Search
RWBY
7.6
Rate It
TV Show
Team RWBY (Ruby, Weiss, Belladonna and Yang) trains at Beacon Academy, to fight crime and monsters...
Rooster Teeth RWBY Grimm
Putting It On: The West End Theatre of Michael Codron
Michael Codron and Alan Strachan
2.0
Rate It
Book
Michael Codron is undoubtedly the leading producer of postwar British theatre. Still active after an...
The Book of Delights: Essays
Book
“Ross Gay’s eye lands upon wonder at every turn, bolstering my belief in the countless small...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Downton Abbey (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Very little happens…. and it’s totally glorious!
The “Downton Abbey” TV show is comfortingly bland. The tales of the well-heeled Grantham family and the below-stairs antics of their servants. But for those who have followed Julian Fellowes‘ pot-boiler drama through all six seasons, and a number of Christmas specials, it’s like a favourite jumper… or rediscovering your comfy slippers just as the nights start getting colder.
But in a world where TV spin-off movies are notoriously dire, would this movie by the nail in Downton’s coffin?
Thankfully not.
It’s a glorious production! The opening of this film will, I’m sure, fill all Downton fans with utter glee. John Lunn‘s music builds progressively as a royal letter wends its way through the 1927 postal system, eventually ending up (as the famous theme finally emerges spectacularly) at the doors of Downton Abbey. (Downton is of course the gorgeous Highclere Castle near Newbury, acting as a star of the film in its own right. Somewhere I was lucky enough to visit just a couple of weeks before filming began).
The plot(s).
In a year of Thanos-crushing drama, there really is nothing very substantial going on here!
The King (George V, an almost unrecognizable Simon “Hitchhikers Guide” Jones) and Queen Mary (Geraldine James) are staying over in Downton for one night on their Yorkshire tour. This naturally sets the below-stairs staff into a bit of a tizz, as indeed it does the whole village. But their glee at involvement and recognition is a bit premature, since the royal entourage – headed by an officious Mr Wilson (David Haig) – parachute the complete gamut of staff into the location to serve the royal party, so bypassing the locals completely.
The ‘Downton massive’ are of course having none of this, and a battle-royale ensues.
Scattered as sub-plots like confetti at a wedding are a military man putting a strong arm around the potentially-risky Irish Tom Branson (Allen Leech); a family rift that erupts between Aunt Violet (Maggie Smith) and cousin (and royal lady-in-waiting) Maud Bagshaw (Imelda Staunton); a sobbing princess (Kate Phillips); an over-enthusiastic shopkeeper (Mark Addy), who is difficult to let-down gently; a plumbing emergency with romantic jealousy and sabotage involved; the sexual preferences of Barrow (Robert James-Collier) getting him into trouble; and a potential love-interest for the widowed Tom with Maud’s maid Lucy (Tuppence Middleton). (There are probably half a dozen others that I’ve forgotten!)
A huge ensemble cast.
As befits a show that has gone over six seasons, there is a huge ensemble cast involved. Inevitably, some get more air time than others. Bates (Brendan Coyle) seems to be particularly short-changed, and above stairs I thought the same was true – strangely enough – of the Crawleys (Hugh Bonneville and Elizabeth McGovern).
As for Henry Talbot (Matthew Goode), he’s hardly in it at all! Apart from some impressive camera gymnastics for his running-up-the-stairs arrival, he doesn’t make much of an impression at all. (I can only guess he had other filming commitments).
These are players that have worked together as a team for many years, and it shows.
But the acting kudos has to go to Maggie Smith who steals absolutely every scene she’s in, with genuinely witty lines – “I’ll lick the stamps myself” (LoL). Close behind though is Imelda Staunton who also turns in a very impressive performance.
Glorious photography.
The photography is fantastic throughout, with deep rich colours, pin-sharp focus and some seriously dramatic pans. A big hats off to cinematographer Ben Smithard, but also to his drone team (“The helicopter ladies”) for delivering some jaw-droppingly gorgeous shots of Highclere castle.
(By the way, I thought the picture at my local Picturehouse cinema – Harbour Lights in Southampton – was particularly stunning: I queried it with them, and they said they had changed the (very expensive) projector bulb just that day! These things clearly matter!)
Will is appeal?
If you are a Downton fan, yes, Yes, YES! I have been a moderate fan of the TV series, but went with superfans – the illustrious Mrs Movie-Man and (as a guest visitor) Miss Movie-Man. I loved it, but the two ladies were ecstatic with the movie.
Even if you have never seen an episode, it is easy to pick up and the quality of the production is so impressive I don’t think you will be disappointed.
As such, I think I need to post a blend of ratings for this one.
But in a world where TV spin-off movies are notoriously dire, would this movie by the nail in Downton’s coffin?
Thankfully not.
It’s a glorious production! The opening of this film will, I’m sure, fill all Downton fans with utter glee. John Lunn‘s music builds progressively as a royal letter wends its way through the 1927 postal system, eventually ending up (as the famous theme finally emerges spectacularly) at the doors of Downton Abbey. (Downton is of course the gorgeous Highclere Castle near Newbury, acting as a star of the film in its own right. Somewhere I was lucky enough to visit just a couple of weeks before filming began).
The plot(s).
In a year of Thanos-crushing drama, there really is nothing very substantial going on here!
The King (George V, an almost unrecognizable Simon “Hitchhikers Guide” Jones) and Queen Mary (Geraldine James) are staying over in Downton for one night on their Yorkshire tour. This naturally sets the below-stairs staff into a bit of a tizz, as indeed it does the whole village. But their glee at involvement and recognition is a bit premature, since the royal entourage – headed by an officious Mr Wilson (David Haig) – parachute the complete gamut of staff into the location to serve the royal party, so bypassing the locals completely.
The ‘Downton massive’ are of course having none of this, and a battle-royale ensues.
Scattered as sub-plots like confetti at a wedding are a military man putting a strong arm around the potentially-risky Irish Tom Branson (Allen Leech); a family rift that erupts between Aunt Violet (Maggie Smith) and cousin (and royal lady-in-waiting) Maud Bagshaw (Imelda Staunton); a sobbing princess (Kate Phillips); an over-enthusiastic shopkeeper (Mark Addy), who is difficult to let-down gently; a plumbing emergency with romantic jealousy and sabotage involved; the sexual preferences of Barrow (Robert James-Collier) getting him into trouble; and a potential love-interest for the widowed Tom with Maud’s maid Lucy (Tuppence Middleton). (There are probably half a dozen others that I’ve forgotten!)
A huge ensemble cast.
As befits a show that has gone over six seasons, there is a huge ensemble cast involved. Inevitably, some get more air time than others. Bates (Brendan Coyle) seems to be particularly short-changed, and above stairs I thought the same was true – strangely enough – of the Crawleys (Hugh Bonneville and Elizabeth McGovern).
As for Henry Talbot (Matthew Goode), he’s hardly in it at all! Apart from some impressive camera gymnastics for his running-up-the-stairs arrival, he doesn’t make much of an impression at all. (I can only guess he had other filming commitments).
These are players that have worked together as a team for many years, and it shows.
But the acting kudos has to go to Maggie Smith who steals absolutely every scene she’s in, with genuinely witty lines – “I’ll lick the stamps myself” (LoL). Close behind though is Imelda Staunton who also turns in a very impressive performance.
Glorious photography.
The photography is fantastic throughout, with deep rich colours, pin-sharp focus and some seriously dramatic pans. A big hats off to cinematographer Ben Smithard, but also to his drone team (“The helicopter ladies”) for delivering some jaw-droppingly gorgeous shots of Highclere castle.
(By the way, I thought the picture at my local Picturehouse cinema – Harbour Lights in Southampton – was particularly stunning: I queried it with them, and they said they had changed the (very expensive) projector bulb just that day! These things clearly matter!)
Will is appeal?
If you are a Downton fan, yes, Yes, YES! I have been a moderate fan of the TV series, but went with superfans – the illustrious Mrs Movie-Man and (as a guest visitor) Miss Movie-Man. I loved it, but the two ladies were ecstatic with the movie.
Even if you have never seen an episode, it is easy to pick up and the quality of the production is so impressive I don’t think you will be disappointed.
As such, I think I need to post a blend of ratings for this one.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Downton Abbey (2019) in Movies
Sep 16, 2019
The King and Queen, His Royal Highness, King George V and Queen Mary are visiting Downton Abbey! This is the premise set for the grand cinematic conclusion of the very popular BBC/PBS series that has told the saga of the Crawley family.
Robert Crawley, the Earl of Grantham (Hugh Bonneville) will host the King and Queen for one night as they tour the country. This starts the frenzy of preparation at Downton Abbey. The entire cast from the television series returns to wrap up the epic tale of the family led by the Dowager Countess of Grantham (Dame Maggie Smith as the stoic, protective and acid tongued head of the Crawley Family). We get to view the intrigue and subterfuge that has been built upon the ages as the players in the game, maneuver their way through the challenges of royal protocol.
The daily run of Downton has been passed down to Lady Mary Talbot (Michelle Dockery), who now needs to insure that the house is in order and passes the inspection of the Royal Servants of the King. The kitchen is all a twitter with plans and preparation for shopping and meals. Come to find that the King and Queen has their own travelling butler and ladies maid that arrive beforehand to establish the household in order to provide the crown with the comforts that they are accustomed.
This film has been eagerly anticipated since the last season had aired. Fans all around the world have been waiting for this to wrap up the loose ends from the closing season of the television series. The film does exactly that. Taking each thread and weaving a complete conclusion of the stories that compelled millions around the world to stay tuned.
For those who have not seen the series but are wrangled to watch the movie, you will find the charm, elegance, humour and wit applied to the story. One is not required to have watched any, if all of the episodes of Downton in order to enjoy the storyline. The film is perfectly entertaining as a standalone film. Each character so well crafted and beautifully acted by the ensemble.
I recommend taking your favorite Downton fan to the cinema for an evening of grand proportions, romantic notions, charm and the glamour of 1927 England. Thoroughly enjoyable with or without previous show knowledge.
5 out of 5 for fans
4 out of 5 for non fans
Robert Crawley, the Earl of Grantham (Hugh Bonneville) will host the King and Queen for one night as they tour the country. This starts the frenzy of preparation at Downton Abbey. The entire cast from the television series returns to wrap up the epic tale of the family led by the Dowager Countess of Grantham (Dame Maggie Smith as the stoic, protective and acid tongued head of the Crawley Family). We get to view the intrigue and subterfuge that has been built upon the ages as the players in the game, maneuver their way through the challenges of royal protocol.
The daily run of Downton has been passed down to Lady Mary Talbot (Michelle Dockery), who now needs to insure that the house is in order and passes the inspection of the Royal Servants of the King. The kitchen is all a twitter with plans and preparation for shopping and meals. Come to find that the King and Queen has their own travelling butler and ladies maid that arrive beforehand to establish the household in order to provide the crown with the comforts that they are accustomed.
This film has been eagerly anticipated since the last season had aired. Fans all around the world have been waiting for this to wrap up the loose ends from the closing season of the television series. The film does exactly that. Taking each thread and weaving a complete conclusion of the stories that compelled millions around the world to stay tuned.
For those who have not seen the series but are wrangled to watch the movie, you will find the charm, elegance, humour and wit applied to the story. One is not required to have watched any, if all of the episodes of Downton in order to enjoy the storyline. The film is perfectly entertaining as a standalone film. Each character so well crafted and beautifully acted by the ensemble.
I recommend taking your favorite Downton fan to the cinema for an evening of grand proportions, romantic notions, charm and the glamour of 1927 England. Thoroughly enjoyable with or without previous show knowledge.
5 out of 5 for fans
4 out of 5 for non fans
Darren (1599 KP) rated Nanny McPhee Returns (2010) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Story: Nanny McPhee and the Big Bang starts as we meet mother Isabel (Gyllenhaal) who is trying to run the family home and raise her three children, while her husband is away at war, adding to her pressure is her brother-in-law Phil (Ifans) that is looking to get money and two cousins added to the family that are used to the luxury life.
When Isabel starts struggling, she gets the call from Nanny McPhee (Thompson) who offers to help put the children back in line with her magic. The children must learn to work together to help the farm stay in the right hands.
Thoughts on Nanny McPhee and the Big Bang
Characters – Nanny McPhee is the magical nanny that comes to family’s when they are in need of support, she has come to this family in their time of need to help teach them how to be together in one of the most difficult times in their lives, the war, she brings her rules like before as she looks to bring the best out in the people. Isabel is the mother of the three that is trying to run and farm and work, her husband is at war, with the uncertainty of whether he will be returning. She doesn’t want help, but must accept it to keep the pressures of her life away from her children. Phil is the brother-in-law to Isabel, he has created his own gambling debts and wants the farm to clear the debts, he will do anything to get what he needs. Mrs Docherty is the boss of Isabel and family friend, she isn’t quite all there which makes her character come off funnier than she should. The children do come from different worlds which does see them clash in the time of conflict.
Performances – Emma Thompson does continue to enjoy playing this role which she handles with ease. Maggie Gyllenhaal gets to play the role well through the film, which shows us just how difficult a position her character is in. Rhys Ifans does everything you would imagine in the comedy role in the film, while Maggie Smith also adds plenty of comedy through the film.
Story – The story here follows a mother that takes over the family farm with her husband away at war, with money running low and the stress of life getting to her, that gets help from Nanny McPhee. The story here easily becomes a much more serious one because we are dealing with children that are being separated from their parents during war, where they don’t know if their family will be together once the war is over. This story does have a very different tone to the first one, one that does feel real, even though it does seem slightly stranger for Nanny McPhee to be here, this time around. The story here is more entertaining than the original which is always a good thing.
Comedy/Fantasy – The comedy in the film does hit better than the first film, most of it comes from the arguments which feel funnier, the fantasy in the film does work too, which ends up blending with the comedy involved.
Settings – The film is mostly set within one farm which does show us just how much trouble the family will be facing in their time of need.
Special Effects – The effects here are the biggest step back sadly because we can see the CGI moments looking completely out of place.
Scene of the Movie – Connection.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The CGI.
Final Thoughts – This is a great sequel that does have a strong story to cover up the weaker CGI being used in the film.
Overall: Wonderful sequel.
When Isabel starts struggling, she gets the call from Nanny McPhee (Thompson) who offers to help put the children back in line with her magic. The children must learn to work together to help the farm stay in the right hands.
Thoughts on Nanny McPhee and the Big Bang
Characters – Nanny McPhee is the magical nanny that comes to family’s when they are in need of support, she has come to this family in their time of need to help teach them how to be together in one of the most difficult times in their lives, the war, she brings her rules like before as she looks to bring the best out in the people. Isabel is the mother of the three that is trying to run and farm and work, her husband is at war, with the uncertainty of whether he will be returning. She doesn’t want help, but must accept it to keep the pressures of her life away from her children. Phil is the brother-in-law to Isabel, he has created his own gambling debts and wants the farm to clear the debts, he will do anything to get what he needs. Mrs Docherty is the boss of Isabel and family friend, she isn’t quite all there which makes her character come off funnier than she should. The children do come from different worlds which does see them clash in the time of conflict.
Performances – Emma Thompson does continue to enjoy playing this role which she handles with ease. Maggie Gyllenhaal gets to play the role well through the film, which shows us just how difficult a position her character is in. Rhys Ifans does everything you would imagine in the comedy role in the film, while Maggie Smith also adds plenty of comedy through the film.
Story – The story here follows a mother that takes over the family farm with her husband away at war, with money running low and the stress of life getting to her, that gets help from Nanny McPhee. The story here easily becomes a much more serious one because we are dealing with children that are being separated from their parents during war, where they don’t know if their family will be together once the war is over. This story does have a very different tone to the first one, one that does feel real, even though it does seem slightly stranger for Nanny McPhee to be here, this time around. The story here is more entertaining than the original which is always a good thing.
Comedy/Fantasy – The comedy in the film does hit better than the first film, most of it comes from the arguments which feel funnier, the fantasy in the film does work too, which ends up blending with the comedy involved.
Settings – The film is mostly set within one farm which does show us just how much trouble the family will be facing in their time of need.
Special Effects – The effects here are the biggest step back sadly because we can see the CGI moments looking completely out of place.
Scene of the Movie – Connection.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – The CGI.
Final Thoughts – This is a great sequel that does have a strong story to cover up the weaker CGI being used in the film.
Overall: Wonderful sequel.
Lilyn G - Sci-Fi & Scary (91 KP) rated Winchester: The House That Ghosts Built (2018) in Movies
Feb 2, 2018
It was okay. Nothing more, nothing less.
So, when I saw the trailer for Winchester, I was a little intrigued. Not a lot, but a little. A bit more so when I realized that Helen Mirren was in it. Though I can’t say I could name anything else she’s been in off-hand, I did recognize that she had a bit of weight behind her name. Her presence, combined with Jason Clarke (who I recognize more as a “Hey, it’s that guy” than actually recognize) gave me some hope for the movie. Hence stealing away on a Friday afternoon, paying entirely too much money for a ticket and popcorn to get the big-screen experience.
Winchester could have been good, if it didn’t feel like they were scared to go outside the realm of jump-scares. (Though, I will give the directors credit for surprising me and putting a different spin on the typical mirror scare.) Most of the acting was decent-to-solid, but the actors were sorely limited by a distinctly yawn-worthy script.
In regards to the Winchester cast: Clarke has an undeniable charisma. The way Mirren portrayed Sara Winchester, she had that haughty, truth-speaking old lady thing going on that I appreciated and thought I was in for a treat. I was wrong, unfortunately. I felt very much like Mirren’s heart wasn’t in her role at all, and hiding her behind a veil was sometimes the only way to disguise the blue cardboard of her eyes. Sarah Snook reminded me a bit of Maggie Smith, and she had a way of keeping your attention on her. However, Henry, played by Finn Scicluna-O’Prey was barely worth noticing. Scicluna-O’Prey’s ability to command attention on the screen was pretty much solely limited to the well-light scenes featuring his brilliant red hair. (I feel really mean saying that about a younger actor, but it’s the truth.)
The pacing was middling. I definitely got the fidgets a few times during the movie. The dialogue had it’s moments. (There’s a scene between Mirren and Clarke that’ll have you snickering.) The action, such as it was, was bland and cliched. The ending scene had me rolling my eyes.
Overall, Winchester wasn’t god-awful, but it wasn’t something your average horror-movie watcher hasn’t seen 999 times before. It’s one to rent at your local Redbox, or when it his Amazon, but not worth paying movie theatre prices for right now.
Winchester could have been good, if it didn’t feel like they were scared to go outside the realm of jump-scares. (Though, I will give the directors credit for surprising me and putting a different spin on the typical mirror scare.) Most of the acting was decent-to-solid, but the actors were sorely limited by a distinctly yawn-worthy script.
In regards to the Winchester cast: Clarke has an undeniable charisma. The way Mirren portrayed Sara Winchester, she had that haughty, truth-speaking old lady thing going on that I appreciated and thought I was in for a treat. I was wrong, unfortunately. I felt very much like Mirren’s heart wasn’t in her role at all, and hiding her behind a veil was sometimes the only way to disguise the blue cardboard of her eyes. Sarah Snook reminded me a bit of Maggie Smith, and she had a way of keeping your attention on her. However, Henry, played by Finn Scicluna-O’Prey was barely worth noticing. Scicluna-O’Prey’s ability to command attention on the screen was pretty much solely limited to the well-light scenes featuring his brilliant red hair. (I feel really mean saying that about a younger actor, but it’s the truth.)
The pacing was middling. I definitely got the fidgets a few times during the movie. The dialogue had it’s moments. (There’s a scene between Mirren and Clarke that’ll have you snickering.) The action, such as it was, was bland and cliched. The ending scene had me rolling my eyes.
Overall, Winchester wasn’t god-awful, but it wasn’t something your average horror-movie watcher hasn’t seen 999 times before. It’s one to rent at your local Redbox, or when it his Amazon, but not worth paying movie theatre prices for right now.
Darren (1599 KP) rated Hook (1991) in Movies
Jul 7, 2019
Director: Steven Spielberg
Writer: James V Hart, Nick Castle, Malia Scotch Marmo (Screenplay) J.M. Barrie (Books)
Starring: Dustin Hoffman, Robin Williams, Julia Roberts, Bob Hoskins, Maggie Smith, Caroline Goodall, Charlie Korsmo, Amber Scott
Plot: When Captain Hook kidnaps his children, an adult Peter Pan must return to Neverland and reclaim his youthful spirit in order to challenge his old enemy.
Tagline – What if Peter Pan grew up?
Runtime: 2 Hours 22 Minutes
There may be spoilers in the rest of the review
Verdict: Fun-Filled Fantasy
Story: Hook starts as we meet businessman Peter Banning (Williams) who has started over working leading to his children become distant, his wife Moira (Goodall) forces him to visit his Granny Wendy (Smith) in London for Christmas, where she sees how much Peter has changed since his childhood of never wanting to grow up.
Captain Hook (Hoffman) takes Peter’s children, which sees Peter needing to be pushed into returning to Neverland, a place he has long forgotten about, with Tinkerbell (Roberts) taking him there only for Hook to be left disappointed by the man Peter has become, Tinkerbell has three days to restore Peter’s faith in Neverland to save his children.
Thoughts on Hook
Characters – Peter Banning is a lawyer that has been neglecting his family, his Grandmother sees him losing his young heart that made her take him in, in the first place, Peter must confront his past to save his children from his old nemesis Captain Hook in Neverland, a place he has long since forgotten about. Peter has become everything he once hated as a child and shows how at times parents can get buried in their work. Captain Hook has been waiting for the day Peter Pan returns, he is left disappointed when he does return a shell of the boy that left, giving him three days to prepare for a battle, while having his own plan to get revenge on Peter. Tinkerbell comes to Peter to bring him back to Neverland, she helps transform him back to his original self, while showing him what he is still fighting for.
Performances – Robin Williams was a great choice for this role, he gets to manages the serious adult side of everything as well as the playful side of Peter Pan with ease being able to swap between the two whenever he needs to. Dustin Hoffman as the villainous Hook has great enjoyment in this role where he does get to play along with his character. Julia Roberts does all she needs to do without being as involved as the lead too.
Story – The story follows an older Peter Pan that must return to Neverland to save his own children after his old nemesis Captain Hook takes them there. This spin on the Peter Pan story is a wonderful on because see Peter grown up becoming everything he promised he wouldn’t shows us just how difficult being an adult can be, you will turn your back on parts of your childhood become what you once feared. This was always the meaning behind Peter Pan in the first place, finding an escape from the busy lives, now an adult must use this to save his own relationship with his children and family, which is what is important in life.
Adventure/Comedy/Fantasy – The adventure side of the film takes Peter to Neverland to relive moments of his childhood in a fantasy battle against pirates with fairies on their side. We do get elements of comedy, but even Robin Williams is held back from going into his full routine like we saw in Aladdin.
Settings – The film uses the same settings that we know from Peter Pan, the London setting might well be a more modern one, but Neverland hasn’t aged a day since Peter has left.
Scene of the Movie – The battle.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Pop culture references.
Final Thoughts – This is a magical version of Peter Pan’s adventures showing how life can change for adults who never thought they would be when they were children.
Overall: Magical adventure.
Rating
Writer: James V Hart, Nick Castle, Malia Scotch Marmo (Screenplay) J.M. Barrie (Books)
Starring: Dustin Hoffman, Robin Williams, Julia Roberts, Bob Hoskins, Maggie Smith, Caroline Goodall, Charlie Korsmo, Amber Scott
Plot: When Captain Hook kidnaps his children, an adult Peter Pan must return to Neverland and reclaim his youthful spirit in order to challenge his old enemy.
Tagline – What if Peter Pan grew up?
Runtime: 2 Hours 22 Minutes
There may be spoilers in the rest of the review
Verdict: Fun-Filled Fantasy
Story: Hook starts as we meet businessman Peter Banning (Williams) who has started over working leading to his children become distant, his wife Moira (Goodall) forces him to visit his Granny Wendy (Smith) in London for Christmas, where she sees how much Peter has changed since his childhood of never wanting to grow up.
Captain Hook (Hoffman) takes Peter’s children, which sees Peter needing to be pushed into returning to Neverland, a place he has long forgotten about, with Tinkerbell (Roberts) taking him there only for Hook to be left disappointed by the man Peter has become, Tinkerbell has three days to restore Peter’s faith in Neverland to save his children.
Thoughts on Hook
Characters – Peter Banning is a lawyer that has been neglecting his family, his Grandmother sees him losing his young heart that made her take him in, in the first place, Peter must confront his past to save his children from his old nemesis Captain Hook in Neverland, a place he has long since forgotten about. Peter has become everything he once hated as a child and shows how at times parents can get buried in their work. Captain Hook has been waiting for the day Peter Pan returns, he is left disappointed when he does return a shell of the boy that left, giving him three days to prepare for a battle, while having his own plan to get revenge on Peter. Tinkerbell comes to Peter to bring him back to Neverland, she helps transform him back to his original self, while showing him what he is still fighting for.
Performances – Robin Williams was a great choice for this role, he gets to manages the serious adult side of everything as well as the playful side of Peter Pan with ease being able to swap between the two whenever he needs to. Dustin Hoffman as the villainous Hook has great enjoyment in this role where he does get to play along with his character. Julia Roberts does all she needs to do without being as involved as the lead too.
Story – The story follows an older Peter Pan that must return to Neverland to save his own children after his old nemesis Captain Hook takes them there. This spin on the Peter Pan story is a wonderful on because see Peter grown up becoming everything he promised he wouldn’t shows us just how difficult being an adult can be, you will turn your back on parts of your childhood become what you once feared. This was always the meaning behind Peter Pan in the first place, finding an escape from the busy lives, now an adult must use this to save his own relationship with his children and family, which is what is important in life.
Adventure/Comedy/Fantasy – The adventure side of the film takes Peter to Neverland to relive moments of his childhood in a fantasy battle against pirates with fairies on their side. We do get elements of comedy, but even Robin Williams is held back from going into his full routine like we saw in Aladdin.
Settings – The film uses the same settings that we know from Peter Pan, the London setting might well be a more modern one, but Neverland hasn’t aged a day since Peter has left.
Scene of the Movie – The battle.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Pop culture references.
Final Thoughts – This is a magical version of Peter Pan’s adventures showing how life can change for adults who never thought they would be when they were children.
Overall: Magical adventure.
Rating
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Lady In The Van (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019 (Updated Jun 11, 2019)
Like a particularly lethargic sloth
Cinema has a long lasting love of people having their homes invaded by unwanted intruders, and not just because that’s how most directors view anyone who tries to tell them their opinion on filmmaking. It’s because there’s a lot of different directions one can take with the drama and excitement of home invasion. The horror of Wait Until Dark, the brutality of Straw Dogs, the silliness of Home Alone, the potential is quite large. And now throwing in its own interpretation of this theme is The Lady in the Van, based on the somewhat true story of Alan Bennett’s relationship with a transient woman who parked her van on his driveway. So, how does he and the audience respond?
With a dull, mild curiosity.
Despite being from the viewpoint of two Alan Bennetts, described as one being the writer and the other living the life, the main character is Miss Sheppard, the lady in the van. The film insists that we should be interested in her mysterious life, her past as a pianist and a nun, and why she chooses to live in the van, but throughout most of the film I was only thinking “Oh, let’s just go back and hear Alan Bennett be cynical some more.” The words are witty and sharp, but it’s mostly said about things we don’t care about. Miss Sheppard is a flat, mostly dull character, and the audience is unwillingly handcuffed to her.
The highlight of the film is its acting, with the cast being a veritable who’s who of Britain’s finest talent, and James Corden. What dimension Miss Sheppard has is provided almost entirely by the volatile yet vulnerable performance by Maggie Smith, and Alex Jennings is as real an Alan Bennett as the actual Alan Bennett. Even in the small roles, everyone from Roger Allam to Gwen Taylor manage to force themselves to shine. The only bad performance is from, of all people, Jim Broadbent, who pops up to antagonise Miss Sheppard but appears less like a real human being and more like a cartoon supervillain. For a second, I thought the character’s name was Baron von Drakkhen.
But great players cannot save a bad game, and the story of the film is flat, predictable and boring. If you don’t immediately care about Miss Sheppard, then the film becomes more tedious and lifeless by the second. I guessed long before the end the mystery behind Miss Sheppard, but even if I hadn’t I would still have been bored due to the lack of any interest. The film believes that the existence of a mystery to be motivation enough to solve it, which just isn’t the case; I don’t know what John McCririck had for breakfast, but I’m not going to stare at his stools to find out.
Not helping matters is a very by the numbers direction by Nicholas Hytner. While not incompetent, there’s very little in the way of style or flair without being casual. The only parts that show any sort of imagination are the fourth wall breaks, but the best only happen towards the end. It’s a shame that the potential of having two Alan Bennetts and seeing the film from the perspective of the writer only starts to be explored as the film is drawing to a close. Otherwise, a robot could’ve directed this film.
Alan Bennett is a highly praised writer, and rightfully so, but The Lady in the Van just isn’t his best. The above-average but by no means stellar script is tied to a plot as lifeless and sluggish as a particularly lethargic sloth. If you’re really hurting to see Bennett at his best, it’d be a lot cheaper and a lot more entertaining to rent The Madness of King George or The History Boys or even one of The Secret Policeman’s Ball’s, plus you can order some pizza from your sofa. Otherwise, The Lady in the Van, unlike the real Miss Sheppard, can very safely be ignored.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/11/19/like-a-particularly-lethargic-sloth-the-lady-in-the-van-review/
With a dull, mild curiosity.
Despite being from the viewpoint of two Alan Bennetts, described as one being the writer and the other living the life, the main character is Miss Sheppard, the lady in the van. The film insists that we should be interested in her mysterious life, her past as a pianist and a nun, and why she chooses to live in the van, but throughout most of the film I was only thinking “Oh, let’s just go back and hear Alan Bennett be cynical some more.” The words are witty and sharp, but it’s mostly said about things we don’t care about. Miss Sheppard is a flat, mostly dull character, and the audience is unwillingly handcuffed to her.
The highlight of the film is its acting, with the cast being a veritable who’s who of Britain’s finest talent, and James Corden. What dimension Miss Sheppard has is provided almost entirely by the volatile yet vulnerable performance by Maggie Smith, and Alex Jennings is as real an Alan Bennett as the actual Alan Bennett. Even in the small roles, everyone from Roger Allam to Gwen Taylor manage to force themselves to shine. The only bad performance is from, of all people, Jim Broadbent, who pops up to antagonise Miss Sheppard but appears less like a real human being and more like a cartoon supervillain. For a second, I thought the character’s name was Baron von Drakkhen.
But great players cannot save a bad game, and the story of the film is flat, predictable and boring. If you don’t immediately care about Miss Sheppard, then the film becomes more tedious and lifeless by the second. I guessed long before the end the mystery behind Miss Sheppard, but even if I hadn’t I would still have been bored due to the lack of any interest. The film believes that the existence of a mystery to be motivation enough to solve it, which just isn’t the case; I don’t know what John McCririck had for breakfast, but I’m not going to stare at his stools to find out.
Not helping matters is a very by the numbers direction by Nicholas Hytner. While not incompetent, there’s very little in the way of style or flair without being casual. The only parts that show any sort of imagination are the fourth wall breaks, but the best only happen towards the end. It’s a shame that the potential of having two Alan Bennetts and seeing the film from the perspective of the writer only starts to be explored as the film is drawing to a close. Otherwise, a robot could’ve directed this film.
Alan Bennett is a highly praised writer, and rightfully so, but The Lady in the Van just isn’t his best. The above-average but by no means stellar script is tied to a plot as lifeless and sluggish as a particularly lethargic sloth. If you’re really hurting to see Bennett at his best, it’d be a lot cheaper and a lot more entertaining to rent The Madness of King George or The History Boys or even one of The Secret Policeman’s Ball’s, plus you can order some pizza from your sofa. Otherwise, The Lady in the Van, unlike the real Miss Sheppard, can very safely be ignored.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/11/19/like-a-particularly-lethargic-sloth-the-lady-in-the-van-review/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 1 (2010) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Here we stand, at the penultimate chapter of what has become one of the most loved franchises of all time, as well as the most profitable. Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint and co have grown and matured right before our very eyes and its this new-found maturity which shines through in this; the first film of the final book in the Harry Potter saga.
Deathly Hallows Part 1 is once again helmed by silver screen novice David Yates and after his disastrous attempt at fashioning a movie out of the Half Blood Prince; chills were beginning to set in when his name appeared alongside the huge advertising campaign. However, after 146 magical minutes, those niggling doubts were soon erased.
The Harry Potter series had become somewhat like a trusty old steed, you know it’s going to be there for you when its supposed to, but it no longer fills you with the same excitement it once did. However, I am pleased to announce that a completely new direction of filmmaking, albeit a little late, has revitalised the series.
For any of you out there who haven’t read the book or haven’t kept up with the films thus far, good luck understanding the many twist and turns as the plot throws you from scene to scene in a melee of storylines that are incomprehensible for anyone coming to the series for the first time. This is not to say it becomes a muddled mess, however. Gladly, criticisms are really kept to a bare minimum as Radcliffe, Watson and Grint move away from the once safe haven of Hogwarts and attempt to find the elusive horcruxes that were introduced in the previous film.
Moving the trio completely away from Hogwarts was a dangerous move by J.K Rowling but thankfully David Yates has managed to make it work with references about the films humble beginnings throughout. Unfortunately, this lack of solid ground has meant that many of the saga’s most precious actors and actresses are given very little screen time, allowing the suspense to build up for what is coming next year. Dame Maggie Smith is missing completely and even Alan Rickman, Helena Bonham Carter and Robbie Coltrane rarely have more than few words to say when they are on screen. On the plus side, Imelda Staunton and David Thewlis make a welcome return as Delores Umbridge and Remus Lupin respectively, proving their worth to the series with some great acting.
Ralph Fiennes obviously returning as Dark Lord Voldemort is fantastic and very much welcome after being absent from the 6th film.
Some new additions, including Rhys Ifans portrayal of Xenophilius Lovegood feel a little laboured and whilst being no means a bad actor, Ifans doesn’t fully suit the role and therefore leaves the scenes involving Mr. Lovegood wanting which is a shame because in the book, he became one of the most promising characters.
Praise must go to the special effects team who have been working on this latest instalment of the Potter saga. They are integrated so seamlessly into the film that you hardly even notice they are there; they are literally that perfect and work exceptionally well with David Yates’ fantastic cinematography and stunning scenery which is alongside Prisoner of Azkaban as the best in the series.
The climax is a little disappointing and abrupt but due to the film being 2 parts of 1 book; a natural ending was never on the cards. However, the filmmakers have definitely chosen a spot which will have audiences shouting at the screen in dismay after realising their final Harry Potter fix will not be in cinemas until July next year.
Overall, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 is by far the most beautifully shot movie of 2010 and has some amazing action pieces coupled with fantastic special effects and mesmerising performances from practically every actor and actress involved who looked like they really wanted to be in their roles. Prisoner of Azkaban still clinches best film in the series so far but fans will certainly not be left wanting with this stunning take on J.K. Rowling’s final book.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2010/11/29/harry-potter-the-deathly-hallows-part-1-2010/
Deathly Hallows Part 1 is once again helmed by silver screen novice David Yates and after his disastrous attempt at fashioning a movie out of the Half Blood Prince; chills were beginning to set in when his name appeared alongside the huge advertising campaign. However, after 146 magical minutes, those niggling doubts were soon erased.
The Harry Potter series had become somewhat like a trusty old steed, you know it’s going to be there for you when its supposed to, but it no longer fills you with the same excitement it once did. However, I am pleased to announce that a completely new direction of filmmaking, albeit a little late, has revitalised the series.
For any of you out there who haven’t read the book or haven’t kept up with the films thus far, good luck understanding the many twist and turns as the plot throws you from scene to scene in a melee of storylines that are incomprehensible for anyone coming to the series for the first time. This is not to say it becomes a muddled mess, however. Gladly, criticisms are really kept to a bare minimum as Radcliffe, Watson and Grint move away from the once safe haven of Hogwarts and attempt to find the elusive horcruxes that were introduced in the previous film.
Moving the trio completely away from Hogwarts was a dangerous move by J.K Rowling but thankfully David Yates has managed to make it work with references about the films humble beginnings throughout. Unfortunately, this lack of solid ground has meant that many of the saga’s most precious actors and actresses are given very little screen time, allowing the suspense to build up for what is coming next year. Dame Maggie Smith is missing completely and even Alan Rickman, Helena Bonham Carter and Robbie Coltrane rarely have more than few words to say when they are on screen. On the plus side, Imelda Staunton and David Thewlis make a welcome return as Delores Umbridge and Remus Lupin respectively, proving their worth to the series with some great acting.
Ralph Fiennes obviously returning as Dark Lord Voldemort is fantastic and very much welcome after being absent from the 6th film.
Some new additions, including Rhys Ifans portrayal of Xenophilius Lovegood feel a little laboured and whilst being no means a bad actor, Ifans doesn’t fully suit the role and therefore leaves the scenes involving Mr. Lovegood wanting which is a shame because in the book, he became one of the most promising characters.
Praise must go to the special effects team who have been working on this latest instalment of the Potter saga. They are integrated so seamlessly into the film that you hardly even notice they are there; they are literally that perfect and work exceptionally well with David Yates’ fantastic cinematography and stunning scenery which is alongside Prisoner of Azkaban as the best in the series.
The climax is a little disappointing and abrupt but due to the film being 2 parts of 1 book; a natural ending was never on the cards. However, the filmmakers have definitely chosen a spot which will have audiences shouting at the screen in dismay after realising their final Harry Potter fix will not be in cinemas until July next year.
Overall, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 is by far the most beautifully shot movie of 2010 and has some amazing action pieces coupled with fantastic special effects and mesmerising performances from practically every actor and actress involved who looked like they really wanted to be in their roles. Prisoner of Azkaban still clinches best film in the series so far but fans will certainly not be left wanting with this stunning take on J.K. Rowling’s final book.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2010/11/29/harry-potter-the-deathly-hallows-part-1-2010/