Search
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Blade Runner 2049 (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A stunning visual triumph.
I was a sufficient nerd to buy a “Back to the Future” T-shirt to celebrate “future day” from “Back to the Future 2” two-years ago, and I will probably be a sufficient nerd to buy a “Blade Runner” T-shirt in two-years time to celebrate the setting-date for the original film. One thing’s for sure… 2049 is never going to be long enough away to see the world of the new Blade Runner movie come to fruition: so I look forward to ironically buying that T-shirt too (assuming I make it to 88!). But I digress.
I lived in fear of this film since it was announced… having loved the original, a sequel was always going to be a risky prospect. But my fears were slightly quelled when I learned that Denis Villeneuve (“Arrival“) was at the helm. And having now seen it I am pleasantly relieved: this is a memorable film.
In 2049 the first-generation Nexus replicants of the original film are still causing problems, and Ryan Gosling is ‘K’ – a blade runner employed by LAPD lieutenant Joshi (Robin Wright, “Wonder Woman“, “House of Cards”) to track them down and liquidate them. On one of these missions, K uncovers a buried secret that brings the LAPD into a desperate race for a pivotal prize, against replicant-builder Niander Wallace (Jared Leto, “Dallas Buyer’s Club“) and his henchwoman Luv (Sylvia Hoeks). The mission leads to K searching out his illustrious predecessor Deckard (Harrison Ford), who is not keen to be found.
Firstly (and most impressively) this is a spectacle to watch…. “I’ve seen things…”! The visuals are just gorgeous, from the junk-yards of Greater Los Angeles to the radioactive ruins of Las Vegas, vividly glowing amber to glorious effect. Hardly a surprise with Roger Deakins (“Hail Caesar“, “Sicario“) behind the camera, but Adam Heinis (“Rogue One“) and the rest of his special effects team deserve kudos for the effects never feeling overly “CGI-like”.
The music (by Benjamin Wallfisch and Hans Zimmer, via a replaced Johann Johannsson) pays suitable tribute to the spirit of the original Vangelis soundtrack. (It’s curious though that “Tears in the Rain” from the soundtrack is a reworking of the Vangelis original, but Vangelis doesn’t seem to be credited anywhere! Vangelis and Ridley Scott clearly had a SERIOUS falling out!).
On the acting front, Ryan Gosling is his dynamic self as usual! (But here, somewhat justified). Harrison Ford is given very little screen time, but what he does do he does exceptionally well – his best performance in years. It’s some of the supporting parts though that really appeal: Dave Bautista (“Spectre“) is just superb in the opening scenes of the film, and I particularly enjoyed Ana de Armas’s portrayal of K’s holographic girlfriend Joi. I’ve seen comment in other reviews that described this relationship as “laughable” and a downward step for “woman’s rights” compared to Villeneuve’s previous strong female characters (of Louise from “Arrival” and Kate from “Sicario“). But I disagree! I found the relationship truly touching, with Joi’s procurement of a prostitute (Mackenzie Davis) to act as a surrogate body being both loving and giving. And as regards ‘woman’s rights’, come on! Get serious! This is a holographic commercial male companion…. the “Alexa” of the future…. I’m quite sure the male version looks like Ryan Reynolds! Sex still sells, even in 2049!!
My favourite character though was a cameo by Barkhad Abdi (“Captain Phillips“) luxoriating under the name of Doctor Badger!
I was less comfortable with Jared Leto’s dialogue which – for me at least – was barely audible. In general this film is both a challenge for those aurally challenged (with some fuzzy dialogue/effects/music mixes) and those visually challenged (with 8 point font for the on-screen text that was almost impossible to see on the cinema screen, so good luck with the DVD!).
I really wanted to give this film 5-Fads. But I can’t quite get there. The story – while interesting and having emotional depth – is lightweight for a film of this length (a butt-numbing 163 minutes!) and it moves at such a glacial pace that I’m ashamed to say that my mind wandered at times. (Specifically to how many different ways I could imagine harm being done to the American guy in front of me, who was constantly turning on his Apple watch and at one point (to whisperings of very British outrage!) his full-brightness iPhone!) The screenplay was by Hampton Fancher (one of the original Blade Runner writers) and Michael Green (“Logan“, “Alien: Covenant“) but even with this track record, it’s the film’s Achilles heel.
It’s a relief that Blade Runner revisited is not a complete disaster: quite the opposite in fact. It doesn’t quite match C-beams glittering in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate (what could)… but its a damned good attempt.
I lived in fear of this film since it was announced… having loved the original, a sequel was always going to be a risky prospect. But my fears were slightly quelled when I learned that Denis Villeneuve (“Arrival“) was at the helm. And having now seen it I am pleasantly relieved: this is a memorable film.
In 2049 the first-generation Nexus replicants of the original film are still causing problems, and Ryan Gosling is ‘K’ – a blade runner employed by LAPD lieutenant Joshi (Robin Wright, “Wonder Woman“, “House of Cards”) to track them down and liquidate them. On one of these missions, K uncovers a buried secret that brings the LAPD into a desperate race for a pivotal prize, against replicant-builder Niander Wallace (Jared Leto, “Dallas Buyer’s Club“) and his henchwoman Luv (Sylvia Hoeks). The mission leads to K searching out his illustrious predecessor Deckard (Harrison Ford), who is not keen to be found.
Firstly (and most impressively) this is a spectacle to watch…. “I’ve seen things…”! The visuals are just gorgeous, from the junk-yards of Greater Los Angeles to the radioactive ruins of Las Vegas, vividly glowing amber to glorious effect. Hardly a surprise with Roger Deakins (“Hail Caesar“, “Sicario“) behind the camera, but Adam Heinis (“Rogue One“) and the rest of his special effects team deserve kudos for the effects never feeling overly “CGI-like”.
The music (by Benjamin Wallfisch and Hans Zimmer, via a replaced Johann Johannsson) pays suitable tribute to the spirit of the original Vangelis soundtrack. (It’s curious though that “Tears in the Rain” from the soundtrack is a reworking of the Vangelis original, but Vangelis doesn’t seem to be credited anywhere! Vangelis and Ridley Scott clearly had a SERIOUS falling out!).
On the acting front, Ryan Gosling is his dynamic self as usual! (But here, somewhat justified). Harrison Ford is given very little screen time, but what he does do he does exceptionally well – his best performance in years. It’s some of the supporting parts though that really appeal: Dave Bautista (“Spectre“) is just superb in the opening scenes of the film, and I particularly enjoyed Ana de Armas’s portrayal of K’s holographic girlfriend Joi. I’ve seen comment in other reviews that described this relationship as “laughable” and a downward step for “woman’s rights” compared to Villeneuve’s previous strong female characters (of Louise from “Arrival” and Kate from “Sicario“). But I disagree! I found the relationship truly touching, with Joi’s procurement of a prostitute (Mackenzie Davis) to act as a surrogate body being both loving and giving. And as regards ‘woman’s rights’, come on! Get serious! This is a holographic commercial male companion…. the “Alexa” of the future…. I’m quite sure the male version looks like Ryan Reynolds! Sex still sells, even in 2049!!
My favourite character though was a cameo by Barkhad Abdi (“Captain Phillips“) luxoriating under the name of Doctor Badger!
I was less comfortable with Jared Leto’s dialogue which – for me at least – was barely audible. In general this film is both a challenge for those aurally challenged (with some fuzzy dialogue/effects/music mixes) and those visually challenged (with 8 point font for the on-screen text that was almost impossible to see on the cinema screen, so good luck with the DVD!).
I really wanted to give this film 5-Fads. But I can’t quite get there. The story – while interesting and having emotional depth – is lightweight for a film of this length (a butt-numbing 163 minutes!) and it moves at such a glacial pace that I’m ashamed to say that my mind wandered at times. (Specifically to how many different ways I could imagine harm being done to the American guy in front of me, who was constantly turning on his Apple watch and at one point (to whisperings of very British outrage!) his full-brightness iPhone!) The screenplay was by Hampton Fancher (one of the original Blade Runner writers) and Michael Green (“Logan“, “Alien: Covenant“) but even with this track record, it’s the film’s Achilles heel.
It’s a relief that Blade Runner revisited is not a complete disaster: quite the opposite in fact. It doesn’t quite match C-beams glittering in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate (what could)… but its a damned good attempt.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Ford v Ferrari (aka Le Mans '66) (2019) in Movies
Nov 20, 2019
Damon, Bale and fast cars (1 more)
Epic technical film making - cinematography, editing and sound - Oscar bait
A linear story on a circular track - but beautifully done.
Despite the love affair cinema has had with cars over the years, the sport of motor racing on film has been patchy. Too often the drama on the track has been deluged with melodrama off the track, as in John Frankenheimer's "Grand Prix" from 1966. While recent efforts such as Ron Howard's "Rush" have brought modern filming techniques to better convey the speed and excitement, it is Steve McQueen's "Le Mans" from 1971 that had previously set the bar for realism in the sport. But even there, there were a few off-track love stories to interweave into the action.
I wouldn't hesitate to suggest that "Le Mans '66" is a strong contender for the motor racing high-water mark.
The film was marketed as "Ford v Ferrari" in the US. (What... do the American distributors think their film-goers are so stupid that if "Le" is in the title they will think it sub-titled foreign language??). But it's a valid title, since the movie tells the true story of when Henry Ford... the second... (Tracy Letts) throws his toys out of the pram at Ford's faltering progress. ("James Bond does not drive a Ford". "That's because he's a degenerate!" snaps back Ford, which kind of typifies the problem"). Marketing man Lee Iacocca (Jon Bernthal) persuades retired hot-shot racer Carroll Shelby (Matt Damon) to take Ford's blank-cheque to build a car to win the Le Mans 24 hour race.
Shelby enlists maverick Brit racer Ken Miles (Christian Bale) to help design and drive the next-generation machine. But neither had banked on the interference of the hoards of Ford suits, led by VP Leo Beebe (Josh Lucas). An explosion is imminent! And its not just from the over-heated brake pads!
What's really odd about this film is how linear the story is. While we get to see the family life of Miles (to add necessary context to what follows) these are merely minor diversions. There are no sub-plots or flashback scenes. It just relates the history from beginning to end, enlivened by some of the best and most exciting motor-racing footage put to celluloid.
At a bladder-testing 152 minutes, this really shouldn't have worked. I should have got bored and restless. But I really didn't.
In many ways - bladders aside - I think this will appeal in particular to an older breed of movie-goer. It's a 100% 'sit back in your seat and enjoy' cinema treat.
This is the first film Matt Damon and Christian Bale have made together, and I understand that Damon specifically signed on since he wanted to work with Bale. And there is palpable chemistry there. The movie includes one of the best 'bad-fights' since Colin Firth and Hugh Grant locked horns in the Bridget Jones films. And Damon - never one of the most expressive actors in the world - here really shines.
Bale also appears to be having a whale of a time. Not having to adopt a US accent suits him, as he blasts and swears his way through various UK-specific expletives that probably passed the US-censors by! He often tends to play characters in movies that are difficult to warm to, but here - although suitably spiky and irascible - the family man really shines through and you feel a real warmth for the guy.
There's a strong supporting cast behind the leads, with Tracy Letts' fast-driving breakdown being a standout moment. I wonder how many takes they needed on that for Damon to keep a semi-straight face?! Also impressive as the son Peter Miles is Noah Jupe. If you're wondering where the hell you've seen him before, he was young (Marcus in "A Quiet Place").
Where the film comes alive is on the track, and a particular shout out should to to the technical teams. Cinematography is by Phedon Papamichael ("Walk the Line"), film editing is led by Andrew Buckland and Michael McCusker. And sound mixing - which to my ear was piston-valve perfect - is by Steven Morrow. Also worthy of note is a kick-ass driving soundtrack by Marco Beltrami that genuinely excited. These categories are fearsomly hard to predict in awards season, but you might like to listen out for those names.
If I was going to pick at any faults in the film, it would be that Ford exec Leo Beebe is painted a little too much as a "boo-hiss" pantomime villain in the piece. It could have been perhaps toned down 20% or so.
James Mangold ("Logan"; "Walk the Line") directs in style. From the rather po-faced trailer, you might think this is a "car movie that's not for me". But it really is a tremendously fun movie, with some genuinely laugh-out-loud moments mixed in with edge-of-your-seat action and some heart-rending moments.
Above all, this is a film that really benefits from the wide-screen and sound-system that only a big cinema can provide. As such this goes on my "get out and see it" list without any hesitation! It's going to make my movies of the year: and I'm off to see it again on Saturday!
Read the full review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/11/20/one-manns-movies-film-review-le-mans-66-2019/
I wouldn't hesitate to suggest that "Le Mans '66" is a strong contender for the motor racing high-water mark.
The film was marketed as "Ford v Ferrari" in the US. (What... do the American distributors think their film-goers are so stupid that if "Le" is in the title they will think it sub-titled foreign language??). But it's a valid title, since the movie tells the true story of when Henry Ford... the second... (Tracy Letts) throws his toys out of the pram at Ford's faltering progress. ("James Bond does not drive a Ford". "That's because he's a degenerate!" snaps back Ford, which kind of typifies the problem"). Marketing man Lee Iacocca (Jon Bernthal) persuades retired hot-shot racer Carroll Shelby (Matt Damon) to take Ford's blank-cheque to build a car to win the Le Mans 24 hour race.
Shelby enlists maverick Brit racer Ken Miles (Christian Bale) to help design and drive the next-generation machine. But neither had banked on the interference of the hoards of Ford suits, led by VP Leo Beebe (Josh Lucas). An explosion is imminent! And its not just from the over-heated brake pads!
What's really odd about this film is how linear the story is. While we get to see the family life of Miles (to add necessary context to what follows) these are merely minor diversions. There are no sub-plots or flashback scenes. It just relates the history from beginning to end, enlivened by some of the best and most exciting motor-racing footage put to celluloid.
At a bladder-testing 152 minutes, this really shouldn't have worked. I should have got bored and restless. But I really didn't.
In many ways - bladders aside - I think this will appeal in particular to an older breed of movie-goer. It's a 100% 'sit back in your seat and enjoy' cinema treat.
This is the first film Matt Damon and Christian Bale have made together, and I understand that Damon specifically signed on since he wanted to work with Bale. And there is palpable chemistry there. The movie includes one of the best 'bad-fights' since Colin Firth and Hugh Grant locked horns in the Bridget Jones films. And Damon - never one of the most expressive actors in the world - here really shines.
Bale also appears to be having a whale of a time. Not having to adopt a US accent suits him, as he blasts and swears his way through various UK-specific expletives that probably passed the US-censors by! He often tends to play characters in movies that are difficult to warm to, but here - although suitably spiky and irascible - the family man really shines through and you feel a real warmth for the guy.
There's a strong supporting cast behind the leads, with Tracy Letts' fast-driving breakdown being a standout moment. I wonder how many takes they needed on that for Damon to keep a semi-straight face?! Also impressive as the son Peter Miles is Noah Jupe. If you're wondering where the hell you've seen him before, he was young (Marcus in "A Quiet Place").
Where the film comes alive is on the track, and a particular shout out should to to the technical teams. Cinematography is by Phedon Papamichael ("Walk the Line"), film editing is led by Andrew Buckland and Michael McCusker. And sound mixing - which to my ear was piston-valve perfect - is by Steven Morrow. Also worthy of note is a kick-ass driving soundtrack by Marco Beltrami that genuinely excited. These categories are fearsomly hard to predict in awards season, but you might like to listen out for those names.
If I was going to pick at any faults in the film, it would be that Ford exec Leo Beebe is painted a little too much as a "boo-hiss" pantomime villain in the piece. It could have been perhaps toned down 20% or so.
James Mangold ("Logan"; "Walk the Line") directs in style. From the rather po-faced trailer, you might think this is a "car movie that's not for me". But it really is a tremendously fun movie, with some genuinely laugh-out-loud moments mixed in with edge-of-your-seat action and some heart-rending moments.
Above all, this is a film that really benefits from the wide-screen and sound-system that only a big cinema can provide. As such this goes on my "get out and see it" list without any hesitation! It's going to make my movies of the year: and I'm off to see it again on Saturday!
Read the full review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/11/20/one-manns-movies-film-review-le-mans-66-2019/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Their Finest (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Keep Calm and Carry on Writing.
In a well-mined category, “Their Finest” is a World War 2 comedy/drama telling a tale I haven’t seen told before: the story behind the British Ministry of Information and their drive to produce propaganda films that support morale and promote positive messages in a time of national crisis. For it is 1940 and London is under nightly attack by the Luftwaffe during the time known as “The Blitz”. Unfortunately the Ministry is run by a bunch of toffs, and their output is laughably misaligned with the working class population, and especially the female population: with their husbands fighting overseas, these two groups are fast becoming one and the same. For women are finding and enjoying new empowerment and freedom in being socially unshackled from the kitchen sink.
The brave crew of the Nancy Starling. Bill Nighy as Uncle Frank, with twins Lily and Francesca Knight as the Starling sisters.
Enter Catrin Cole (Gemma Arterton, “The Girl with all the Gifts“) who is one such woman arriving to a dangerous London from South Wales to live with struggling disabled artist Ellis (Jack Huston, grandson of John Huston). Catrin, stretching the truth a little, brings a stirring ‘true’ tale of derring-do about the Dunkirk evacuation to the Ministry’s attention. She is then employed to “write the slop” (the woman’s dialogue) in the writing team headed by spiky Tom Buckley (Sam Claflin, “Me Before You“).
One of the stars of the film within the film is ‘Uncle Frank’ played by the aging but charismatic actor Ambrose Hilliard (Bill Nighy, “Dad’s Army“, “Love Actually”). Catrin proves her worth by pouring oil on troubled waters as the army insist on the introduction of an American airman (Jake Lacy, “Carol“) to the stressful mix. An attraction builds between Catrin and Tom, but how will the love triangle resolve itself? (For a significant clue see the “Spoiler Section” below the trailer, but be warned that this is a major spoiler!).
As you might expect if you’ve seen the trailer the film is, in the main, warm and funny with Gemma Arterton just gorgeously huggable as the determined young lady trying to make it in a misogynistic 40’s world of work. Arterton is just the perfect “girl next door”: (sigh… if I was only 20 years younger and unattached!) But mixed in with the humour and the romantic storyline is a harsh sprinkling of the trials of war and not a little heartbreak occurs. This is at least a 5 tissue movie.
Claflin, who is having a strong year with appearances in a wide range of films, is also eminently watchable. One of his best scenes is a speech with Arterton about “why people love the movies”, a theory that the film merrily and memorably drives a stake through the heart of!
Elsewhere Lacy is hilarious as the hapless airman with zero acting ability; Helen McCrory (“Harry Potter”) as Sophie Smith vamps it up wonderfully as the potential Polish love interest for Hilliard; Richard E Grant (“Logan“) and Jeremy Irons (“The Lion King”, “Die Hard: with a Vengeance”) pop up in useful cameos and Eddie Marsan (“Sherlock Holmes”) is also touching as Hilliard’s long-suffering agent.
But it is Bill Nighy’s Hilliard who carries most of the wit and humour of the film with his pompous thespian persona, basking in the dwindling glory of a much loved series of “Inspector Lynley” films. With his pomposity progressively warming under the thawing effect of Sophie and Catrin, you have to love him! Bill Nighy is, well, Bill Nighy. Hugh Grant gets it (unfairly) in the neck for “being Hugh Grant” in every film, but this pales in comparison with Nighy’s performances! But who cares: his kooky delivery is just delightful and he is a national treasure!
Slightly less convincing for me was Rachael Stirling’s role as a butch ministry busybody with more than a hint of the lesbian about her. Stirling’s performance in the role is fine, but would this really have been so blatant in 1940’s Britain? This didn’t really ring true for me.
While the film gamely tries to pull off London in the Blitz the film’s limited budget (around £25m) makes everything feel a little underpowered and ’empty’: a few hundred more extras in the Underground/Blitz scenes for example would have helped no end. However, the special effects crew do their best and the cinematography by Sebastian Blenkov (“The Riot Club”) suitably conveys the mood: a scene where Catrin gets caught in a bomb blast outside a clothes shop is particularly moving.
As with all comedy dramas, sometimes the bedfellows lie uncomfortably with each other, and a couple of plot twists: one highly predictable; one shockingly unpredictable make this a non-linear watch. This rollercoaster of a script by Gaby Chiappe, in an excellent feature film debut (she actually also has a cameo in the propaganda “carrot film”!), undeniably adds interest and makes the film more memorable. However (I know from personal experience) that the twist did not please everyone in the audience!
Despite its occasionally uneven tone, this is a really enjoyable watch (particularly for more mature audiences) and Danish director Lone Scherfig finally has a vehicle that matches the quality of her much praised Carey Mulligan vehicle “An Education”.
The brave crew of the Nancy Starling. Bill Nighy as Uncle Frank, with twins Lily and Francesca Knight as the Starling sisters.
Enter Catrin Cole (Gemma Arterton, “The Girl with all the Gifts“) who is one such woman arriving to a dangerous London from South Wales to live with struggling disabled artist Ellis (Jack Huston, grandson of John Huston). Catrin, stretching the truth a little, brings a stirring ‘true’ tale of derring-do about the Dunkirk evacuation to the Ministry’s attention. She is then employed to “write the slop” (the woman’s dialogue) in the writing team headed by spiky Tom Buckley (Sam Claflin, “Me Before You“).
One of the stars of the film within the film is ‘Uncle Frank’ played by the aging but charismatic actor Ambrose Hilliard (Bill Nighy, “Dad’s Army“, “Love Actually”). Catrin proves her worth by pouring oil on troubled waters as the army insist on the introduction of an American airman (Jake Lacy, “Carol“) to the stressful mix. An attraction builds between Catrin and Tom, but how will the love triangle resolve itself? (For a significant clue see the “Spoiler Section” below the trailer, but be warned that this is a major spoiler!).
As you might expect if you’ve seen the trailer the film is, in the main, warm and funny with Gemma Arterton just gorgeously huggable as the determined young lady trying to make it in a misogynistic 40’s world of work. Arterton is just the perfect “girl next door”: (sigh… if I was only 20 years younger and unattached!) But mixed in with the humour and the romantic storyline is a harsh sprinkling of the trials of war and not a little heartbreak occurs. This is at least a 5 tissue movie.
Claflin, who is having a strong year with appearances in a wide range of films, is also eminently watchable. One of his best scenes is a speech with Arterton about “why people love the movies”, a theory that the film merrily and memorably drives a stake through the heart of!
Elsewhere Lacy is hilarious as the hapless airman with zero acting ability; Helen McCrory (“Harry Potter”) as Sophie Smith vamps it up wonderfully as the potential Polish love interest for Hilliard; Richard E Grant (“Logan“) and Jeremy Irons (“The Lion King”, “Die Hard: with a Vengeance”) pop up in useful cameos and Eddie Marsan (“Sherlock Holmes”) is also touching as Hilliard’s long-suffering agent.
But it is Bill Nighy’s Hilliard who carries most of the wit and humour of the film with his pompous thespian persona, basking in the dwindling glory of a much loved series of “Inspector Lynley” films. With his pomposity progressively warming under the thawing effect of Sophie and Catrin, you have to love him! Bill Nighy is, well, Bill Nighy. Hugh Grant gets it (unfairly) in the neck for “being Hugh Grant” in every film, but this pales in comparison with Nighy’s performances! But who cares: his kooky delivery is just delightful and he is a national treasure!
Slightly less convincing for me was Rachael Stirling’s role as a butch ministry busybody with more than a hint of the lesbian about her. Stirling’s performance in the role is fine, but would this really have been so blatant in 1940’s Britain? This didn’t really ring true for me.
While the film gamely tries to pull off London in the Blitz the film’s limited budget (around £25m) makes everything feel a little underpowered and ’empty’: a few hundred more extras in the Underground/Blitz scenes for example would have helped no end. However, the special effects crew do their best and the cinematography by Sebastian Blenkov (“The Riot Club”) suitably conveys the mood: a scene where Catrin gets caught in a bomb blast outside a clothes shop is particularly moving.
As with all comedy dramas, sometimes the bedfellows lie uncomfortably with each other, and a couple of plot twists: one highly predictable; one shockingly unpredictable make this a non-linear watch. This rollercoaster of a script by Gaby Chiappe, in an excellent feature film debut (she actually also has a cameo in the propaganda “carrot film”!), undeniably adds interest and makes the film more memorable. However (I know from personal experience) that the twist did not please everyone in the audience!
Despite its occasionally uneven tone, this is a really enjoyable watch (particularly for more mature audiences) and Danish director Lone Scherfig finally has a vehicle that matches the quality of her much praised Carey Mulligan vehicle “An Education”.
Sophia (Bookwyrming Thoughts) (530 KP) rated Faded (The Faded Trilogy, #1) in Books
Jan 23, 2020
Faded, was, well, a tad bit boring. The concept's interesting 4 teens are killed and are then bought back to life to help some spirits who are like guardian angels and have been around for almost a hundred years defeat a trio of peeps called The Forces who have been around since 1989. Oh, and it most certainly puts out a new definition of feeling as though someone's watching you.
<img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-gswVIYSfcvM/U4ekIGUabqI/AAAAAAAADWE/McEZ8jexlHQ/s1600/giphy+(3).gif"; height="179" width="320">
I promise you I really don't
The world to me before that time seemed like a utopian society, hence "perfect little town of Fort Everwick." In fact, the story started out boring in the prologue, even though I and possibly many others appreciated the set up so I wasn't confused later. Plus, there wouldn't be any need of a long novella or prequel to everything. Which may or may not result in me wishing to stick my hand through the screen, pull out the book, and throw it at the wall.
<img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-nEbLJxU6kIw/U4ekYLUnVhI/AAAAAAAADWM/INy-VFIulSg/s1600/throwing-book.gif"; height="179" width="320">
The story really didn't catch my attention until the accident happened each scene just seems to enter with a boring start and Faded just didn't click too much with me on the writing. However, after the accident happened, I found the attacks becoming more old each time after the first. It just seemed to be a repeat of the others doors slam shut of their own accord, doors and windows can't be opened, windows shatter, lights flicker on and off before plunging everyone into darkness really, I actually thought Chloe would keep using the same tactic throughout the entire story and then just let it end. Hope was nearly lost until knives decided to start flying. I'm pretty I did a happy dance as well. I know that sounds really weird for me to have hope and start dancing when there are flying knives involved, but that's beside the point.
<img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-mA0fuCk0cxI/U4elybjJ9EI/AAAAAAAADWc/sBKoSXUqc0g/s1600/im-bored-so-bored.gif"; height="151" width="320">
What I also didn't like were the point of views just switching randomly not many signals whatsoever. Perhaps that's just the nature of third person and I'm just so used to seeing first person (has anyone noticed that?). Either way, it was confusing how the author would go from Savannah to Abigail, Logan to Jackson, or anyone else.
<img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-E58aKHQnzK4/U4emA3lXoMI/AAAAAAAADWk/520TrVGPGXE/s1600/giphy+(4).gif"; height="140" width="320">
That said, characters! I thought Hattie was really cute and perky. She was just the sunshine of the entire story and so optimistic while everyone else was either a) serious, b) running for their lives (kidding) or c) oblivious (the majority of the townspeople). Savannah seemed to be a great heroine, but I really can't promise that entirely due to the repeats of the attacks from the Forces. She seems like a really strong heroine with her determination and loyalty especially to her little sister (their relationship is so amazing; most siblings fight in books!) but like I said earlier... not so original attacks.
<blockquote>I was there the day she was born. I was there when she started school. I was there the first time she fell off her bike, and I was the one who picked her up and helped her get back on it. You know why? Because Im her sister. Thats what Im supposed to do. Im supposed to protect her. Its an unwritten rule.</blockquote>
I loved Hunter's charm and the way he used words in front of Savannah. It's as though he's doing a creative *wink, wink, nudge, nudge* towards Savannah.
<blockquote>Hunter: So, how about a date?
Savannah: What?
Hunter: How about a date that is actually in the eighties? I can only find dates that are in the seventies. How about you?
Savannah: You mean the article dates?
Hunter: What did you think I meant?</blockquote>
Perhaps what I really loved the most are the failures after the accident, when Madison, Abigail, Jackson and Savannah have no control over their powers. I actually found those scenes funny I mean, everyone's literally oblivious for the most part especially Operation Scare Keira. ;)
<blockquote>Jackson: But I thought I was invisible.
Madison: Well, you thought wrong because youre clearly not.
Jackson: But Coach Ford didnt yell at me once during practice, so I figured I must be invisible today.
Madison: So the first place you think to test out that theory is in the girls locker room?</blockquote>
That's not the operation, but I did find that pretty funny... :3
While Faded isn't the greatest start in the entire world or made a dent into my favorites, it's certainly memorable with the characters and its uniqueness (ooo, random thought: girl falls in love with a ghost... Phantom of the Opera anyone?). I'm really curious as to how Miles will play out the second book in the trilogy, and hopefully it'll be much different in any attacks there compared to Faded.
-----------------------------
Review copy provided by the author
This review and more posted over at <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2014/07/review-faded-by-chloe-miles.html">Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
Formatting may be lost due to copy and paste
<a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Gi5Rk5yLloA/UtliaUbdL3I/AAAAAAAACbE/J27z92_qrYU/s1600/Official+Banner.png"; /></a>
<img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-gswVIYSfcvM/U4ekIGUabqI/AAAAAAAADWE/McEZ8jexlHQ/s1600/giphy+(3).gif"; height="179" width="320">
I promise you I really don't
The world to me before that time seemed like a utopian society, hence "perfect little town of Fort Everwick." In fact, the story started out boring in the prologue, even though I and possibly many others appreciated the set up so I wasn't confused later. Plus, there wouldn't be any need of a long novella or prequel to everything. Which may or may not result in me wishing to stick my hand through the screen, pull out the book, and throw it at the wall.
<img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-nEbLJxU6kIw/U4ekYLUnVhI/AAAAAAAADWM/INy-VFIulSg/s1600/throwing-book.gif"; height="179" width="320">
The story really didn't catch my attention until the accident happened each scene just seems to enter with a boring start and Faded just didn't click too much with me on the writing. However, after the accident happened, I found the attacks becoming more old each time after the first. It just seemed to be a repeat of the others doors slam shut of their own accord, doors and windows can't be opened, windows shatter, lights flicker on and off before plunging everyone into darkness really, I actually thought Chloe would keep using the same tactic throughout the entire story and then just let it end. Hope was nearly lost until knives decided to start flying. I'm pretty I did a happy dance as well. I know that sounds really weird for me to have hope and start dancing when there are flying knives involved, but that's beside the point.
<img border="0" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-mA0fuCk0cxI/U4elybjJ9EI/AAAAAAAADWc/sBKoSXUqc0g/s1600/im-bored-so-bored.gif"; height="151" width="320">
What I also didn't like were the point of views just switching randomly not many signals whatsoever. Perhaps that's just the nature of third person and I'm just so used to seeing first person (has anyone noticed that?). Either way, it was confusing how the author would go from Savannah to Abigail, Logan to Jackson, or anyone else.
<img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-E58aKHQnzK4/U4emA3lXoMI/AAAAAAAADWk/520TrVGPGXE/s1600/giphy+(4).gif"; height="140" width="320">
That said, characters! I thought Hattie was really cute and perky. She was just the sunshine of the entire story and so optimistic while everyone else was either a) serious, b) running for their lives (kidding) or c) oblivious (the majority of the townspeople). Savannah seemed to be a great heroine, but I really can't promise that entirely due to the repeats of the attacks from the Forces. She seems like a really strong heroine with her determination and loyalty especially to her little sister (their relationship is so amazing; most siblings fight in books!) but like I said earlier... not so original attacks.
<blockquote>I was there the day she was born. I was there when she started school. I was there the first time she fell off her bike, and I was the one who picked her up and helped her get back on it. You know why? Because Im her sister. Thats what Im supposed to do. Im supposed to protect her. Its an unwritten rule.</blockquote>
I loved Hunter's charm and the way he used words in front of Savannah. It's as though he's doing a creative *wink, wink, nudge, nudge* towards Savannah.
<blockquote>Hunter: So, how about a date?
Savannah: What?
Hunter: How about a date that is actually in the eighties? I can only find dates that are in the seventies. How about you?
Savannah: You mean the article dates?
Hunter: What did you think I meant?</blockquote>
Perhaps what I really loved the most are the failures after the accident, when Madison, Abigail, Jackson and Savannah have no control over their powers. I actually found those scenes funny I mean, everyone's literally oblivious for the most part especially Operation Scare Keira. ;)
<blockquote>Jackson: But I thought I was invisible.
Madison: Well, you thought wrong because youre clearly not.
Jackson: But Coach Ford didnt yell at me once during practice, so I figured I must be invisible today.
Madison: So the first place you think to test out that theory is in the girls locker room?</blockquote>
That's not the operation, but I did find that pretty funny... :3
While Faded isn't the greatest start in the entire world or made a dent into my favorites, it's certainly memorable with the characters and its uniqueness (ooo, random thought: girl falls in love with a ghost... Phantom of the Opera anyone?). I'm really curious as to how Miles will play out the second book in the trilogy, and hopefully it'll be much different in any attacks there compared to Faded.
-----------------------------
Review copy provided by the author
This review and more posted over at <a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/2014/07/review-faded-by-chloe-miles.html">Bookwyrming Thoughts</a>
Formatting may be lost due to copy and paste
<a href="http://bookwyrming-thoughts.blogspot.com/"><img src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Gi5Rk5yLloA/UtliaUbdL3I/AAAAAAAACbE/J27z92_qrYU/s1600/Official+Banner.png"; /></a>
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Alien: Covenant (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Horrific Beasts and How to Avoid Them.
I seem to be in a bit of a minority in quite liking Ridley Scott’s last Alien outing – 2012’s “Prometheus”: a heady, if at times ponderous, theory to the origins of man. The first hour of that film is really good. But for me, what made the original 1979 film so enthralling was the life cycle of the ‘traditional’ Xenomorph aliens through egg to evil hatchling to vicious killing machine. This somewhat got lost with “Prometheus” with a range of alien-like-things ranging from wiggly black goo to something more familiar… and frankly I was confused. Some – repeat, some – of the explanation for that diversity of forms in “Prometheus” is made clearer in the sequel “Alien: Covenant”.
“Covenant” (named again after the spaceship at its heart) is a follow-on sequel to “Prometheus”, so it is worth re-watching it if you can before a cinema trip. At the end of that film we saw Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace, “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”) and a reconstructed android David (Michael Fassbender, “Steve Jobs“) flying off in an alien craft still loaded with its cargo of nasty alien black goo. Shaw had a mission to seek out The Engineer’s home world – named “Paradise” – to find out why after creating man they were intent on going back to finish them off with a WMD. A neat prologue has been released which documents this… here:
We pick up the action 10 years later in a totally improbable 2104. (Give us a break writing team! [Story by Jack Paglen and Michael Green; screenplay by John Logan and Dante Harper]. We know they won’t have got through planning permission on the third Heathrow runway by then, let alone invented interplanetary travel…! 2504, maybe!)
Daniels (Katherine Waterston, “Fantastic Beasts And Where To Find Them“) has just suffered a sudden bereavement (an uncredited James Franco – – blink and you’ll miss him). She has also been rudely awakened from hypersleep due to a sudden system mishap: no, not to find Chris Pratt there like “Passengers“, but by the ship’s android Walter (also Michael Fassbender) who’s also revived the rest of the crew. While effecting repairs they receive a garbled John Denver track mysteriously beamed to them from an earth-like planet not too far away. As this might be a suitable homestead, and as spending weeks more in hypersleep is unattractive, Captain Oram (Billy Crudup, “Spotlight“) votes to check it out, against Daniels’ strong objections. Needless to say, this proves to be a BIG MISTAKE as the new film neatly links hands with the first film.
Kick-ass… Katherine Waterston being careful not to slip in the shower.
There’s a limit to what more I can say about the film without delivering spoilers (so I have added a few more comments in the spoiler section BELOW the trailer). It’s a far more action-oriented film than “Prometheus” and has enough jump scares and gore to please most Alien fans. (In fact, it’s a surprise to me that it got a UK “15” certificate rather than an “18”: how much more violence do you need to show in the film?) A shower scene towards the end of the film is particularly effective and will likely put an end to relaxing shower sex for many people for good!
It also looks visually stunning (cinematography is by Dariusz Wolski (“The Martian“, “Pirates of the Caribbean”) with location shooting in Milford Sound in New Zealand. The special effects are also a cut-above the normal CGI with a devastated Pompeii-like city, a picture of blacks and greys, being particularly effective.
In the acting stakes it is really all down to Waterston and Fassbinder. I wasn’t a great fan of Waterston in “Fantastic Beasts” – a bit insipid I thought – but here she adopts Ripley’s kick-ass mantle with ease but blends it beautifully with doe-eyed vulnerability. Some of her scenes reminded me strongly of Demi Moore in “Ghost”. Fassbinder is fascinating to watch with his dual roles of Walter and David, both slightly different versions of the same being. And the special effects around the Fassbinder-on-Fassbinder action, tending somewhat towards the homoerotic in places, are well done.
Unfortunately the rest of the crew get little in the way of background development, which limits the impact of the inevitable demises. They are also about as clinically stupid as the spaceship crew in “Life” in some of their actions; I guess you could put some of this down to the effects of panic, but in other cases you might see it as a simple cleansing of the gene pool in Darwinian fashion.
Also making uncredited guest appearances are Guy Pearce as Weyland (in a flashback scene) and Noomi Rapace.
Music is “by” Jed Kurzel, but to be honest he does little than wrap around re-versions of the original Jerry Goldsmith classics: not that this is a bad thing, since those themes are iconic and a joy to hear again on the big screen.
My expectations for this movie were sky-high, as it was hinted as a return to form for the franchise. And in many ways it was, with a “man, Gods and androids” theme adding depth to the traditional anatomical-bursting gore. But to be honest, some of the storytelling was highly predictable, and I left slightly disappointed with the overall effort. If my expectations were an 11/10, my reality was more like a 7/10. It’s still a good film, and I look forward to watching it again. But perhaps this is a franchise that has really run its course now for Mr Scott and he should look to his next “Martian”-type movie for a more novel foundation to build his next movie “log cabin on the lake” on.
“Covenant” (named again after the spaceship at its heart) is a follow-on sequel to “Prometheus”, so it is worth re-watching it if you can before a cinema trip. At the end of that film we saw Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace, “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”) and a reconstructed android David (Michael Fassbender, “Steve Jobs“) flying off in an alien craft still loaded with its cargo of nasty alien black goo. Shaw had a mission to seek out The Engineer’s home world – named “Paradise” – to find out why after creating man they were intent on going back to finish them off with a WMD. A neat prologue has been released which documents this… here:
We pick up the action 10 years later in a totally improbable 2104. (Give us a break writing team! [Story by Jack Paglen and Michael Green; screenplay by John Logan and Dante Harper]. We know they won’t have got through planning permission on the third Heathrow runway by then, let alone invented interplanetary travel…! 2504, maybe!)
Daniels (Katherine Waterston, “Fantastic Beasts And Where To Find Them“) has just suffered a sudden bereavement (an uncredited James Franco – – blink and you’ll miss him). She has also been rudely awakened from hypersleep due to a sudden system mishap: no, not to find Chris Pratt there like “Passengers“, but by the ship’s android Walter (also Michael Fassbender) who’s also revived the rest of the crew. While effecting repairs they receive a garbled John Denver track mysteriously beamed to them from an earth-like planet not too far away. As this might be a suitable homestead, and as spending weeks more in hypersleep is unattractive, Captain Oram (Billy Crudup, “Spotlight“) votes to check it out, against Daniels’ strong objections. Needless to say, this proves to be a BIG MISTAKE as the new film neatly links hands with the first film.
Kick-ass… Katherine Waterston being careful not to slip in the shower.
There’s a limit to what more I can say about the film without delivering spoilers (so I have added a few more comments in the spoiler section BELOW the trailer). It’s a far more action-oriented film than “Prometheus” and has enough jump scares and gore to please most Alien fans. (In fact, it’s a surprise to me that it got a UK “15” certificate rather than an “18”: how much more violence do you need to show in the film?) A shower scene towards the end of the film is particularly effective and will likely put an end to relaxing shower sex for many people for good!
It also looks visually stunning (cinematography is by Dariusz Wolski (“The Martian“, “Pirates of the Caribbean”) with location shooting in Milford Sound in New Zealand. The special effects are also a cut-above the normal CGI with a devastated Pompeii-like city, a picture of blacks and greys, being particularly effective.
In the acting stakes it is really all down to Waterston and Fassbinder. I wasn’t a great fan of Waterston in “Fantastic Beasts” – a bit insipid I thought – but here she adopts Ripley’s kick-ass mantle with ease but blends it beautifully with doe-eyed vulnerability. Some of her scenes reminded me strongly of Demi Moore in “Ghost”. Fassbinder is fascinating to watch with his dual roles of Walter and David, both slightly different versions of the same being. And the special effects around the Fassbinder-on-Fassbinder action, tending somewhat towards the homoerotic in places, are well done.
Unfortunately the rest of the crew get little in the way of background development, which limits the impact of the inevitable demises. They are also about as clinically stupid as the spaceship crew in “Life” in some of their actions; I guess you could put some of this down to the effects of panic, but in other cases you might see it as a simple cleansing of the gene pool in Darwinian fashion.
Also making uncredited guest appearances are Guy Pearce as Weyland (in a flashback scene) and Noomi Rapace.
Music is “by” Jed Kurzel, but to be honest he does little than wrap around re-versions of the original Jerry Goldsmith classics: not that this is a bad thing, since those themes are iconic and a joy to hear again on the big screen.
My expectations for this movie were sky-high, as it was hinted as a return to form for the franchise. And in many ways it was, with a “man, Gods and androids” theme adding depth to the traditional anatomical-bursting gore. But to be honest, some of the storytelling was highly predictable, and I left slightly disappointed with the overall effort. If my expectations were an 11/10, my reality was more like a 7/10. It’s still a good film, and I look forward to watching it again. But perhaps this is a franchise that has really run its course now for Mr Scott and he should look to his next “Martian”-type movie for a more novel foundation to build his next movie “log cabin on the lake” on.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Girl in the Spider's Web (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Would the last straight woman in Stockholm turn off the lights?
You’ve gotta love a Scandi-thriller. Well, that was until last year’s hopeless Michael Fassbender vehicle “The Snowman” which devalued the currency better than Brexit has done to the pound! The mother of them all though was the original “Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” trilogy (in Swedish) in 2009. Although subject to a wholly unnecessary English remake two year’s later by David Fincher (with Mara Rooney and Daniel Craig) it was Noomi Rapace who struck the perfect note as the original anarchic and damaged Lisbeth Salander: a punk wielding a baseball bat like an alien-thing possessed (pun well and truly intended!).
Now though we have “A New Dragon Tattoo Story” (as the film’s subtitle clumsily declares) based on the book by David Lagercrantz, who took over the literary franchise after the untimely death of Stieg Larsson. Picking up the reins as Salander is that most British of actresses Claire Foy…. which seems an odd choice, but one which – after you get past the rather odd accent – she just about pulls off.
The Plot
Lizbeth Salendar (Claire Foy) has an interesting hobby. She is a vigilante, like a lesbian Batman, stalking the streets of Stockholm putting wrongs right where abusive boyfriends/husbands are concerned.
She is also a hacking machine for rent. And Frans Balder (Stephen Merchant) has a problem. He has invented a software program that allows its user to control every nuclear warhead in the world from a single laptop (cue every other Bond/24/Austin Powers script ever written). But he has had second thoughts and wants it back from its resting place on the server of the NSA’s chief hacker, Ed Needham (Lakeith Stanfield). Balder recruits Salander to recover it, but when things go pear-shaped Salander finds herself on the wrong side of both the law and the encircling terrorist “spiders”.
The Review
Scandi-dramas work best when they exploit the snow; maintain a sexual tension; and go dark, gritty and violent. On the plus side, “The Girl in the Spider’s Web” ticks most of those boxes adequately. Foy’s Salandar is smart, sassy and sexy, outwitting the best of the best, and only once finding her intellectual match. (If you’re a lesbian, Stockholm is most definitely the place to be: there only seemed to be one hetero-female there, and she was an adulteress).
But Salander also has a Bond-like invincibility that unfortunately tests your incredulity at multiple points. Contributing to the excitement is the stunt team, who keep themselves busy with some great car and bike chases.
So, the movie has its moments and is great to look at. But the film ends up a sandwich or two short of a smorgasbord, thanks largely to some totally bonkers plot points and more than a few ridiculous coincidences. There are without doubt an array of well-constructed set pieces here, but they fail to fully connect with any great conviction. An example of a scene that infuriates is a dramatic bathroom fight in a red-lit gloom with identical protagonists that is cut together so furiously you would need a Blu-ray slo-mo to work out what the hell is going on… and then I fear you might fail.
So it’s an A- for the Production Design (Eve Stewart, “The Danish Girl“) and the Cinematography (Pedro Luque, “Don’t Breathe“), but a C- for the director Fede Alvarez (also “Don’t Breathe“).
Avoid the Trailer
I will save my biggest source of wrath though for that major bug-bear of mine: trailers that spoil the plot.
I’ve asked before, but for a film like this, WHO EXACTLY PUTS TOGETHER THE TRAILER? I’d like to think it’s some mindless committee of marketing execs somewhere. Because I HONESTLY CAN’T BELIEVE it would be the director! (If I’m wrong though, I would point my finger at Mr Alvarez and chant “shame, shame, shame”!)
For the trailer that I saw playing in UK cinemas does it’s level best to not only drop in the key spoilers of the plot (including the climactic scene), but also spoils just about every action money-shot in the movie. It’s all so pointless. If you’ve by any chance managed to get to this point without seeing the trailer, then SAVE YOURSELVES and AVOID IT!
(The one attached below by the way is slightly – slightly! – better, including some over-dubbing of a line that I don’t think was in the film. Perhaps they realised their huge mistake and reissued it?)
The Turns
As I mentioned earlier, Claire Foy again extends her range by playing Salander really well. She is the reason to go and see the film.
The Daniel Craig part of Blomkvist is played here by Sverrir Gudnason, who was in “The Circle” (which I saw) and was Borg in “Borg McEnroe” (which I didn’t). Blomkvist really is a lazy ****, since he works for the publication “Millenium” but writes absolutely nothing for years. It must be only because the boss (Vicky Krieps) fancies him that he keeps his job. Gudnason is good enough, but has very little to do in the movie: its the Salander/Foy show. Slightly, but only slightly, more involved is Lakeith Standfield as the US intelligence man.
Given little to do in the plot. Sverrir Gudnason as the incredibly unproductive ‘journalist’ Mikael Blomkvist. (Source: Sony Pictures Entertainment)
Stephen Merchant is an odd casting choice for Balder. Not withstanding that he was brilliant when almost unrecognisable in “Logan“, here he looks far too much like his “Ricky Gervais sidekick” persona to be taken seriously: and it’s not even remotely a comedy (there is only one humorous moment in the film, a nice “clicker” gag in a car park).
Final Thoughts
I had high hopes for this film from the trailer, but I was left disappointed. It’s not classic Scandi-noir like the original “Tattoo”; and it’s not going for the black comedy angle of “Headhunters” (which I saw again last week and loved… again!). It falls into a rather “meh” category. It’s not a bad evening’s watch, but perhaps worth leaving for a DVD/cable showing.
Now though we have “A New Dragon Tattoo Story” (as the film’s subtitle clumsily declares) based on the book by David Lagercrantz, who took over the literary franchise after the untimely death of Stieg Larsson. Picking up the reins as Salander is that most British of actresses Claire Foy…. which seems an odd choice, but one which – after you get past the rather odd accent – she just about pulls off.
The Plot
Lizbeth Salendar (Claire Foy) has an interesting hobby. She is a vigilante, like a lesbian Batman, stalking the streets of Stockholm putting wrongs right where abusive boyfriends/husbands are concerned.
She is also a hacking machine for rent. And Frans Balder (Stephen Merchant) has a problem. He has invented a software program that allows its user to control every nuclear warhead in the world from a single laptop (cue every other Bond/24/Austin Powers script ever written). But he has had second thoughts and wants it back from its resting place on the server of the NSA’s chief hacker, Ed Needham (Lakeith Stanfield). Balder recruits Salander to recover it, but when things go pear-shaped Salander finds herself on the wrong side of both the law and the encircling terrorist “spiders”.
The Review
Scandi-dramas work best when they exploit the snow; maintain a sexual tension; and go dark, gritty and violent. On the plus side, “The Girl in the Spider’s Web” ticks most of those boxes adequately. Foy’s Salandar is smart, sassy and sexy, outwitting the best of the best, and only once finding her intellectual match. (If you’re a lesbian, Stockholm is most definitely the place to be: there only seemed to be one hetero-female there, and she was an adulteress).
But Salander also has a Bond-like invincibility that unfortunately tests your incredulity at multiple points. Contributing to the excitement is the stunt team, who keep themselves busy with some great car and bike chases.
So, the movie has its moments and is great to look at. But the film ends up a sandwich or two short of a smorgasbord, thanks largely to some totally bonkers plot points and more than a few ridiculous coincidences. There are without doubt an array of well-constructed set pieces here, but they fail to fully connect with any great conviction. An example of a scene that infuriates is a dramatic bathroom fight in a red-lit gloom with identical protagonists that is cut together so furiously you would need a Blu-ray slo-mo to work out what the hell is going on… and then I fear you might fail.
So it’s an A- for the Production Design (Eve Stewart, “The Danish Girl“) and the Cinematography (Pedro Luque, “Don’t Breathe“), but a C- for the director Fede Alvarez (also “Don’t Breathe“).
Avoid the Trailer
I will save my biggest source of wrath though for that major bug-bear of mine: trailers that spoil the plot.
I’ve asked before, but for a film like this, WHO EXACTLY PUTS TOGETHER THE TRAILER? I’d like to think it’s some mindless committee of marketing execs somewhere. Because I HONESTLY CAN’T BELIEVE it would be the director! (If I’m wrong though, I would point my finger at Mr Alvarez and chant “shame, shame, shame”!)
For the trailer that I saw playing in UK cinemas does it’s level best to not only drop in the key spoilers of the plot (including the climactic scene), but also spoils just about every action money-shot in the movie. It’s all so pointless. If you’ve by any chance managed to get to this point without seeing the trailer, then SAVE YOURSELVES and AVOID IT!
(The one attached below by the way is slightly – slightly! – better, including some over-dubbing of a line that I don’t think was in the film. Perhaps they realised their huge mistake and reissued it?)
The Turns
As I mentioned earlier, Claire Foy again extends her range by playing Salander really well. She is the reason to go and see the film.
The Daniel Craig part of Blomkvist is played here by Sverrir Gudnason, who was in “The Circle” (which I saw) and was Borg in “Borg McEnroe” (which I didn’t). Blomkvist really is a lazy ****, since he works for the publication “Millenium” but writes absolutely nothing for years. It must be only because the boss (Vicky Krieps) fancies him that he keeps his job. Gudnason is good enough, but has very little to do in the movie: its the Salander/Foy show. Slightly, but only slightly, more involved is Lakeith Standfield as the US intelligence man.
Given little to do in the plot. Sverrir Gudnason as the incredibly unproductive ‘journalist’ Mikael Blomkvist. (Source: Sony Pictures Entertainment)
Stephen Merchant is an odd casting choice for Balder. Not withstanding that he was brilliant when almost unrecognisable in “Logan“, here he looks far too much like his “Ricky Gervais sidekick” persona to be taken seriously: and it’s not even remotely a comedy (there is only one humorous moment in the film, a nice “clicker” gag in a car park).
Final Thoughts
I had high hopes for this film from the trailer, but I was left disappointed. It’s not classic Scandi-noir like the original “Tattoo”; and it’s not going for the black comedy angle of “Headhunters” (which I saw again last week and loved… again!). It falls into a rather “meh” category. It’s not a bad evening’s watch, but perhaps worth leaving for a DVD/cable showing.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Ford v Ferrari (aka Le Mans '66) (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021 (Updated Jan 22, 2021)
Matt Damon asked Christian Bale how he had managed to lose almost 70lbs for his role as Ken Miles, following his chubbing up to play Dick Cheney in Vice the previous year. Bale just smiled, shrugged and said, “I didn’t eat”. Such is his reputation for playing real people with 100% commitment, apocryphal or not, I totally believe that is true.
Sports films, and especially racing films, hang on three things: the quality and believability of the sports/racing scenes, the dynamic tension between the lead characters, and the degree we are hooked by the underdog makes a comeback element. Le Mans ’66, also known as Ford V Ferrari for American audiences, who obviously can’t make sense of French or numbers, has all three of those boxes ticked, and several others besides.
It will make it easier for me to explain why I liked this film so much if I confess up front to how much I liked it, so without hesitation I confidently state… more than Rush (2013) and Grand Prix (1966), making it probably the best racing film ever, but less than Warrior (2011) or Rocky (1976), making it a contender for top 5 but not the best sports movie ever. So, that is pretty high praise from the flag-fall.
Let’s examine the 3 key elements in order. Firstly, the racing scenes: This film is based on real people in real races driving real cars, with very little altered or tweaked for dramatic purposes (save one key detail of the final race). It didn’t need anything adding, because the real story is incredible enough. Part of that is the very real rivalry that existed between the undisputed champions of the world’s most beautiful cars, Ferrari, representing everything essentially European, and the empire of mass production efficiency that was the Ford dynasty, representing everything American.
The reproductions of the cars themselves and the personalities behind them is vivid and believable from minute one, so when the cars hit the track you can almost smell the fuel and feel the heat and grime, not to mention the speed. Every shot on every straight and turn feels like it should, and would, if you yourself were driving: intense, terrifying, exhilarating and addictive!
At no point did I see anything unrealistic, or a piece of footage copied and pasted. No trick angles or overuse of time stretching techniques, what you see is mostly what you get, and if you understand car racing in even the most amateur way then that is impressive. Add to that a complete understanding of tension building during a race from a direction and acting point of view and you just have to tip your helmet visor to James Mangold and Christian Bale, who seem in complete synthesis about what is required from a racing scene.
Next, look at the chemistry between Damon’s laconic yet stubborn pragmatist, Carroll Shelby, and Bale’s idiosyncratic, twitchy adrenaline junky, Ken Miles. They couldn’t be more different, personality wise, or actually performance wise. Bale chews up the screen with another in a long line now of big bold characterisations that you can’t take your eyes off, and Damon gives off solid, dependable, trust-worthy movie-star vibes in return. Their scenes together are spiky, fun, compelling and feel authetic, in a Hollywood movie way that we recognise and love. It feels almost like Paul Newman and Jack Lemon – the handsome straight guy and the quirky foil.
I love both these actors when they bring their A game. And they do here. It is consummate film acting, completely in control of what kind of film they are making. Not a naturalistic drama hoping to sweep the Oscars and hit hard in the emotional solar plexus, but a fun sports film driven by the conventions and tropes of the genre. Both manage to keep it just the right side of fun and exciting, whilst holding the reigns on believability also. Mangold, who knows how both action (Logan) and Bio-pics (Walk the Line) work to a very high level, brings experience of both genres to the fore here, and the blend is sublime.
Finally, there is the underdog element. Both of these guys were unconventional mavericks, and well known as being so. Both respected, but never treated as champions as they deserved in their lifetime, perhaps because they were not yes men or company men, who toed the line and played by the rules of the big bosses of the sport. Both of them absolutely driven by compulsion and passion to win, yet both flawed on the ways they could achieve that.
Then there is the consideration how much the car is a character, or at least Ford as a concept. What makes this story so great is the David and Goliath element, that makes you sure there is no possible way this could be true. As with all great sports films, even if you know the history and result of a real event, the little guy sticking it to the invincible and arrogant behemoth, win, lose or draw, is what makes us invest and then cheer, or cry, when all the effort is finally spent.
Effort, sacrifice, overcoming obstacles, facing defeat, bouncing back from setbacks, gaining respect of friends and rivals alike – all these elements make a sports film great. Le Mans ’66 has it all, with the added bonus of enough budget to make it fly, which isn’t usually the case in this genre. It looks spectacular, feels exciting and is ultimately completely satisfying, as both a character study of real men, and a document of a game changing moment in sporting history.
It also doesn’t entirely ignore the female influence on such a masculine world; the little known Irish actress Catriona Balfe as Mollie Miles really caught my eye in some really tender scenes. This film won’t be passing the Bechdal test any time soon, however, as she is pretty much the only female member of the cast with an actual name! But it isn’t something to get too hung up about, in my opinion.
I’d be bold enough to recommend this to anyone. No need to love cars, or racing or even sport at all. If you love good movies that keep you hooked till the checkered flag of the credits, then look no further. High art? No. A proper movie with huge mass appeal? 100%
Sports films, and especially racing films, hang on three things: the quality and believability of the sports/racing scenes, the dynamic tension between the lead characters, and the degree we are hooked by the underdog makes a comeback element. Le Mans ’66, also known as Ford V Ferrari for American audiences, who obviously can’t make sense of French or numbers, has all three of those boxes ticked, and several others besides.
It will make it easier for me to explain why I liked this film so much if I confess up front to how much I liked it, so without hesitation I confidently state… more than Rush (2013) and Grand Prix (1966), making it probably the best racing film ever, but less than Warrior (2011) or Rocky (1976), making it a contender for top 5 but not the best sports movie ever. So, that is pretty high praise from the flag-fall.
Let’s examine the 3 key elements in order. Firstly, the racing scenes: This film is based on real people in real races driving real cars, with very little altered or tweaked for dramatic purposes (save one key detail of the final race). It didn’t need anything adding, because the real story is incredible enough. Part of that is the very real rivalry that existed between the undisputed champions of the world’s most beautiful cars, Ferrari, representing everything essentially European, and the empire of mass production efficiency that was the Ford dynasty, representing everything American.
The reproductions of the cars themselves and the personalities behind them is vivid and believable from minute one, so when the cars hit the track you can almost smell the fuel and feel the heat and grime, not to mention the speed. Every shot on every straight and turn feels like it should, and would, if you yourself were driving: intense, terrifying, exhilarating and addictive!
At no point did I see anything unrealistic, or a piece of footage copied and pasted. No trick angles or overuse of time stretching techniques, what you see is mostly what you get, and if you understand car racing in even the most amateur way then that is impressive. Add to that a complete understanding of tension building during a race from a direction and acting point of view and you just have to tip your helmet visor to James Mangold and Christian Bale, who seem in complete synthesis about what is required from a racing scene.
Next, look at the chemistry between Damon’s laconic yet stubborn pragmatist, Carroll Shelby, and Bale’s idiosyncratic, twitchy adrenaline junky, Ken Miles. They couldn’t be more different, personality wise, or actually performance wise. Bale chews up the screen with another in a long line now of big bold characterisations that you can’t take your eyes off, and Damon gives off solid, dependable, trust-worthy movie-star vibes in return. Their scenes together are spiky, fun, compelling and feel authetic, in a Hollywood movie way that we recognise and love. It feels almost like Paul Newman and Jack Lemon – the handsome straight guy and the quirky foil.
I love both these actors when they bring their A game. And they do here. It is consummate film acting, completely in control of what kind of film they are making. Not a naturalistic drama hoping to sweep the Oscars and hit hard in the emotional solar plexus, but a fun sports film driven by the conventions and tropes of the genre. Both manage to keep it just the right side of fun and exciting, whilst holding the reigns on believability also. Mangold, who knows how both action (Logan) and Bio-pics (Walk the Line) work to a very high level, brings experience of both genres to the fore here, and the blend is sublime.
Finally, there is the underdog element. Both of these guys were unconventional mavericks, and well known as being so. Both respected, but never treated as champions as they deserved in their lifetime, perhaps because they were not yes men or company men, who toed the line and played by the rules of the big bosses of the sport. Both of them absolutely driven by compulsion and passion to win, yet both flawed on the ways they could achieve that.
Then there is the consideration how much the car is a character, or at least Ford as a concept. What makes this story so great is the David and Goliath element, that makes you sure there is no possible way this could be true. As with all great sports films, even if you know the history and result of a real event, the little guy sticking it to the invincible and arrogant behemoth, win, lose or draw, is what makes us invest and then cheer, or cry, when all the effort is finally spent.
Effort, sacrifice, overcoming obstacles, facing defeat, bouncing back from setbacks, gaining respect of friends and rivals alike – all these elements make a sports film great. Le Mans ’66 has it all, with the added bonus of enough budget to make it fly, which isn’t usually the case in this genre. It looks spectacular, feels exciting and is ultimately completely satisfying, as both a character study of real men, and a document of a game changing moment in sporting history.
It also doesn’t entirely ignore the female influence on such a masculine world; the little known Irish actress Catriona Balfe as Mollie Miles really caught my eye in some really tender scenes. This film won’t be passing the Bechdal test any time soon, however, as she is pretty much the only female member of the cast with an actual name! But it isn’t something to get too hung up about, in my opinion.
I’d be bold enough to recommend this to anyone. No need to love cars, or racing or even sport at all. If you love good movies that keep you hooked till the checkered flag of the credits, then look no further. High art? No. A proper movie with huge mass appeal? 100%
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Black Widow (2021) in Movies
Oct 6, 2021
Florence Pugh (2 more)
The free-fall sequence at the end.
Taskmaster before the mask comes off.
It's way too long. (3 more)
The Taskmaster changes are weak.
It's as if the characters are fighting over who gets to be the comedic relief.
Familiar storyline.
Espionage Exhaustion
Black Widow is a film explaining what Natasha Romanoff (Scarlett Johansson) was up to in-between Captain America: Civil War and Avengers: Infinity War. The film was originally set to be released in May of 2020, but was pushed back and had three different release dates thanks to COVID-19. Unfortunately, most completed films that sit on the shelf and are in limbo for over a year rarely live up to the anticipation. Black Widow is worthwhile for a few key action sequences and notable characters that steal the spotlight, but is otherwise a mostly forgettable superhero film.
Marketed as a superhero film, Black Widow is also a spy thriller. Johansson has stated that films such as Logan, Harrison Ford’s The Fugitive, and Terminator 2: Judgment Day were influences. After Civil War, Thaddeus Ross (William Hurt) is on the hunt for Natasha Romanoff. Women like Natasha who have had similar training in a torturous training facility known as The Red Room are victims to brainwashing by a man named Dreykov (Ray Winstone), but a serum ends up in Natasha’s hands that can break Dreykov’s brainwashing. Natasha begins searching for The Red Room and Dreykov, which also has her crossing paths with other spies that posed as her family members; her “sister” Yelena Belova (Florence Pugh), her “father” Alexai Shostakov (David Harbour), and her “mother” Melina Vostokoff (Rachel Weisz).
The biggest selling point for Black Widow is that it’s a mostly female cast in front of and behind the camera. The film is directed by Cate Shortland and Black Widow is her first big budget feature. It’s also co-written by female screenwriter Jac Schaeffer (uncredited co-screenwriter of Captain Marvel) and Ned Benson (director of The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby).
Taskmaster is cool in the film until you realize the character has been altered from his comic book origins. This isn’t uncommon in the MCU or even other live-action superhero adaptations, but what the character has become in the film will be received with mixed results. In the comics, Taskmaster’s real identity is Anthony Masters and he’s a mercenary not unlike Deadpool (the two have fought together and against each other). Copying fighting styles and weapon techniques is similar to the film, but it’s all thanks to his incredible memory and photographic reflexes.
The character is altered to fit the story in the Black Widow film. It’s not necessarily a bad thing as it gives a bigger purpose for the character since it suddenly becomes a major part of Natasha’s storyline, but how the character evolves over the course of the film seems to almost relieve Natasha of her past sins rather than continue to serve as a catalyst. Taskmaster is generally involved in some of the best hand-to-hand combat sequences, but seems to be left hanging by the end of the film. We could see the character again, but whether or not the desire is there to see Taskmaster return is debatable.
The free-fall sequence that has been teased in the trailers is Black Widow’s most unique source of action. There’s exploding elements and falling debris, Natasha trying to save someone’s life, and Taskmaster thrown in attempting to mess up whatever she has planned; plus a bunch of goons bringing up the rear that will obviously be taken out in peak fashion. The sequence is like a duel to the death taking place on the edge of a volcano that’s about to erupt. It’s on the verge of being overkill, but is just awesome enough to trigger all of the adrenaline in your body.
Kevin Feige apparently wanted an equal amount of screen time for both Natasha and Yelena. With the after-credits sequence, Natasha being very dead after the events of Infinity War, and the reports that Yelena may be the new Black Widow, she’s essentially the star of the film and for good reason. The character begins as an individual with a chip on her shoulder from someone from her past, but Florence Pugh is able to add humor and empathy with her performance. Yelena has the best one-liners in the film (“That would be a cool way to die,”) and is essentially the best source of comedic relief (i.e. her hysterectomy rant), as well. She is the one character in the film you’d want to see more of after Black Widow ends.
The storyline of Black Widow doesn’t feel like anything you haven’t experienced cinematically before, especially within the confines of the MCU. An evil man is responsible for pulling the strings of a bunch of women that would kick his ass otherwise. Unfortunately, Ray Winstone doesn’t feel all that intimidating as Dreykov since he doesn’t do much besides talk in Black Widow. The point is made in the film that is all there’s really needed of the character, but Dreykov’s biggest weapon is his mouth. However, his verbal skills don’t seem advantageous enough to make him such a threat let alone keep him alive for over 20 years.
It also feels like every MCU film has its on-screen characters competing over who can get the most laughs; this is something that only got worse after Thor: Ragnarok proved to be a success. Marvel films are already so formulaic with most villains being introduced and killed within the confines of a single film. Natasha’s spy family all feel like minor extensions of herself. Rachel Weisz, despite not aging a day in nearly 30 years, is forgettable as Melina. David Harbour is essentially his character from Stranger things cosplaying as Mr. Incredible with a Russian accent. Even Florence Pugh’s Yelena Belova character is basically a blonde younger version of Natasha even though they’re not related by blood.
Black Widow clocks in at over two hours and it feels like a film that could have been edited down. Witnessing the events of a dysfunctional spy family who then spend good chunks of the film reminiscing about those moments the audience has already seen is redundant storytelling that feels like nothing more than filler.
Black Widow is worth seeing for Florence Pugh, the free-fall action sequence, and anything involving Taskmaster before it’s revealed who is under the mask. Everything else about Black Widow feels like it was done better by the films it was supposedly influenced by and mostly feels like a diluted imitation of Captain America: The Winter Soldier. It’s fantastic that women are getting more opportunities in big summer blockbusters like this one, but it’s also disheartening since their filmmaking skills are shackled to formulaic superfluity that obviously stands in the way of creating extraordinary cinema.
Marketed as a superhero film, Black Widow is also a spy thriller. Johansson has stated that films such as Logan, Harrison Ford’s The Fugitive, and Terminator 2: Judgment Day were influences. After Civil War, Thaddeus Ross (William Hurt) is on the hunt for Natasha Romanoff. Women like Natasha who have had similar training in a torturous training facility known as The Red Room are victims to brainwashing by a man named Dreykov (Ray Winstone), but a serum ends up in Natasha’s hands that can break Dreykov’s brainwashing. Natasha begins searching for The Red Room and Dreykov, which also has her crossing paths with other spies that posed as her family members; her “sister” Yelena Belova (Florence Pugh), her “father” Alexai Shostakov (David Harbour), and her “mother” Melina Vostokoff (Rachel Weisz).
The biggest selling point for Black Widow is that it’s a mostly female cast in front of and behind the camera. The film is directed by Cate Shortland and Black Widow is her first big budget feature. It’s also co-written by female screenwriter Jac Schaeffer (uncredited co-screenwriter of Captain Marvel) and Ned Benson (director of The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby).
Taskmaster is cool in the film until you realize the character has been altered from his comic book origins. This isn’t uncommon in the MCU or even other live-action superhero adaptations, but what the character has become in the film will be received with mixed results. In the comics, Taskmaster’s real identity is Anthony Masters and he’s a mercenary not unlike Deadpool (the two have fought together and against each other). Copying fighting styles and weapon techniques is similar to the film, but it’s all thanks to his incredible memory and photographic reflexes.
The character is altered to fit the story in the Black Widow film. It’s not necessarily a bad thing as it gives a bigger purpose for the character since it suddenly becomes a major part of Natasha’s storyline, but how the character evolves over the course of the film seems to almost relieve Natasha of her past sins rather than continue to serve as a catalyst. Taskmaster is generally involved in some of the best hand-to-hand combat sequences, but seems to be left hanging by the end of the film. We could see the character again, but whether or not the desire is there to see Taskmaster return is debatable.
The free-fall sequence that has been teased in the trailers is Black Widow’s most unique source of action. There’s exploding elements and falling debris, Natasha trying to save someone’s life, and Taskmaster thrown in attempting to mess up whatever she has planned; plus a bunch of goons bringing up the rear that will obviously be taken out in peak fashion. The sequence is like a duel to the death taking place on the edge of a volcano that’s about to erupt. It’s on the verge of being overkill, but is just awesome enough to trigger all of the adrenaline in your body.
Kevin Feige apparently wanted an equal amount of screen time for both Natasha and Yelena. With the after-credits sequence, Natasha being very dead after the events of Infinity War, and the reports that Yelena may be the new Black Widow, she’s essentially the star of the film and for good reason. The character begins as an individual with a chip on her shoulder from someone from her past, but Florence Pugh is able to add humor and empathy with her performance. Yelena has the best one-liners in the film (“That would be a cool way to die,”) and is essentially the best source of comedic relief (i.e. her hysterectomy rant), as well. She is the one character in the film you’d want to see more of after Black Widow ends.
The storyline of Black Widow doesn’t feel like anything you haven’t experienced cinematically before, especially within the confines of the MCU. An evil man is responsible for pulling the strings of a bunch of women that would kick his ass otherwise. Unfortunately, Ray Winstone doesn’t feel all that intimidating as Dreykov since he doesn’t do much besides talk in Black Widow. The point is made in the film that is all there’s really needed of the character, but Dreykov’s biggest weapon is his mouth. However, his verbal skills don’t seem advantageous enough to make him such a threat let alone keep him alive for over 20 years.
It also feels like every MCU film has its on-screen characters competing over who can get the most laughs; this is something that only got worse after Thor: Ragnarok proved to be a success. Marvel films are already so formulaic with most villains being introduced and killed within the confines of a single film. Natasha’s spy family all feel like minor extensions of herself. Rachel Weisz, despite not aging a day in nearly 30 years, is forgettable as Melina. David Harbour is essentially his character from Stranger things cosplaying as Mr. Incredible with a Russian accent. Even Florence Pugh’s Yelena Belova character is basically a blonde younger version of Natasha even though they’re not related by blood.
Black Widow clocks in at over two hours and it feels like a film that could have been edited down. Witnessing the events of a dysfunctional spy family who then spend good chunks of the film reminiscing about those moments the audience has already seen is redundant storytelling that feels like nothing more than filler.
Black Widow is worth seeing for Florence Pugh, the free-fall action sequence, and anything involving Taskmaster before it’s revealed who is under the mask. Everything else about Black Widow feels like it was done better by the films it was supposedly influenced by and mostly feels like a diluted imitation of Captain America: The Winter Soldier. It’s fantastic that women are getting more opportunities in big summer blockbusters like this one, but it’s also disheartening since their filmmaking skills are shackled to formulaic superfluity that obviously stands in the way of creating extraordinary cinema.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Greatest Showman (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
This IS the Greatest Show!
I sometimes wonder how “proper” UK film critics view films early for review. Is there a ‘special screening’ which all the film critics attend in London? The point I’m getting at is whether the collective critical opinion of a movie can be swayed by a critic leaping to their feet and wildly applauding a film like “Star Wars: The Last Jedi” or, alternatively, snorting in derision at a film like “The Greatest Showman”. For sometimes the critics seem to get it massively wrong across the board, panning a film that the general public will adore. Unfortunately, this has the effect of putting the general public off seeing it, especially in the lethargic post-Christmas period. I think here is a case in point. It’s not the best little film in the world, but as a musical crowd-pleaser it delivers in spades.
Will you like “The Greatest Showman”? This will be dictated almost entirely by whether you are a “musicals” person or not! For “The Greatest Showman” is a frothy, very loud, cheesy and high-energy musical, much more aligned, in fact, to the mainstream genre from the 40’s and 50’s than “La La Land” was.
Roll up, roll up. The circus cast entertain.
In a VERY loose interpretation of the early life of Phineas Taylor Barnum, the American huckster and impressario, we start the story with a pre-pubescent Barnum (Ellis Rubin, sung by Ziv Zaifman) as a young tailor’s assistant punching above his weight with young socialite Charity (Skylar Dunn), firmly against the wishes of her father. Spin forward (via song) and the hitched Barnum’s – now Hugh Jackman (“Logan“) and Michelle Williams (“Manchester By The Sea“) – are barely scraping a living. But Barnum has “A Million Dreams” and hits on the novel idea of opening an entertainment (coined “a circus” by journalist James Gordon Bennett (Paul Sparks)) where he offers both respect and a family to those of the city who are deformed, rejected and socially shunned. Barnum’s show is shockingly entertaining – as in both filling seats and shocking the morally-self-righteous upper classes. But never one to rest on his laurels, Barnum’s endless ambition drives him to break his social ceiling by importing the “Swedish songbird”, opera singer Jenny Lind (Rebecca Ferguson, “Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation“, “The Snowman“) ), for an ambitious and extravegant tour of the States. All does not exactly go to plan.
Washing day tunes. Hugh Jackman and Michelle Williams take to the rooftops.
As I’ve said, most critics have been making sniffy noises about this film. But I am not one of them…. I LOVED IT, have already bought the glorious soundtrack album and will be looking forwards to the DVD release. For this is joy in a box. Sure, the story is a bit weak, the characterisations of everyone (other than Barnum) pretty lightweight, but it’s a musical extravaganza! Live with it!
Hugh Jackman, who of course started his career in stage musicals, is marvellously charismatic as Barnum although his singing does tend to the “shouty” end of the scale in many of the numbers. He’s joined here by fellow musicals star Zac Efron (let’s forget “Dirty Grandpa“) as the fictitious Phillip Carlyle: a socialite playwright and partner.
But the acting and singing revelation for me was Zendaya (“Spider-Man: Homecoming“) as Efron’s (scandalous) inter-racial love interest, who has a fantastically athletic body, sings and dances wonderfully and has a magnetic stare. A marvellous trapeze routine between Efron and Zendaya (“Rewrite The Stars”) is one of the high-spots of the film for me.
An energetic dance. Zendaya and Efron take to the skies.
Elsewhere Williams proves she has a singing voice as well as being a top flight actress and the bearded lady (Broadway star Keala Settle) belts out one of the show-stopping numbers “This is Me” (although she is a little ‘shrill’ for my musical tastes).
It would be nice to extend that compliment to the wonderful Rebecca Ferguson as the “greatest singer in the world” – but she is (wisely I think) dubbed here by Loren Allred (a finalist on the US version of “The Voice”). It is a bit of a shock when “the great opera singer” opens her mouth and a modern love song comes out, but once you get over that then the combination of Ferguson’s acting and Allred’s singing makes “Never Enough” one of the standout songs in the movie. (It’s been described as “a bit Eurovision” by Kevin Maher, “The Times” critic, which I can see but I don’t care! I find it marvellously moving).
A dangerous songbird’s nest for the married Barnum. Rebecca Ferguson and Hugh Jackman.
If you haven’t guessed it, there are some fantastic songs in this movie, written by “La La Land” song composers Benj Pasek and Justin Paul and at least one of these surely must be Oscar nominated (I’m not sure what the cut-off would be for the 2018 Oscars?).
There’s also a lot of talent in the backroom with production design and memorable costumes. Where I’d single out particular praise though is in the choreography and the editing on show.
Firstly, the choreography of “beats” in the song to the action on screen is brilliantly done, done, probably at its most impressive in a shot-glass bar-room scene between Jackman and Efron. And never (hats off to the special effects guys and cinematographer Seamus McGarvey) have you seen washing on a washing line so cleverly in time with the music.
Secondly in terms of the film editing, I am a sucker for clever “transition” shots, and there are some in this movie that just took my breath away: a transition to a pregnant Charity; a transition from ballet practice to ballet performance; there are numerous others!
Inverted magnetism. Zendaya as the trapeze artist Anne Wheeler.
I have decided to park some of my minor criticisms within the greater joy of the whole: some of the dialogue (by Jenny Bicks and Bill Condon) is as cheesy as hell, but probably no more so than in some of the Judy Garland/Mickey Rooney musicals. Where I had my biggest problem is in some of the lip synching to the songs. This is an age where the live recording of songs in films like “Les Miserables” and “La La Land” has set the bar high, and returning to the norm (I had the same problem with “Beauty and the Beast“) becomes noticeable and irritating to me. (Perhaps this is just me!).
It’s certainly not a perfect film, but its energy and drive carry it through as a memorable movie musical that may well take on a life of its own as word-of-mouth gets it more widely viewed (outside of the rather difficult Christmas holiday season). It would also be a good film for youngsters, with a bit of judicious editing (there is one moment of violence in the first 10 minutes that I would choose to edit out). From my perspective it is certainly a truly impressive debut for advert director Michael Gracey. Recommended for musical fans.
Will you like “The Greatest Showman”? This will be dictated almost entirely by whether you are a “musicals” person or not! For “The Greatest Showman” is a frothy, very loud, cheesy and high-energy musical, much more aligned, in fact, to the mainstream genre from the 40’s and 50’s than “La La Land” was.
Roll up, roll up. The circus cast entertain.
In a VERY loose interpretation of the early life of Phineas Taylor Barnum, the American huckster and impressario, we start the story with a pre-pubescent Barnum (Ellis Rubin, sung by Ziv Zaifman) as a young tailor’s assistant punching above his weight with young socialite Charity (Skylar Dunn), firmly against the wishes of her father. Spin forward (via song) and the hitched Barnum’s – now Hugh Jackman (“Logan“) and Michelle Williams (“Manchester By The Sea“) – are barely scraping a living. But Barnum has “A Million Dreams” and hits on the novel idea of opening an entertainment (coined “a circus” by journalist James Gordon Bennett (Paul Sparks)) where he offers both respect and a family to those of the city who are deformed, rejected and socially shunned. Barnum’s show is shockingly entertaining – as in both filling seats and shocking the morally-self-righteous upper classes. But never one to rest on his laurels, Barnum’s endless ambition drives him to break his social ceiling by importing the “Swedish songbird”, opera singer Jenny Lind (Rebecca Ferguson, “Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation“, “The Snowman“) ), for an ambitious and extravegant tour of the States. All does not exactly go to plan.
Washing day tunes. Hugh Jackman and Michelle Williams take to the rooftops.
As I’ve said, most critics have been making sniffy noises about this film. But I am not one of them…. I LOVED IT, have already bought the glorious soundtrack album and will be looking forwards to the DVD release. For this is joy in a box. Sure, the story is a bit weak, the characterisations of everyone (other than Barnum) pretty lightweight, but it’s a musical extravaganza! Live with it!
Hugh Jackman, who of course started his career in stage musicals, is marvellously charismatic as Barnum although his singing does tend to the “shouty” end of the scale in many of the numbers. He’s joined here by fellow musicals star Zac Efron (let’s forget “Dirty Grandpa“) as the fictitious Phillip Carlyle: a socialite playwright and partner.
But the acting and singing revelation for me was Zendaya (“Spider-Man: Homecoming“) as Efron’s (scandalous) inter-racial love interest, who has a fantastically athletic body, sings and dances wonderfully and has a magnetic stare. A marvellous trapeze routine between Efron and Zendaya (“Rewrite The Stars”) is one of the high-spots of the film for me.
An energetic dance. Zendaya and Efron take to the skies.
Elsewhere Williams proves she has a singing voice as well as being a top flight actress and the bearded lady (Broadway star Keala Settle) belts out one of the show-stopping numbers “This is Me” (although she is a little ‘shrill’ for my musical tastes).
It would be nice to extend that compliment to the wonderful Rebecca Ferguson as the “greatest singer in the world” – but she is (wisely I think) dubbed here by Loren Allred (a finalist on the US version of “The Voice”). It is a bit of a shock when “the great opera singer” opens her mouth and a modern love song comes out, but once you get over that then the combination of Ferguson’s acting and Allred’s singing makes “Never Enough” one of the standout songs in the movie. (It’s been described as “a bit Eurovision” by Kevin Maher, “The Times” critic, which I can see but I don’t care! I find it marvellously moving).
A dangerous songbird’s nest for the married Barnum. Rebecca Ferguson and Hugh Jackman.
If you haven’t guessed it, there are some fantastic songs in this movie, written by “La La Land” song composers Benj Pasek and Justin Paul and at least one of these surely must be Oscar nominated (I’m not sure what the cut-off would be for the 2018 Oscars?).
There’s also a lot of talent in the backroom with production design and memorable costumes. Where I’d single out particular praise though is in the choreography and the editing on show.
Firstly, the choreography of “beats” in the song to the action on screen is brilliantly done, done, probably at its most impressive in a shot-glass bar-room scene between Jackman and Efron. And never (hats off to the special effects guys and cinematographer Seamus McGarvey) have you seen washing on a washing line so cleverly in time with the music.
Secondly in terms of the film editing, I am a sucker for clever “transition” shots, and there are some in this movie that just took my breath away: a transition to a pregnant Charity; a transition from ballet practice to ballet performance; there are numerous others!
Inverted magnetism. Zendaya as the trapeze artist Anne Wheeler.
I have decided to park some of my minor criticisms within the greater joy of the whole: some of the dialogue (by Jenny Bicks and Bill Condon) is as cheesy as hell, but probably no more so than in some of the Judy Garland/Mickey Rooney musicals. Where I had my biggest problem is in some of the lip synching to the songs. This is an age where the live recording of songs in films like “Les Miserables” and “La La Land” has set the bar high, and returning to the norm (I had the same problem with “Beauty and the Beast“) becomes noticeable and irritating to me. (Perhaps this is just me!).
It’s certainly not a perfect film, but its energy and drive carry it through as a memorable movie musical that may well take on a life of its own as word-of-mouth gets it more widely viewed (outside of the rather difficult Christmas holiday season). It would also be a good film for youngsters, with a bit of judicious editing (there is one moment of violence in the first 10 minutes that I would choose to edit out). From my perspective it is certainly a truly impressive debut for advert director Michael Gracey. Recommended for musical fans.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Prometheus (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
After nearly 2 years of waiting and rampant speculation, director Ridley Scott’s science-fiction epic Prometheus has finally arrived. The project initially started as a prequel to Alien, and in doing so got the attention of the Alien fan community. After the last two sequels and two disastrous Alien Versus Predator spinoffs, this fan community was eager for the director who started the series to bring the series back to prominence. However, hopes were dashed when it was announced that Prometheus would not be a prequel but instead a standalone film that “shared” DNA with Alien. As production of the film developed under very tight conditions, fans could only speculate as to the nature of the film even when leaked photos and eventually trailers seem to indicate more than a passing connection to the Alien franchise.
The film follows the story of Dr. Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace), who in the late 21st century makes a startling discovery with her boyfriend Charlie Halloway (Logan Marshall-Green). Their discovery leads to an extremely expensive expedition to an unknown area of space aboard the state-of-the-art research vessel Prometheus. The eclectic but talented crew of experts along for the ride are under the stern watch of Meredith Vickers (Charlize Theron), who has been appointed by the Weyland Corporation to oversee the expedition even though she is highly skeptical about the expected goals that set the crew on the journey.
Holloway and Shaw believe that a series of paintings they discovered at several archaeological sites throughout the world indicated that ancient man had been visited and guided by beings from beyond the stars and that said beings may very well be responsible for engineering humanity as well.
After a journey of nearly 2.5 years the crew arrives at the star system depicted in the paintings and soon find themselves exploring a temple-like structure on an otherwise desolate and apparently lifeless moon. Despite the misgivings of the crew, when the true nature of their expedition is revealed upon their arrival, Shaw and Holloway are vindicated when remains of alien life forms and other technology are discovered by the crew.
Their initial exploration cut short due to a violent storm, the crew returns the safety of the ship to wait out the storm, save for two members of the team who remained at the temple after becoming lost. A series of events follow which soon indicate that not only are there hidden agendas at play but that the crew has stumbled upon a discovery that they are ill-prepared for.
Bizarre and horrific revelations and events follow which cause the crew members to question their motivations and the expedition’s purpose as well as examine their place in a much more complex and dangerous universe, where their petty human concerns and conflicts now seem much more insignificant.
It would be very difficult to go into further detail with spoiling key elements to the film. Suffice it to say that there are some real twist and turns along the way as well as some thrills and action that keep things moving along nicely as the film makes its way towards the conclusion. But, yes, Prometheus does have a very clear connection to the Alien films.
Scott had said that he wanted to do something epic in scale and in that he has, for the most part, succeeded. Shot using the latest 3-D technology, the film is amazing to watch. The opening sequence, as well as some footage of the ship in-flight, are truly gorgeous to look at and the amazing attention to detail not only on the alien world but on the ship itself is truly spectacular.
Early in the film, the android David (Michael Fassbender) is seen going through his various routines on the ship as the crew sleeps in suspended animation. His various activities range from monitoring the crew and their dreams, to watching old movies and studying ancient languages and keeping an eye on the ship systems. All that seems fairly routine, but it is his skill with a basketball that was fascinating and establishes the complex and dynamic character that he portrays.
This introduction underscores the diversity of the crew. We are given bits and pieces about all of them to help them stand out from the usual stock characters in this type of film. While we are not given as complete a background set up as I would’ve liked, little touches such as Capt. Janik (Idris Elba), insisting upon celebrating Christmas as well as the crew running side bets, help to underscore that these are people we can easily relate to, just doing their job in extraordinary situations. This was something that Scott mastered in the original Alien, giving you average Joe’s who had to deal with extraterrestrial horror.
I mention this because Prometheus is not an action film, nor is it a horror film. I wonder if perhaps this film had not had the production costs that it does, if it would be better suited for fall release. I say this not as a criticism of the movie, simply to emphasize the fact this is a movie that requires thought, something your typical summer blockbuster doesn’t. Scott does not lay it out on a plate for the audience and say “Here it is, take it.” He presents a story filled with questions, and instead of giving you answers, gives you even more questions as the film goes along.
At first, this was more than a bit frustrating as I wanted answers to questions I’ve had since seeing the original Alien back in 1979. I wanted to know more about some of the plot lines and characters as well as certain situations that were in the film. At one point the captain shares some very important information. I asked myself how this piece of news was arrived at, as certainly a discovery of this magnitude would have been a very interesting scene. However much like the film’s premise, faith is an underlying and key component. Just as the characters discuss and act based on faith, or lack thereof, audience members asked to have faith in the storyline and the sequence of events that lead up to the finale. There will be those who will be unwilling to do so and will be quick to find fault with the film, cast, and plot. But I hope there will be more who accept that they are seeing the first part of a larger journey and understand that there are things that they are meant to know, as well as things hey are not meant to know and in time more may be revealed.
Scott has indicated that he would like to do another film in the series and scuttlebutt indicates the studio would very much like to entertain thoughts of a trilogy. I would certainly like to see this, as would a few of my fellow critics. Following our screening, three of us stood around discussing aspects of the film, trying to figure out what it really meant and how it connected to the Alien series as well as potential future films in the series. If nothing else, this movie will spark interesting conversation.
As the days have passed since seeing the film I’ve appreciated it more and more with each passing day. Scott could have taken the easy way out and given a straight up prequel to Alien complete with all manner of monsters and CGI creatures on the loose wrecking havoc upon a crew of unfortunate victims. Instead he opted to take a much larger look at life, the universe, and our place in it and wove a complex and open-ended framework that not only provided fantastic entertainment but also provided an opportunity for intelligent conversation and introspection.
From the incredible visuals to the engaging and enjoyable cast, Prometheus is a refreshing and enjoyable film and an extremely welcome and much-needed addition to the alien franchise.
The film follows the story of Dr. Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace), who in the late 21st century makes a startling discovery with her boyfriend Charlie Halloway (Logan Marshall-Green). Their discovery leads to an extremely expensive expedition to an unknown area of space aboard the state-of-the-art research vessel Prometheus. The eclectic but talented crew of experts along for the ride are under the stern watch of Meredith Vickers (Charlize Theron), who has been appointed by the Weyland Corporation to oversee the expedition even though she is highly skeptical about the expected goals that set the crew on the journey.
Holloway and Shaw believe that a series of paintings they discovered at several archaeological sites throughout the world indicated that ancient man had been visited and guided by beings from beyond the stars and that said beings may very well be responsible for engineering humanity as well.
After a journey of nearly 2.5 years the crew arrives at the star system depicted in the paintings and soon find themselves exploring a temple-like structure on an otherwise desolate and apparently lifeless moon. Despite the misgivings of the crew, when the true nature of their expedition is revealed upon their arrival, Shaw and Holloway are vindicated when remains of alien life forms and other technology are discovered by the crew.
Their initial exploration cut short due to a violent storm, the crew returns the safety of the ship to wait out the storm, save for two members of the team who remained at the temple after becoming lost. A series of events follow which soon indicate that not only are there hidden agendas at play but that the crew has stumbled upon a discovery that they are ill-prepared for.
Bizarre and horrific revelations and events follow which cause the crew members to question their motivations and the expedition’s purpose as well as examine their place in a much more complex and dangerous universe, where their petty human concerns and conflicts now seem much more insignificant.
It would be very difficult to go into further detail with spoiling key elements to the film. Suffice it to say that there are some real twist and turns along the way as well as some thrills and action that keep things moving along nicely as the film makes its way towards the conclusion. But, yes, Prometheus does have a very clear connection to the Alien films.
Scott had said that he wanted to do something epic in scale and in that he has, for the most part, succeeded. Shot using the latest 3-D technology, the film is amazing to watch. The opening sequence, as well as some footage of the ship in-flight, are truly gorgeous to look at and the amazing attention to detail not only on the alien world but on the ship itself is truly spectacular.
Early in the film, the android David (Michael Fassbender) is seen going through his various routines on the ship as the crew sleeps in suspended animation. His various activities range from monitoring the crew and their dreams, to watching old movies and studying ancient languages and keeping an eye on the ship systems. All that seems fairly routine, but it is his skill with a basketball that was fascinating and establishes the complex and dynamic character that he portrays.
This introduction underscores the diversity of the crew. We are given bits and pieces about all of them to help them stand out from the usual stock characters in this type of film. While we are not given as complete a background set up as I would’ve liked, little touches such as Capt. Janik (Idris Elba), insisting upon celebrating Christmas as well as the crew running side bets, help to underscore that these are people we can easily relate to, just doing their job in extraordinary situations. This was something that Scott mastered in the original Alien, giving you average Joe’s who had to deal with extraterrestrial horror.
I mention this because Prometheus is not an action film, nor is it a horror film. I wonder if perhaps this film had not had the production costs that it does, if it would be better suited for fall release. I say this not as a criticism of the movie, simply to emphasize the fact this is a movie that requires thought, something your typical summer blockbuster doesn’t. Scott does not lay it out on a plate for the audience and say “Here it is, take it.” He presents a story filled with questions, and instead of giving you answers, gives you even more questions as the film goes along.
At first, this was more than a bit frustrating as I wanted answers to questions I’ve had since seeing the original Alien back in 1979. I wanted to know more about some of the plot lines and characters as well as certain situations that were in the film. At one point the captain shares some very important information. I asked myself how this piece of news was arrived at, as certainly a discovery of this magnitude would have been a very interesting scene. However much like the film’s premise, faith is an underlying and key component. Just as the characters discuss and act based on faith, or lack thereof, audience members asked to have faith in the storyline and the sequence of events that lead up to the finale. There will be those who will be unwilling to do so and will be quick to find fault with the film, cast, and plot. But I hope there will be more who accept that they are seeing the first part of a larger journey and understand that there are things that they are meant to know, as well as things hey are not meant to know and in time more may be revealed.
Scott has indicated that he would like to do another film in the series and scuttlebutt indicates the studio would very much like to entertain thoughts of a trilogy. I would certainly like to see this, as would a few of my fellow critics. Following our screening, three of us stood around discussing aspects of the film, trying to figure out what it really meant and how it connected to the Alien series as well as potential future films in the series. If nothing else, this movie will spark interesting conversation.
As the days have passed since seeing the film I’ve appreciated it more and more with each passing day. Scott could have taken the easy way out and given a straight up prequel to Alien complete with all manner of monsters and CGI creatures on the loose wrecking havoc upon a crew of unfortunate victims. Instead he opted to take a much larger look at life, the universe, and our place in it and wove a complex and open-ended framework that not only provided fantastic entertainment but also provided an opportunity for intelligent conversation and introspection.
From the incredible visuals to the engaging and enjoyable cast, Prometheus is a refreshing and enjoyable film and an extremely welcome and much-needed addition to the alien franchise.