned with: her only other movie is last year’s “Wonderstruck” that I have yet to see.

Writers Bryan Woods and Scott Beck (with contribution to the screenplay from Krasinski) also deserve praise for an intelligent and highly satisfying plot that never fails to disappoint to the last drop. Every detail, down to the painted footsteps on the un-squeaky floorboards, is just pitch-perfect. It’s also a film that very wisely doesn’t outstay its welcome: 90 minutes of such adrenaline is almost too much for anyone to stand! Krasinski as director keeps everything deliciously tight during that running time with no time to breath, particularly in the frenetic final reel.

I’ve gushed enough. This is a must see for sci-fi and horror fans of all ages. And with a “BvS quotient” of just 6.8%, it’s enormously good value for money. Go see it!
  
40x40

Lee Ronaldo recommended Blind Joe Death by John Fahey in Music (curated)

 
Blind Joe Death by John Fahey
Blind Joe Death by John Fahey
1964 | Folk
(0 Ratings)
Album Favorite

"Blind Joe Death was kind of John Fahey’s alter ego. He wanted to put out records under a different name and pretend he was an old obscure bluesman. He was obsessed with collecting these old obscure records that informed his American primitive style and he went on these quests down South to look for old 78 records with a couple of friends of his. Eventually they found this artist Skip James and rejuvenated his career. James wasn’t in music at all any more and he was someone they revered. Fahey was steeped in this whole mythology of his early period of these recording heroes that weren’t on television, weren’t on the magazines and you only saw them if you happened to be in Mississippi where they lived or the rare places they travelled to and I think he really longed to be one of those guys. So when Fahey started being serious about making his records his idea was “I’m going to make this record, I’m going to call it Blind Joe Death” and this was a totally obscure idea, “I’m going to slip it into bins at record shops and at thrift stores and people will find it and ten or fifteen years from now they’ll say I wonder what happened to Blind Joe Death?” It’s an obscure task from the very beginning, it’s not like he’s shooting for fame and fortune and Top Of The Pops, it’s almost the opposite of that. He’s shooting for obscurity, for this blissful obscurity that he was relating to. Self-mythologizing but in a way that’s so deep down. It’s not self-mythologizing like whoever does that these days, like Nick Cave or whoever, like somebody who is doing it on a big scale where a lot of people are reading about it, this is like Fahey’s self-mythologizing himself out of existence almost, hoping that 20 years later 5 people will have this record in their collection, ‘cos that’s the kind of guy he was, a guy that would make a record only 5 other people would have. The original Blind Joe Death was released on only 100 copies and Fahey was developing this style that wasn’t beholden to the pop music of the day or anything like that. He was obviously listening to a lot of different stuff but he was formulating this thing that was really his own basically. It proved really influential to a certain class of people, certainly everybody that was involved in either folk music, or later on folk turning into pop music, or a lot of the people from Sonic Youth’s generation that kind of went back to it. Fahey was really an antecedent in a way because he was playing in open tunings and playing a lot of stuff that didn’t fit any easy categorisation. Then later on he was doing tape manipulated pieces and adding sounds he recorded from tapes into his acoustic finger-picking stuff and obviously much later he was playing this really weirdo electro distorted music and ploughing his own row in a sense. I came across him really early for a strange reason and it was for another record that I was going to put on the list, which was a record by Leo Kottke that Fahey put out. Leo Kottke is a much more popular person in the same vein as John Fahey and his early records were on Fahey’s label and he rose to quite a bit more popularity. He’s mostly an instrumental guitar player. He’s a lightning fast, super technical finger-picker with a lot of open tunings and his first record was called Six And Twelve String Guitar – it’s all instrumentals and it was one of the very first records on Fahey’s Takoma label. Somehow I came into that record very early, it’s got a weird black and white woodcut on the cover with an armadillo or something and it’s an amazing record. And after that record I started getting interested in this label Takoma and Fahey’s records were the next ones I found on it and then I realised that it was basically Fahey’s. Then later, especially when Jim O’Rourke was in Sonic Youth, because he was so tied in with Fahey, we got even more into Fahey at that point. Fahey was also making these primitive artworks. We used a piece of his on the front cover of Sonic Youth’s The Eternal and I collected a bunch of stuff. A couple of years before he died I managed to do a short tour with him, just a duo tour where we were both playing solo sets and we travelled around in a car for a week or so and he was making all these drawings on the road and I managed to get a couple off him. I’ve got a lot of his work at this point. He just was a very singular character and I think that’s what makes his music so beautiful that he just had his own agenda. He wasn’t kow-towing to the mores of the day or what people expected of their recording artist. He played the game for a little while and then said “oh fuck it”, got fat and weird and just kept doing his thing."

Source
  
Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile (2019)
Extremely Wicked, Shockingly Evil and Vile (2019)
2019 | Biography, Crime, Thriller
If you check back in the archives of The Wasteland you will see that from time to time I do find myself down the dark, fascinating yet morbid rabbit hole of true crime documentary. I do find the majority of them a little ghoulish, but when done particularly well they can become incredible insights into the human condition at its worst, and the state of the legal and punitive systems that deal with the most extreme cases. How these systems fail, and why, is more of a draw for me than any attempt to understand the person behind the evil crimes. Although I must admit to some curiosity in that regard on a certain level.

One such documentary series that really impressed me was Conversations With a Killer: The Ted Bundy Tapes, directed by Joe Berlinger. It was very detailed without being sensationalist or forcing drama and tension into the presentation in a manipulative way. I have a particular fascination with Ted Bundy and his crimes, simply because it is such a compellingly bizarre story, of an educated, seemingly ordinary and charming man, that did absolutely horrific things. So, seeing that the same producer had turned his hand as a film-maker, and his deep knowledge of the case and the man, towards a feature film, I had to give it a watch at some point, despite some mixed reviews.

The first thing anyone will want to talk about here, naturally, is the casting of Bundy against type, with the former teen sensation Zac Efron taking on such a huge and daunting role you would have thought beyond him. Physically the resemblance between Efron and Bundy is remarkable; even more so when the period hair styles and costumes are added in. His instinctive understanding of the charm aspect of Bundy is also very spooky – you do get the sense of almost liking him on one hand and fearing him on the other. As an acting exercise, his work here is far more impressive than anything else he has ever done, bar none, hinting that as he moves into his 30s Efron will make a fine supporting actor if well cast.

What is missing from this portrayal of Bundy, however is his own amusement and psychopathic detachment from the crimes that is apparent in documentary footage. Efron’s Bundy is much more serious and sinister, without pushing the boundaries of playing “evil” too far. Whether this was the actor or the director’s choice is unclear. It means ultimately that the tone is earnest and threatening, almost inviting us to like and respect him more. Whereas, with a touch more of the misplaced levity that made watching and listening to the real Bundy so sickening we would have a closer impression of how, despite appearing “normal” on the surface, he never truly was.

Lily Collins is perfectly fine as Bundy’s girlfriend, Liz Kendall, but, again, she makes no attempt to portray the true naivety and denial apparent from footage of the real person, instead choosing to portray her as an innocent woman truly duped by a criminal mastermind. It is a fine performance in the context of this film, I just doubt it is that close to who Liz really was.

John Malkovich also, as the judge who spoke the title of this film in his closing remarks of the real court case, seems to be presenting a movie version of the real person that doesn’t capture the essence of the real dynamic so much as giving us a neat, glossy version of the real man. Put all this together and you still get the facts of what happened without anything changed or misleading, but you also get the impression that it is a heightened drama of events rather than anything even close to presenting the most interesting or disturbing aspects of the story.

In some ways then, it makes this production a touch cowardly. It is very much the certificate 15 version for an easy watching audience. The crimes themselves are not shown, or even discussed in much detail, merely hinted at and brushed over. It assumes you have some knowledge of the more gruesome facts up front, but also, oddly, presents itself as if he may actually be innocent in some way, because this was the view Liz Kendall maintained until even after his death in reality.

Worryingly, this makes the film almost a romance, where the good things about Bundy are given equal weight. Are we being invited to decide for ourselves if he was evil, or even guilty at all? I don’t think that is the point they are going for, but it isn’t that far off! For me then, this film is a curious failure that invites debate and interest, therefore always holding your interest and attention, but is dangerously close to being offensively dismissive of the victims.

Ultimately, I can’t decide whether it is something that should in any way be recommended. If it were a fiction it would play as a decent if unspectacular character study. It looks great, the period detail of the production is very well done and it is eminently watchable. However, the fact that these events were real, and in reality so much more disturbing, leads me to the conclusion that this is problematic viewing to be treated with caution.
  
First Man (2018)
First Man (2018)
2018 | Biography, Drama, History
I have put off writing this review because I honestly didn't know what, or more precisely how to sum up my feelings about this movie. That's not a typo at the top. I'm giving this one star, and honestly I nearly didn't even give it that.

Previously I've mentioned that I will happily sit through a movie bawling my eyes out. I hadn't quite realised how important it was to have good characters behind the emotional pieces. Twice this movie brought a tear to my eye, and neither were when I particularly expected. I'll circle back round to one of those in a moment.

It is entirely possible that how these people were portrayed is accurate to real life, I honestly don't know much about the people apart from what most around the world know. I could make no emotional connection with them. So much so that at the beginning of the film when we have our first opportunity to sympathise with them I was left frowning at the screen wondering how this devastating story line left me not caring.

The redeeming feature in this film was the Armstrong's oldest son. For the most part they're just around in the periphery of the story, after all most people are there for the space film not the biopic, but he earned this star. Janet makes Neil talk to their sons about the mission he's about to leave for, the boy is just old enough to know what it might mean, how dangerous it is, and in that moment he gave a brilliant performance and I could feel his sadness and anger.

Until I saw Blade Runner 2049 I had not seen Ryan Gosling in a film in 15 years. (I have seen Murder By Numbers but didn't realise he was in it until about five minutes ago.) From that one film I was sold on him as an actor, he played that part really well and I could almost forgive him for doing La La Land. (I have not seen La La Land. However, thanks to the film's sponsorship of drama on ITV2 at a peak moment in time for series I was watching, I have seen the trailer hundreds of times and vowed never to watch it.) Gosling's role in this pained me. As I said, I don't know the people this film is based on, his portrayal of Armstrong could be entirely accurate but I didn't find anything about it believable. His devastation at the beginning of the movie appeared like it should have been a genuine heartbreak for him, and yet his performance didn't reflect that at all apart from some unconvincing wailing.

Claire Foy's Janet Armstrong, again, could be accurate I honestly don't know. Listening to her spend a lot of her time getting angry left me frustrated. Anger is a strong emotion, yet it was another performance that didn't leave me identifying with her pain. I knew where it should have been, but I couldn't find it in any of the scenes.

I feel like I could go on about this for ages. Originally I was going to give First Man two stars, which on my score card is for films that I didn't like but I can see that they're well done and could appeal to other people. Usually that would mean the subject matter isn't too my liking but the performances were good... well. Yeah.

While I can understand the chaotic nature of shuttle's in flight, starting a film with camera shots that are so violently shaky that you can't tell what's going on didn't sit well with me. From the very start you're left confused and not knowing exactly who or what you're watching. Unfortunately that was not the only time that shot was used. The film didn't seem glossy, if that makes sense. It's a film in 2018, we want to see the past in glorious high definition, but everything felt a little retro in an old kind of way. Shaky camera was a constant feature and when we see the exterior shots of the module in space I honestly though I was watching a less technicolour version of Red Dwarf. With one main difference, I like Red Dwarf.

Lots of production choices make sense to some degree. When we go from the landing to getting down on to the moon there is silence. I can see that silence would be a good tool in what is essentially nothingness. But would it have been silent? Wouldn't they have heard console beeping, com channels, and the sound of their own breathing? The silence was deafening, and dull.

When I came out of the film I really couldn't reconcile what I'd seen with what people had been raving about. There was no redeeming feature for me. So much potential telling a story that everyone knows, but doesn't really, and I was left with a bad taste in my mouth and the desire to watch Apollo 13 to reassure myself that there were better films out there.

What you should do

You're going to go and see it because everyone thinks it's amazing. You shouldn't bother. Don't watch it on DVD, don't watch it streaming... buy yourself a copy of Apollo 13 instead.

Movie thing you wish you could take home

I want nothing from this film. Anything I could have would be a horrible reminder of me wasting my time at the cinema.