Search
Search results
Cannibalism in France, a latterday Our Gang in Florida, three women in Tel Aviv, and – at last! – a Blade Runner sequel are among the year’s must-sees:
In Between (Bar Bahar) (2016)
Movie Watch
Three Palestinian women living in an apartment in Tel Aviv try to find a balance between traditional...
drama
Get Out (2017)
8.0
Rate It
Movie Watch
A young black man named Chris visits the family of his white girlfriend, and discovers something...
Satire Social commentary Satirical thriller
Blade Runner 2049 (2017)
8.1
Rate It
Movie Watch
In the year 2049, a bioengineered human replicant named Officer K tracks down and eliminates...
Neo-noir Tech noir
Toni Erdmann (2016)
8.0
Rate It
Movie Watch
Winfried doesn't see much of his working daughter Ines. He pays her a surprise visit in Bucharest,...
comedy drama
and 5 other items
Entertainment Editor (1988 KP) shared own list
Dec 10, 2017
Cannibalism in France, a latterday Our Gang in Florida, three women in Tel Aviv, and – at last! – a Blade Runner sequel are among the year’s must-sees:
In Between (Bar Bahar) (2016)
Movie Watch
Three Palestinian women living in an apartment in Tel Aviv try to find a balance between traditional...
drama
Get Out (2017)
8.0
Rate It
Movie Watch
A young black man named Chris visits the family of his white girlfriend, and discovers something...
Satire Social commentary Satirical thriller
Blade Runner 2049 (2017)
8.1
Rate It
Movie Watch
In the year 2049, a bioengineered human replicant named Officer K tracks down and eliminates...
Neo-noir Tech noir
Toni Erdmann (2016)
8.0
Rate It
Movie Watch
Winfried doesn't see much of his working daughter Ines. He pays her a surprise visit in Bucharest,...
comedy drama
and 5 other items
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Mary Poppins Returns (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
A valiant attempt to recreate a masterpiece.
How do you repaint a masterpiece: the Mona Lisa of children’s fantasy cinema? Some would say “You shouldn’t try”.
As I’ve said before, Mary Poppins was the first film I saw when it came out (or soon afterwards) at a very impressionable age…. I was said to have bawled my eyes out with “THE MAGIC NANNY IS GOING AWAY!!” as Julie Andrews floated off! So as my last cinema trip of 2018 I went to see this sequel, 54 years after the original, with a sense of dread. I’m relieved to say that although the film has its flaws it’s by no means the disaster I envisaged.
The plot
It’s a fairly lightweight story. Now all grown up, young Michael from the original film (Ben Whishaw) has his own family. His troubles though come not singly but in battalions since not only is he grieving a recent loss but he is also about to be evicted from 17 Cherry Tree Lane. Help is at hand in that his father, George Banks, had shares with the Fidelity Fiduciary Bank. But despite their best efforts neither he, his sister Jane (Emily Mortimer) nor their chirpy “strike a light” lamplighter friend Jack (Lin-Manuel Miranda) can find the all-important share certificates. With the deadline from bank manager Wilkins (Colin Firth) approaching, it’s fortuitous that Mary Poppins (Emily Blunt) drops in to look after the Banks children – John (Nathanael Saleh), Anabel (Pixie Davies) and Georgie (Joel Dawson) – in her own inimitable fashion.
Songs that are more Meh-ry Poppins
I know musical taste is very personal. My biggest problem with the film though was that the songs by Marc Shaiman were, to me, on the lacklustre side. Only one jumped out and struck me: the jaunty vaudeville number “A Cover is not the Book”. Elsewhere they were – to me – unmemorable and nowhere near as catchy as those of “The Greatest Showman“. (What amplified this for me was having some of the classic Sherman-brothers themes woven into the soundtrack that just made me realise what I was missing!) Richard M Sherman – now 90 – was credited with “Music Consultant” but I wonder how much input he actually had?
The other flaws
Another issue I had with the film was that it just tried WAAYYY too hard to tick off the key attributes of the original:
‘Mary in the mirror’ – check
‘Bottomless carpet bag’ – check
‘Initial fun in the nursery’ – check
‘Quirky trip to a cartoon land’ – check
‘Dance on the ceiling with a quirky relative’ – check
‘Chirpy chimney sweeps’ – check (“Er… Mr Marshall… we couldn’t get chimney sweeps… will lamplighters do?” “Yeah, good enough”)
Another thing that struck me about the film – particularly as a film aimed at kids – is just how long it is. At 2 hours and 10 minutes it’s a bladder-testing experience for adults let alone younger children. (It’s worth noting that this is still 9 minutes shorter than the original, but back in the 60’s we had FAR fewer options to be stimulated by entertainment and our attention spans were – I think – much longer as a result!)
What it does get right
But with this whinging aside, the film does get a number of things spit-spot on.
Emily Blunt is near perfection as Poppins. (In the interests of balance my wife found her bizarrely clipped accent very grating, but I suspect P.L. Travers would have approved!). Broadway star Lin-Manuel Miranda also does a good job as Jack, although you wonder whether the ‘society of cockney actors’ must again be in a big grump about the casting! I found Emily Mortimer just delightful as the grown-up Jane, although Ben Whishaw‘s Michael didn’t particularly connect with me.
Almost unrecognisable was David Warner as the now wheelchair-bound Admiral Boom. His first mate is none other than Jim Norton of “Father Ted” Bishop Brennan fame (thanks to my daughter Jenn for pointing that one out)!
Also watch out (I’d largely missed it before I realised!) for a nice pavement cameo by Karen Dotrice, the original Jane, asking directions to number 19 Cherry Tree Lane.
What the film also gets right is to implement the old-school animation of the “Jolly Holidays” segment of the original. That’s a really smart move. Filmed at Shepperton Studios in London, this is once again a great advert for Britain’s film technicians. The London sets and the costumes (by the great Sandy Powell) are just superb.
Some cameo cherries on the cake
Finally, the aces in the hole are the two cameos near the end of the film. And they would have been lovely surprises as well since neither name appears in the opening credits. It’s therefore a CRYING SHAME that they chose to let the cat out of the bag in the trailer (BLOODY MARKETING EXECS!). In case you haven’t seen the trailer, I won’t spoil it for you here. But as a magical movie experience the first of those cameos moved me close to tears. He also delivers a hum-dinger of a plot twist that is a genuinely welcome crossover from the first film.
Final Thoughts
Rob Marshall directs, and with a pretty impossible task he delivers an end-product that, while it didn’t completely thrill me, did well not to trash my delicate hopes and dreams either. Having just listened to Kermode and Mayo’s review (and it seems that Mark Kermode places Poppins on a similar pedestal to me) the songs (and therefore the “Place Where Lost Things Go” song) just didn’t resonate with me in the same way, and so, unlike Kermode, I mentally never bridged the gap to safely enjoying it.
But what we all think is secondary. Because if some three or four year old out there gets a similarly lifelong love of the cinema by watching this, then that’s all that matters.
As I’ve said before, Mary Poppins was the first film I saw when it came out (or soon afterwards) at a very impressionable age…. I was said to have bawled my eyes out with “THE MAGIC NANNY IS GOING AWAY!!” as Julie Andrews floated off! So as my last cinema trip of 2018 I went to see this sequel, 54 years after the original, with a sense of dread. I’m relieved to say that although the film has its flaws it’s by no means the disaster I envisaged.
The plot
It’s a fairly lightweight story. Now all grown up, young Michael from the original film (Ben Whishaw) has his own family. His troubles though come not singly but in battalions since not only is he grieving a recent loss but he is also about to be evicted from 17 Cherry Tree Lane. Help is at hand in that his father, George Banks, had shares with the Fidelity Fiduciary Bank. But despite their best efforts neither he, his sister Jane (Emily Mortimer) nor their chirpy “strike a light” lamplighter friend Jack (Lin-Manuel Miranda) can find the all-important share certificates. With the deadline from bank manager Wilkins (Colin Firth) approaching, it’s fortuitous that Mary Poppins (Emily Blunt) drops in to look after the Banks children – John (Nathanael Saleh), Anabel (Pixie Davies) and Georgie (Joel Dawson) – in her own inimitable fashion.
Songs that are more Meh-ry Poppins
I know musical taste is very personal. My biggest problem with the film though was that the songs by Marc Shaiman were, to me, on the lacklustre side. Only one jumped out and struck me: the jaunty vaudeville number “A Cover is not the Book”. Elsewhere they were – to me – unmemorable and nowhere near as catchy as those of “The Greatest Showman“. (What amplified this for me was having some of the classic Sherman-brothers themes woven into the soundtrack that just made me realise what I was missing!) Richard M Sherman – now 90 – was credited with “Music Consultant” but I wonder how much input he actually had?
The other flaws
Another issue I had with the film was that it just tried WAAYYY too hard to tick off the key attributes of the original:
‘Mary in the mirror’ – check
‘Bottomless carpet bag’ – check
‘Initial fun in the nursery’ – check
‘Quirky trip to a cartoon land’ – check
‘Dance on the ceiling with a quirky relative’ – check
‘Chirpy chimney sweeps’ – check (“Er… Mr Marshall… we couldn’t get chimney sweeps… will lamplighters do?” “Yeah, good enough”)
Another thing that struck me about the film – particularly as a film aimed at kids – is just how long it is. At 2 hours and 10 minutes it’s a bladder-testing experience for adults let alone younger children. (It’s worth noting that this is still 9 minutes shorter than the original, but back in the 60’s we had FAR fewer options to be stimulated by entertainment and our attention spans were – I think – much longer as a result!)
What it does get right
But with this whinging aside, the film does get a number of things spit-spot on.
Emily Blunt is near perfection as Poppins. (In the interests of balance my wife found her bizarrely clipped accent very grating, but I suspect P.L. Travers would have approved!). Broadway star Lin-Manuel Miranda also does a good job as Jack, although you wonder whether the ‘society of cockney actors’ must again be in a big grump about the casting! I found Emily Mortimer just delightful as the grown-up Jane, although Ben Whishaw‘s Michael didn’t particularly connect with me.
Almost unrecognisable was David Warner as the now wheelchair-bound Admiral Boom. His first mate is none other than Jim Norton of “Father Ted” Bishop Brennan fame (thanks to my daughter Jenn for pointing that one out)!
Also watch out (I’d largely missed it before I realised!) for a nice pavement cameo by Karen Dotrice, the original Jane, asking directions to number 19 Cherry Tree Lane.
What the film also gets right is to implement the old-school animation of the “Jolly Holidays” segment of the original. That’s a really smart move. Filmed at Shepperton Studios in London, this is once again a great advert for Britain’s film technicians. The London sets and the costumes (by the great Sandy Powell) are just superb.
Some cameo cherries on the cake
Finally, the aces in the hole are the two cameos near the end of the film. And they would have been lovely surprises as well since neither name appears in the opening credits. It’s therefore a CRYING SHAME that they chose to let the cat out of the bag in the trailer (BLOODY MARKETING EXECS!). In case you haven’t seen the trailer, I won’t spoil it for you here. But as a magical movie experience the first of those cameos moved me close to tears. He also delivers a hum-dinger of a plot twist that is a genuinely welcome crossover from the first film.
Final Thoughts
Rob Marshall directs, and with a pretty impossible task he delivers an end-product that, while it didn’t completely thrill me, did well not to trash my delicate hopes and dreams either. Having just listened to Kermode and Mayo’s review (and it seems that Mark Kermode places Poppins on a similar pedestal to me) the songs (and therefore the “Place Where Lost Things Go” song) just didn’t resonate with me in the same way, and so, unlike Kermode, I mentally never bridged the gap to safely enjoying it.
But what we all think is secondary. Because if some three or four year old out there gets a similarly lifelong love of the cinema by watching this, then that’s all that matters.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Bad Boys II (2003) in Movies
Feb 25, 2019
What ya gonna do
this time?
Contains spoilers, click to show
Whilst the first outing of the Bad Boys shocked me by how good it actually was, this one left me a little disappointed. I was hardly expecting an Oscar winning deal here, as this was always going to be a Michael Bay adrenalin rush, but for a film with a two and a half hour running time, the adrenalin came in too short a bursts.
Bad Boys was Bay's first film and was but a taster of his over the top film making, which first arrives in The Rock a year afterwards, but this made eight years later was obviously going to take this to the next level, if not several levels further than that. But to me, it didn't. Granted, the action was thrilling, outrageous and very enjoyable, but the character development was barely visible. They bicker, Lawrence moaned a lot and Smith was cool and likable but there was just a shell of what there should have been. The entire story, including what's left of their character dynamics are only present to set up the next great action sequence.
Then, the was the taste issue. The crux of the plot as it developed was that the drug dealing villains where using corpses to smuggle drugs, and this was used to "Comic Effect" in two major set-pieces. Though in the first, a car chase, it was black comedy as bodies came thick and fast from the back of a van to be run over by the pursuing cars, the second was pushing the boundaries in a to a more disturbing area.
A criticism levied at Michael Bay by British critic Mark Kermode has been that he is a filmmaker with "pornographic sensibilities". Not just in the literal sense, but in the way that he views everything from cars, women and explosions for example. But this was no more clearly re- enforced than in a scene about 90 minutes in, when our two 'bad boys' are searching a morgue and after pulling back the sheets on fat white guys, they reveal a large breasted young woman, who is refer to as "The Bimbo" if my memory serves. It's worrying because I don't know whether this was being played for laughs or was supposed to be a titillating shot of a well endowed woman? Is it right to show a dead woman, who looks to have been strangled to death and referred to a bimbo in a mainstream 15 certificated movie?
I don't want to sound like a prude but the tone of this and pretty much every scene with the bodies being used, seemed to be in plain Bad, BAD taste and though this humour can play well in the right genre of movie, this just simply wasn't the film to do it in, in my opinion. But, that criticism aside, my main issues are the pacing. It was just too hollow to sustain its running time and my mind was beginning to wander from time to time between the spectacular action and the few moments of decent comedy.
It just didn't have the magic of the 90′s actioner, a genre which had faded considerably by the early 2000′s, and without offering anything new besides improved action, which was worth the ticket or DVD price in its own right, or even retaining the original character of the original, this was a sequel failed to hold its own.
Bad Boys was Bay's first film and was but a taster of his over the top film making, which first arrives in The Rock a year afterwards, but this made eight years later was obviously going to take this to the next level, if not several levels further than that. But to me, it didn't. Granted, the action was thrilling, outrageous and very enjoyable, but the character development was barely visible. They bicker, Lawrence moaned a lot and Smith was cool and likable but there was just a shell of what there should have been. The entire story, including what's left of their character dynamics are only present to set up the next great action sequence.
Then, the was the taste issue. The crux of the plot as it developed was that the drug dealing villains where using corpses to smuggle drugs, and this was used to "Comic Effect" in two major set-pieces. Though in the first, a car chase, it was black comedy as bodies came thick and fast from the back of a van to be run over by the pursuing cars, the second was pushing the boundaries in a to a more disturbing area.
A criticism levied at Michael Bay by British critic Mark Kermode has been that he is a filmmaker with "pornographic sensibilities". Not just in the literal sense, but in the way that he views everything from cars, women and explosions for example. But this was no more clearly re- enforced than in a scene about 90 minutes in, when our two 'bad boys' are searching a morgue and after pulling back the sheets on fat white guys, they reveal a large breasted young woman, who is refer to as "The Bimbo" if my memory serves. It's worrying because I don't know whether this was being played for laughs or was supposed to be a titillating shot of a well endowed woman? Is it right to show a dead woman, who looks to have been strangled to death and referred to a bimbo in a mainstream 15 certificated movie?
I don't want to sound like a prude but the tone of this and pretty much every scene with the bodies being used, seemed to be in plain Bad, BAD taste and though this humour can play well in the right genre of movie, this just simply wasn't the film to do it in, in my opinion. But, that criticism aside, my main issues are the pacing. It was just too hollow to sustain its running time and my mind was beginning to wander from time to time between the spectacular action and the few moments of decent comedy.
It just didn't have the magic of the 90′s actioner, a genre which had faded considerably by the early 2000′s, and without offering anything new besides improved action, which was worth the ticket or DVD price in its own right, or even retaining the original character of the original, this was a sequel failed to hold its own.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Zack Snyder's Justice League (2021) in Movies
Apr 5, 2021
At over 4 hours it's still bloated and sprawling (1 more)
4:3 ratio is a needless gimmick
Does Lipstick on the Pig work?
In Zack Snyder’s much-discussed director’s cut of “Justice League”, Superman (Henry Cavill) is dead (post the events of “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice“) and a grieving Lois Lane (Amy Adams) can’t move on. Even Martha Kent (Diane Lane) has had the family farm repossessed. But the world is in deadly danger due to the work of Steppenwolf and his army of parademons. They are trying to reunite three ‘Mother Boxes’, previously hidden on earth. If joined and synchronized they will form ‘The Unity’, creating a gateway for Steppenwolf’s boss – Darkseid – to arrive and control the universe by invoking the “anti-life equation” (basically lockdown 3!).
Only the Justice League’s combined talents might be enough to stop them – but Batman (Ben Affleck) is having trouble in getting Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot), Aquaman (Jason Momoa), Cyborg (Ray Fisher) and The Flash (Ezra Miller) to work together. And even then, they reckon they might be a man short!
Positives:
- Well - it's so much better than the original 2017 version of "Justice League", but then that's not saying much! (I realise that I never did a review for that movie, which I saw on a transatlantic flight - - I put the whole incoherent mess down to my jetlag. But no.... it really was an incoherent mess!).
In the Snyder cut, we gain a much broader introduction to all of the main characters, especially to Barry Allen (the Flash) - in a very entertaining pet shop interview scene - and Victor Stone (Cyborg). And Steppenwolf gets more air time to flesh out his character.
- The story I find very similar to the Marvel equivalent: with Darkseid = Thanos; boxes = stones; Avengers = Justice League! But the story is at least now coherent and flows well. Its action set pieces, especially the ultimate defeat of Steppenwolf (nice decap!), are exciting.
- Some of the distracting scenes (the trapped family in the Russian ruins is a key example) have been excised from this version, making for a significant improvement.
Negatives:
- I'm with Mark Kermode in being a little bit mystified by all of the rave 5* reviews for this one. By anyone's imagination, a run time of 242 minutes is over-indulgent.
- Although the epilogue scene, featuring Jared Leto's Joker and a Batman f-bomb, is entertaining, it actually adds nothing to the exposition and could have been dropped to reduce the bladder-testing run time.
- That 4:3 screen ratio! JUST WHY SNYDER, WHY? There's one scene in particular, where all six members of the Justice League line up in the sunset to dramatic swelling music. The screen ratio forces Snyder to film it at a 60 degree angle to get them all in! "Galaxy Quest" intelligently used three different screen ratios, to great visual effect. So I could perhaps understand it if the 'flashback' scenes had been 4:3 and the rest in 16:9. But as it is, the usage is gimmicky, making (imho) no sense for a big fantasy spectacle like this.
- The Junkie XL (as Thomas Holkenborg) soundtrack I'm afraid did nothing for me.
Summary thoughts:
It's a film, for sure. Is it a watchable film now... hmm, yes just about. And it has scenes which indeed are highly entertaining. But if you follow my One Mann's Movies blog you should know by now my view on movies that extend beyond 90 minutes... they need to justify that delta running time. And by outstaying this target by another 90 minutes... and then by ANOTHER 62 minutes borders on taking the <proverbial>. It's not Shakespeare!
(For the full graphical review, check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/04/zack-snyders-justice-league-does-lipstick-on-the-pig-work/).
Only the Justice League’s combined talents might be enough to stop them – but Batman (Ben Affleck) is having trouble in getting Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot), Aquaman (Jason Momoa), Cyborg (Ray Fisher) and The Flash (Ezra Miller) to work together. And even then, they reckon they might be a man short!
Positives:
- Well - it's so much better than the original 2017 version of "Justice League", but then that's not saying much! (I realise that I never did a review for that movie, which I saw on a transatlantic flight - - I put the whole incoherent mess down to my jetlag. But no.... it really was an incoherent mess!).
In the Snyder cut, we gain a much broader introduction to all of the main characters, especially to Barry Allen (the Flash) - in a very entertaining pet shop interview scene - and Victor Stone (Cyborg). And Steppenwolf gets more air time to flesh out his character.
- The story I find very similar to the Marvel equivalent: with Darkseid = Thanos; boxes = stones; Avengers = Justice League! But the story is at least now coherent and flows well. Its action set pieces, especially the ultimate defeat of Steppenwolf (nice decap!), are exciting.
- Some of the distracting scenes (the trapped family in the Russian ruins is a key example) have been excised from this version, making for a significant improvement.
Negatives:
- I'm with Mark Kermode in being a little bit mystified by all of the rave 5* reviews for this one. By anyone's imagination, a run time of 242 minutes is over-indulgent.
- Although the epilogue scene, featuring Jared Leto's Joker and a Batman f-bomb, is entertaining, it actually adds nothing to the exposition and could have been dropped to reduce the bladder-testing run time.
- That 4:3 screen ratio! JUST WHY SNYDER, WHY? There's one scene in particular, where all six members of the Justice League line up in the sunset to dramatic swelling music. The screen ratio forces Snyder to film it at a 60 degree angle to get them all in! "Galaxy Quest" intelligently used three different screen ratios, to great visual effect. So I could perhaps understand it if the 'flashback' scenes had been 4:3 and the rest in 16:9. But as it is, the usage is gimmicky, making (imho) no sense for a big fantasy spectacle like this.
- The Junkie XL (as Thomas Holkenborg) soundtrack I'm afraid did nothing for me.
Summary thoughts:
It's a film, for sure. Is it a watchable film now... hmm, yes just about. And it has scenes which indeed are highly entertaining. But if you follow my One Mann's Movies blog you should know by now my view on movies that extend beyond 90 minutes... they need to justify that delta running time. And by outstaying this target by another 90 minutes... and then by ANOTHER 62 minutes borders on taking the <proverbial>. It's not Shakespeare!
(For the full graphical review, check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/04/04/zack-snyders-justice-league-does-lipstick-on-the-pig-work/).
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated They Shall Not Grow Old (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
We DO remember them.
“Trapped in a Charlie Chaplin World”. So says director Peter Jackson in a post-screening discussion with Mark Kermode, describing early black and white documentary footage. Whereas modern film runs at 24 fps, most of the old footage is hand cranked, with speeds as low as 12 fps which leads to its jerky nature. Jackson in this project with the Imperial War Museum took their WW1 footage and put it through a ‘pipeline process. This cleaned-up and restored the original footage; used clever computer interpolation to add in the missing 6 to 12 frames per second; and then colourised it.
The results are outstanding. Jackson wisely focuses the film on the specific slice of WW1 action from the trenches. And those anonymous figures become real, live, breathing humans on screen. It is obviously tragic that some (and as commented by Jackson, many in one scene) are not to be breathing humans for much longer.
These effects take a while to kick in. The early scenes in the documentary are in the original black and white, describing the recruitment process, and how many of the recruits were under-age. (To explain the varied comments in the film, they should have been 18, although officially shouldn’t have been sent overseas until 19).
It is when the troops arrive in France that we suddenly go from black-and-white to the fully restored and colourised footage, and it is a gasp-inducing moment.
Audio magic
All of the audio commentary is from original BBC recordings of war veterans recounting their actual experiences in the trench. Some sound like heroes; some sound like rogues; all came out changed men. Supporting music of WW1 ditties, including the incredibly rude “Mademoiselle from Armentières” over the end credits, is provided by Plan 9.
But equally impressive is the dubbing of the characters onscreen. Jackson employed forensic lip-readers to determine what the soldiers on-screen were saying, and reproduced the speech using appropriate regional accents for the regiments concerned. Jackson also recounts how the words associated with a “pep-talk” speech to troops by an officer he found on an original slip of paper within the regimental records: outstanding. Added sound effects include real-life shelling by the New Zealand army. It all adds to the overall atmosphere of the film.
3D = less
The film itself is a masterpiece of technical innovation that will change in the future the way in which we should be able to see this sort of early film footage forever. As a documentary it’s near-perfection. But if I have a criticism of the cinema showing I attended it is that the 3D tended to detract rather than add to the film. Perhaps this is just my eyesight, but 3D always tends to make images slightly more blurry. Where (like “Gravity”) there are great 3D effects to showcase, it’s worth the slight negative to get the massive positive. But here, there was no such benefit: 2D would have been better. For those in the UK (and possibly through other broadcasters worldwide) the film is being shown on BBC2 tonight (11/11/18) at 9:30: I will be watching it again to compare and contrast.
Final Thoughts
Jackson dedicated the film to his grandfather. And almost all of us Brits will have relatives affected by this “war to end all wars”. In my case, my grandfather was shot and severely wounded at Leuze Wood on the Somme, lying in the mud for four days and four nights before being recovered… by the Germans! Fortunately he was well-treated and, although dying young, recovered enough to father my father – else I wouldn’t be here today writing this. On this Rememberance Sunday, 100 years on, it is a time for us to truly remember the sacrifice these men and boys gave to what, all in the film agree, was a pretty obstinate and pointless conflict.
I’ll finish the review by reproducing one of the war poems of my wife’s Uncle Ivor (available in a collection here), written on 11/11/18 a hundred years ago:
Peace
At last O Lord the Day has come,
And hushed is now the noise of guns.
Peace is proclaimed over land and sea,
Our heartfelt thanks we give to Thee.
I thank thee Father for Thy care,
That thou hasn’t answered all my prayers.
This day I see in manhood’s strength,
The Peace we longed for, come at length.
O may my future actions be,
Worthy of all Thy care to me.
Let me forget not Thy Great Love,
Remembering chums who live Above.
I.G.H. 11/11/1918, France.
The results are outstanding. Jackson wisely focuses the film on the specific slice of WW1 action from the trenches. And those anonymous figures become real, live, breathing humans on screen. It is obviously tragic that some (and as commented by Jackson, many in one scene) are not to be breathing humans for much longer.
These effects take a while to kick in. The early scenes in the documentary are in the original black and white, describing the recruitment process, and how many of the recruits were under-age. (To explain the varied comments in the film, they should have been 18, although officially shouldn’t have been sent overseas until 19).
It is when the troops arrive in France that we suddenly go from black-and-white to the fully restored and colourised footage, and it is a gasp-inducing moment.
Audio magic
All of the audio commentary is from original BBC recordings of war veterans recounting their actual experiences in the trench. Some sound like heroes; some sound like rogues; all came out changed men. Supporting music of WW1 ditties, including the incredibly rude “Mademoiselle from Armentières” over the end credits, is provided by Plan 9.
But equally impressive is the dubbing of the characters onscreen. Jackson employed forensic lip-readers to determine what the soldiers on-screen were saying, and reproduced the speech using appropriate regional accents for the regiments concerned. Jackson also recounts how the words associated with a “pep-talk” speech to troops by an officer he found on an original slip of paper within the regimental records: outstanding. Added sound effects include real-life shelling by the New Zealand army. It all adds to the overall atmosphere of the film.
3D = less
The film itself is a masterpiece of technical innovation that will change in the future the way in which we should be able to see this sort of early film footage forever. As a documentary it’s near-perfection. But if I have a criticism of the cinema showing I attended it is that the 3D tended to detract rather than add to the film. Perhaps this is just my eyesight, but 3D always tends to make images slightly more blurry. Where (like “Gravity”) there are great 3D effects to showcase, it’s worth the slight negative to get the massive positive. But here, there was no such benefit: 2D would have been better. For those in the UK (and possibly through other broadcasters worldwide) the film is being shown on BBC2 tonight (11/11/18) at 9:30: I will be watching it again to compare and contrast.
Final Thoughts
Jackson dedicated the film to his grandfather. And almost all of us Brits will have relatives affected by this “war to end all wars”. In my case, my grandfather was shot and severely wounded at Leuze Wood on the Somme, lying in the mud for four days and four nights before being recovered… by the Germans! Fortunately he was well-treated and, although dying young, recovered enough to father my father – else I wouldn’t be here today writing this. On this Rememberance Sunday, 100 years on, it is a time for us to truly remember the sacrifice these men and boys gave to what, all in the film agree, was a pretty obstinate and pointless conflict.
I’ll finish the review by reproducing one of the war poems of my wife’s Uncle Ivor (available in a collection here), written on 11/11/18 a hundred years ago:
Peace
At last O Lord the Day has come,
And hushed is now the noise of guns.
Peace is proclaimed over land and sea,
Our heartfelt thanks we give to Thee.
I thank thee Father for Thy care,
That thou hasn’t answered all my prayers.
This day I see in manhood’s strength,
The Peace we longed for, come at length.
O may my future actions be,
Worthy of all Thy care to me.
Let me forget not Thy Great Love,
Remembering chums who live Above.
I.G.H. 11/11/1918, France.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated King of Thieves (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
No f-ing honour among f-ing thieves.
What a cast! Micheal Caine; Jim Broadbent; Tom Courtenay; Michael Gambon; Ray Winstone; Paul Whitehouse…. Just one look at the poster and you think yes, Yes, YES! But would this be a case where my expectations would be dashed?
Having seen the film at a preview showing last night, I’m pleased to say no, it’s not. I was very much entertained.
The film tells the ridiculous true story of the “over the hill gang” – the bunch of largely pensioner-age criminals who successfully extracted what was definitely £14 million – and could have been up to £200 million – of goodies from a vault in London’s Hatton Gardens jewellery district over the Easter Bank Holiday weekend in 2015. The gang is led by the “king of thieves” – Brian (Michael Caine) – highly regarded as an ‘elder statesman’ among the London criminal scene.
Did you see Mark Kermode‘s excellent “Secrets of Cinema” series on the BBC? (If not, seek it out on a catch-up service!) The first of the series deconstructs the “Heist” movie, showing how such movies track the preparation, the execution and the progressive unravelling of the wicked scheme, typically through internal strife among the gang itself. (Pretty much as you would assume happens most of the time in real life!) Kermode points out that such movies play with our emotion in secretly wishing the bad ‘uns to succeed in doing something we would never have the bottle to ‘step out of line’ to do. “King of Thieves” nicely follows this well trodden story-arc, but – for me – does it with significantly greater style than the norm.
Yes, it’s very much a “Brit-flick”, and I’m not sure how it will play outside of the UK. But the film’s script, penned by Joe Penhall (“The Road”, “Enduring Love”), plays beautifully to the extreme age of its cast – the average age of the actors playing the gang is over 67… and that includes the 35-year old Charlie “Stardust” Cox (who is actually very good as the young foil for the older blades)! There is lots of laugh-out-loud dialogue relating to bodily deficiencies and ailments and the tendencies of old-folk to nod off at inconvenient times! However, its not very deep stuff, giving little background to the characters. And if you are of a sensitive disposition, the language used in the film is pretty extreme: F-bombs and C-bombs are dropped in every other sentence.
The film is delivered with visual style by “The Theory of Everything” director James Marsh. He cleverly reflects that all of the older leads have past records: the film nicely interweaving tiny snippets of past British crime movies to illustrate the career exploits of the now-creaky old folks. (If in the epilepsy-inducing opening titles you thought you caught a subliminal shot of the gold from “The Italian Job” – the superior 1969 version – then you were right!) As well as “The Italian Job”, the snippets also includes “The Lavender Hill Mob” and (if I’m not mistaken) the late George Sewell in “Robbery”.
It’s all delivered to a deafeningly intrusive – but in a good way – jazz-style soundtrack by the continually up-and-coming Benjamin Wallfisch.
As in the recent “The Children Act”, it is the acting of the senior leads that makes the film fly for me. Caine is just MAGNIFICENT, at the age of 85 with the same screen presence he had (as featured) stepping out of that prison in “The Italian Job”; Winstone is as good as ever in playing a menacing thug, and even gets to do a Michael Caine impression!; Gambon is hilarious as the weak-bladdered “Billy the Fish”. But it is Broadbent that really impresses: he generally appears in films as a genial but slightly ditzy old gent in films like the “Potter” series; “Paddington” and “Bridget Jones“. While he has played borderline darker roles (“The Lady in the Van” for example), he rarely goes full “Sexy Beast” evil…. but here he is borderline psycho and displays blistering form. A head-to-head unblinking confrontation between Broadbent and Caine is a high-point in the whole film… just electrifying. I’d love to see BAFTA nominations for them both in Acting/Supporting Acting categories.
In summary, it’s a sweary but stylishly-executed heist movie that has enough humour to thoroughly entertain this cinema-goer. The film is on general release in the UK from September 14th and comes with my recommendation.
Having seen the film at a preview showing last night, I’m pleased to say no, it’s not. I was very much entertained.
The film tells the ridiculous true story of the “over the hill gang” – the bunch of largely pensioner-age criminals who successfully extracted what was definitely £14 million – and could have been up to £200 million – of goodies from a vault in London’s Hatton Gardens jewellery district over the Easter Bank Holiday weekend in 2015. The gang is led by the “king of thieves” – Brian (Michael Caine) – highly regarded as an ‘elder statesman’ among the London criminal scene.
Did you see Mark Kermode‘s excellent “Secrets of Cinema” series on the BBC? (If not, seek it out on a catch-up service!) The first of the series deconstructs the “Heist” movie, showing how such movies track the preparation, the execution and the progressive unravelling of the wicked scheme, typically through internal strife among the gang itself. (Pretty much as you would assume happens most of the time in real life!) Kermode points out that such movies play with our emotion in secretly wishing the bad ‘uns to succeed in doing something we would never have the bottle to ‘step out of line’ to do. “King of Thieves” nicely follows this well trodden story-arc, but – for me – does it with significantly greater style than the norm.
Yes, it’s very much a “Brit-flick”, and I’m not sure how it will play outside of the UK. But the film’s script, penned by Joe Penhall (“The Road”, “Enduring Love”), plays beautifully to the extreme age of its cast – the average age of the actors playing the gang is over 67… and that includes the 35-year old Charlie “Stardust” Cox (who is actually very good as the young foil for the older blades)! There is lots of laugh-out-loud dialogue relating to bodily deficiencies and ailments and the tendencies of old-folk to nod off at inconvenient times! However, its not very deep stuff, giving little background to the characters. And if you are of a sensitive disposition, the language used in the film is pretty extreme: F-bombs and C-bombs are dropped in every other sentence.
The film is delivered with visual style by “The Theory of Everything” director James Marsh. He cleverly reflects that all of the older leads have past records: the film nicely interweaving tiny snippets of past British crime movies to illustrate the career exploits of the now-creaky old folks. (If in the epilepsy-inducing opening titles you thought you caught a subliminal shot of the gold from “The Italian Job” – the superior 1969 version – then you were right!) As well as “The Italian Job”, the snippets also includes “The Lavender Hill Mob” and (if I’m not mistaken) the late George Sewell in “Robbery”.
It’s all delivered to a deafeningly intrusive – but in a good way – jazz-style soundtrack by the continually up-and-coming Benjamin Wallfisch.
As in the recent “The Children Act”, it is the acting of the senior leads that makes the film fly for me. Caine is just MAGNIFICENT, at the age of 85 with the same screen presence he had (as featured) stepping out of that prison in “The Italian Job”; Winstone is as good as ever in playing a menacing thug, and even gets to do a Michael Caine impression!; Gambon is hilarious as the weak-bladdered “Billy the Fish”. But it is Broadbent that really impresses: he generally appears in films as a genial but slightly ditzy old gent in films like the “Potter” series; “Paddington” and “Bridget Jones“. While he has played borderline darker roles (“The Lady in the Van” for example), he rarely goes full “Sexy Beast” evil…. but here he is borderline psycho and displays blistering form. A head-to-head unblinking confrontation between Broadbent and Caine is a high-point in the whole film… just electrifying. I’d love to see BAFTA nominations for them both in Acting/Supporting Acting categories.
In summary, it’s a sweary but stylishly-executed heist movie that has enough humour to thoroughly entertain this cinema-goer. The film is on general release in the UK from September 14th and comes with my recommendation.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Dune (2021) in Movies
Oct 28, 2021
“He’s Not The Messiah – He’s a Very Naughty Boy!”
Certain works of fiction have been labelled with the tag of “unfilmable”, and Frank Herbert’s 1965 novel “Dune” is one of those. It’s full of exposition done as internal monologues – which screams “movie voiceover”. And regular readers will know my hatred of those!
Amazingly, Denis Villeneuve manages to pull off the impossible with his version of Dune (part 1), which I saw last night as part of a Cineworld Unlimited preview event. It’s close to being a movie masterpiece.
Plot Summary:
The desert planet of Arrakis is home to the Freman tribe but is a political battleground since it is the only known source of ‘Spice’: a substance that enables interplanetary travel.
Paul (Timothée Chalamet) is the heir to the throne of the House of Atreides, headed by his father Duke Leto Atreides (Oscar Isaac). His mother (Rebecca Ferguson) is Leto’s concubine and possessed with hereditary gifts: mystical powers that make her part of a sect of galactic ‘witches’ with mystical powers. But the House of Atreides is gaining in power, and the Emperor throws a political spanner into the works by evicting the vicious House of Harkonnen from Arrakis and giving it to Atreides. This puts both Houses on the path of war.
Certification:
US: PG-13. UK: 12A.
Talent:
Starring: Timothée Chalamet, Rebecca Ferguson, Oscar Isaac, Zendaya, Jason Momoa, Stellan Skarsgård, Josh Brolin, Javier Bardem, Dave Bautista, Charlotte Rampling.
Directed by: Denis Villeneuve.
Written by: Jon Spaihts, Denis Villeneuve and Eric Roth. (Based on the novel by Frank Herbert).
“Dune” Review: Positives:
My 5*’s for this one goes for the overall vision, which is grandiose with scenes that stick in the brain. As he demonstrated in “Arrival“, Villeneuve likes to go for huge spacecraft that hang “in the sky in much the same way that bricks don’t”*. And the ships in this vision are just HUGE.
The ensemble cast does a great job, with Chalamet, Isaac and Ferguson being particularly impressive. Stellan Skarsgård (looking like he is about to tell “a very amusing story about a goat”, if you get that movie reference!) looks to have the most gruelling acting job, having to emerge from, and descend into, a bath of black goo!
Much like Villeneuve’s “Blade Runner 2049“, this movie has cinematography that is worthy of framing and sticking on your wall. (Greig Fraser is the man behind the camera here).
Hans Zimmer‘s music is phenomenal. I’m not sure it’s a good ‘sit down and listen to’ sort of soundtrack, but it fits the movie beautifully.
* I used this Douglas Adams quote for my “Arrival” review, and then Mark Kermode used the same quote: I like to think he read my review!
Negatives:
It wasn’t a problem for me, but I expect some will consider the movie to be too much mood and not enough action. I’ve seen some comment that the film was “emotionally empty”: but I really didn’t feel that, and am well-invested in the story ready for “Part 2”.
This is probably faithful to the books, but given all of the advanced spacecraft technology on show, and laser/blaster technology, it seems bonkers that when we get to hand-to-hand combat between the armies that we get into “swords and sandals” territory.
Observation:
There’s nothing new under the Tatooine suns. And so much of this film has you linking the concepts back to “Star Wars”:
“The Force” is now “The Way”
The Jedi are the ‘Ben and Jerry Set’. (Well, that’s what it sounded like to me… and I don’t even like Ice Cream!)
Both films centre on a Messiah-like “chosen one”, foretold by legend
“Spice” also features in “Star Wars” with “spice runners” (as in the Millenium Falcon doing the ‘Kessel Run’)
There’s even a ‘pit of sarlaac’ moment in “Dune”.
Of course, since Frank Herbert wrote “Dune” in 1965, there’s a significant question as to who is plagiarising who here!
Summary Thoughts on “Dune”
At 2 hours 35 minutes, it’s YET ANOTHER long movie: cementing October 2021 as the month of long movies. (I just did a quick tally, and of the six films I’ve seen this month they average 139 minutes in length: and that’s with “Venom: Let There Be Carnage” dragging the average down!)
But this is a movie that MUST be seen on the big screen. It’s a memorable movie experience and highly recommended.
I can’t wait for Villeneuve’s “Part 2”, currently in pre-production.
Amazingly, Denis Villeneuve manages to pull off the impossible with his version of Dune (part 1), which I saw last night as part of a Cineworld Unlimited preview event. It’s close to being a movie masterpiece.
Plot Summary:
The desert planet of Arrakis is home to the Freman tribe but is a political battleground since it is the only known source of ‘Spice’: a substance that enables interplanetary travel.
Paul (Timothée Chalamet) is the heir to the throne of the House of Atreides, headed by his father Duke Leto Atreides (Oscar Isaac). His mother (Rebecca Ferguson) is Leto’s concubine and possessed with hereditary gifts: mystical powers that make her part of a sect of galactic ‘witches’ with mystical powers. But the House of Atreides is gaining in power, and the Emperor throws a political spanner into the works by evicting the vicious House of Harkonnen from Arrakis and giving it to Atreides. This puts both Houses on the path of war.
Certification:
US: PG-13. UK: 12A.
Talent:
Starring: Timothée Chalamet, Rebecca Ferguson, Oscar Isaac, Zendaya, Jason Momoa, Stellan Skarsgård, Josh Brolin, Javier Bardem, Dave Bautista, Charlotte Rampling.
Directed by: Denis Villeneuve.
Written by: Jon Spaihts, Denis Villeneuve and Eric Roth. (Based on the novel by Frank Herbert).
“Dune” Review: Positives:
My 5*’s for this one goes for the overall vision, which is grandiose with scenes that stick in the brain. As he demonstrated in “Arrival“, Villeneuve likes to go for huge spacecraft that hang “in the sky in much the same way that bricks don’t”*. And the ships in this vision are just HUGE.
The ensemble cast does a great job, with Chalamet, Isaac and Ferguson being particularly impressive. Stellan Skarsgård (looking like he is about to tell “a very amusing story about a goat”, if you get that movie reference!) looks to have the most gruelling acting job, having to emerge from, and descend into, a bath of black goo!
Much like Villeneuve’s “Blade Runner 2049“, this movie has cinematography that is worthy of framing and sticking on your wall. (Greig Fraser is the man behind the camera here).
Hans Zimmer‘s music is phenomenal. I’m not sure it’s a good ‘sit down and listen to’ sort of soundtrack, but it fits the movie beautifully.
* I used this Douglas Adams quote for my “Arrival” review, and then Mark Kermode used the same quote: I like to think he read my review!
Negatives:
It wasn’t a problem for me, but I expect some will consider the movie to be too much mood and not enough action. I’ve seen some comment that the film was “emotionally empty”: but I really didn’t feel that, and am well-invested in the story ready for “Part 2”.
This is probably faithful to the books, but given all of the advanced spacecraft technology on show, and laser/blaster technology, it seems bonkers that when we get to hand-to-hand combat between the armies that we get into “swords and sandals” territory.
Observation:
There’s nothing new under the Tatooine suns. And so much of this film has you linking the concepts back to “Star Wars”:
“The Force” is now “The Way”
The Jedi are the ‘Ben and Jerry Set’. (Well, that’s what it sounded like to me… and I don’t even like Ice Cream!)
Both films centre on a Messiah-like “chosen one”, foretold by legend
“Spice” also features in “Star Wars” with “spice runners” (as in the Millenium Falcon doing the ‘Kessel Run’)
There’s even a ‘pit of sarlaac’ moment in “Dune”.
Of course, since Frank Herbert wrote “Dune” in 1965, there’s a significant question as to who is plagiarising who here!
Summary Thoughts on “Dune”
At 2 hours 35 minutes, it’s YET ANOTHER long movie: cementing October 2021 as the month of long movies. (I just did a quick tally, and of the six films I’ve seen this month they average 139 minutes in length: and that’s with “Venom: Let There Be Carnage” dragging the average down!)
But this is a movie that MUST be seen on the big screen. It’s a memorable movie experience and highly recommended.
I can’t wait for Villeneuve’s “Part 2”, currently in pre-production.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Spencer (2021) in Movies
Nov 11, 2021
Diana hits rock bottom… as does the script.
Discordant strings sound as the royal party arrives at Sandringham for Christmas. “Is she here yet” intones the Queen. “No ma’am” her major domo replies. “Then she’s late”. Cut to a soulful choral version of “Perfect Day” as Diana Princess of Wales (née Spencer) arrives via a dramatic aerial shot. Hugs go to her sons William and Harry before she unhappily stalks through the corridors like a hunted animal.
This is the second movie in a row that I’ve intro’d via a positive emotional response to a great trailer. In the last case – for “Last Night in Soho” – the movie more than lived up to my high expectations from the trailer. But here – oh dear! It comes to something where the very best thing about the film is the trailer.
For, unfortunately for me, this came across as pretentious, vaguely insulting and with a dreadful script.
Plot Summary:
It’s Christmas 1991 at the Sandringham estate. Diana (Kristen Stewart) is the black sheep of the royal family, flouting tradition and always late for every formal event. She sees conspiracies at every turn, suspecting the household coordinator Major Gregory (Timothy Spall) of plotting against her. Her only allies that she can talk to are head chef Darren (Sean Harris) and her dresser Maggie (Sally Hawkins).
Mentally unstable, bulimic and self-harming, Diana must survive a tumultuous three days without destroying the Christmas spirit for her two sons and irreparably damaging her relationship with the wider royal family.
Certification:
US: R. UK: 12A.
Talent:
Starring: Kristen Stewart, Timothy Spall, Sally Hawkins, Jack Farthing, Sean Harris.
Directed by: Pablo Larraín.
Written by: Steven Knight.
“Spencer” Review: Positives:
Kristen Stewart does a simply fabulous job of impersonating Diana. She’s clearly studied a lot of video of the lady in getting to mimic the way she looks, walks and dances. Although I didn’t rate the film, the performance is a cut-above.
It’s an ironic touch that in all of her driving scenes, Diana never wears a seat-belt.
Negatives:
Oh man, Steven Knight’s dialogue here I found to be simply atrocious. Head-in-the-hands bad. I decided about half way through this monstrosity that “The Room” had had its day as a cult student classic, and that “Spencer” should take over in that role.
These things evolve organically over time, but I came up with the following basic rules for a student showing:
Every time Kristen Stewart does a ‘simp’ look to camera, down a shot;
When Darren utters the line “What are you going to do with wirecutters?” the audience yells as one “CUT WIRE!” **;
When Diana intones “Beauty is useless. Beauty is clothing”** the audience should strip to their underwear;
Every time a member of the hunt shouts “PULL!” you throw a stuffed pheasant in the air. Otherwise you keep the stuffed pheasant next to you, and engage in studious conversation with it as the film progresses;
Whenever Anne Boleyn appears, shout “OFF WITH HER HEAD”;
When a character says to Diana “I love you. And yes, in that way”**, the audience must shout “Aye aye” and every female audience member needs to passionately kiss another female audience member; and finally…
When Diana says “Leave Me. I want to masturbate”**, the audience throws dildos at the screen.
** I’d really like to pretend that I made these lines up. They might be paraphrased a bit, but honestly, that’s the gist!
Oh yes. It’s a sure-fire student classic of the future. You read it here first folks! I can see the filmmakers lauding me with praise for turning their movie into a post-release sleeper hit. “WHAT A CULT” they shout at me. “WHAT A CULT”!
The rest of the cast do a good enough job with what they have, but have the general vibe of being embarrassed to deliver the dialogue they’ve been given. Sean Harris – a fine actor – inexplicably spouts Shakespeare like Christopher Plummer in “Star Trek VI”! And one can only assume that Timothy Spall was given direction to act as if he had a whole lemon stuck inside his mouth for the whole movie.
I’ve been a fan of Jonny Greenwood’s music in other movies like “Phantom Thread“. I’ve seen Mark Kermode describe this soundtrack as “fantastic”. But, for me, the intrusive atonal strings and laid-back jazz vibe just didn’t work for me at all.
Summary Thoughts on “Spencer”
As you can probably tell, I hated this one. And the illustrious Mrs Movie Man 100% agrees with me in this assessment. The trailer promised a lot, but the movie delivered very little for me. It just all felt to me like an affront to the memory of Diana. Making a highly fictitious “fable based on a real life tragedy” just feels wrong. This seems particularly the case when the Queen, Prince Charles and (particularly) William and Harry are alive to watch it. What must they think if and when they get to view this?
I was a big fan of Larrain’s 2017 biopic on Jackie Kennedy – “Jackie” – which really covered the very similar ground, of a lady in the focus of publicity struggling with mental illness. But at least that had the benefit of historical distance.
I seem to be swimming against the critical tide here, since the movie currently has an IMDB rating of 7.4/10. But frankly, for me, I thought the recent series of “The Crown” did this so much better.
This is the second movie in a row that I’ve intro’d via a positive emotional response to a great trailer. In the last case – for “Last Night in Soho” – the movie more than lived up to my high expectations from the trailer. But here – oh dear! It comes to something where the very best thing about the film is the trailer.
For, unfortunately for me, this came across as pretentious, vaguely insulting and with a dreadful script.
Plot Summary:
It’s Christmas 1991 at the Sandringham estate. Diana (Kristen Stewart) is the black sheep of the royal family, flouting tradition and always late for every formal event. She sees conspiracies at every turn, suspecting the household coordinator Major Gregory (Timothy Spall) of plotting against her. Her only allies that she can talk to are head chef Darren (Sean Harris) and her dresser Maggie (Sally Hawkins).
Mentally unstable, bulimic and self-harming, Diana must survive a tumultuous three days without destroying the Christmas spirit for her two sons and irreparably damaging her relationship with the wider royal family.
Certification:
US: R. UK: 12A.
Talent:
Starring: Kristen Stewart, Timothy Spall, Sally Hawkins, Jack Farthing, Sean Harris.
Directed by: Pablo Larraín.
Written by: Steven Knight.
“Spencer” Review: Positives:
Kristen Stewart does a simply fabulous job of impersonating Diana. She’s clearly studied a lot of video of the lady in getting to mimic the way she looks, walks and dances. Although I didn’t rate the film, the performance is a cut-above.
It’s an ironic touch that in all of her driving scenes, Diana never wears a seat-belt.
Negatives:
Oh man, Steven Knight’s dialogue here I found to be simply atrocious. Head-in-the-hands bad. I decided about half way through this monstrosity that “The Room” had had its day as a cult student classic, and that “Spencer” should take over in that role.
These things evolve organically over time, but I came up with the following basic rules for a student showing:
Every time Kristen Stewart does a ‘simp’ look to camera, down a shot;
When Darren utters the line “What are you going to do with wirecutters?” the audience yells as one “CUT WIRE!” **;
When Diana intones “Beauty is useless. Beauty is clothing”** the audience should strip to their underwear;
Every time a member of the hunt shouts “PULL!” you throw a stuffed pheasant in the air. Otherwise you keep the stuffed pheasant next to you, and engage in studious conversation with it as the film progresses;
Whenever Anne Boleyn appears, shout “OFF WITH HER HEAD”;
When a character says to Diana “I love you. And yes, in that way”**, the audience must shout “Aye aye” and every female audience member needs to passionately kiss another female audience member; and finally…
When Diana says “Leave Me. I want to masturbate”**, the audience throws dildos at the screen.
** I’d really like to pretend that I made these lines up. They might be paraphrased a bit, but honestly, that’s the gist!
Oh yes. It’s a sure-fire student classic of the future. You read it here first folks! I can see the filmmakers lauding me with praise for turning their movie into a post-release sleeper hit. “WHAT A CULT” they shout at me. “WHAT A CULT”!
The rest of the cast do a good enough job with what they have, but have the general vibe of being embarrassed to deliver the dialogue they’ve been given. Sean Harris – a fine actor – inexplicably spouts Shakespeare like Christopher Plummer in “Star Trek VI”! And one can only assume that Timothy Spall was given direction to act as if he had a whole lemon stuck inside his mouth for the whole movie.
I’ve been a fan of Jonny Greenwood’s music in other movies like “Phantom Thread“. I’ve seen Mark Kermode describe this soundtrack as “fantastic”. But, for me, the intrusive atonal strings and laid-back jazz vibe just didn’t work for me at all.
Summary Thoughts on “Spencer”
As you can probably tell, I hated this one. And the illustrious Mrs Movie Man 100% agrees with me in this assessment. The trailer promised a lot, but the movie delivered very little for me. It just all felt to me like an affront to the memory of Diana. Making a highly fictitious “fable based on a real life tragedy” just feels wrong. This seems particularly the case when the Queen, Prince Charles and (particularly) William and Harry are alive to watch it. What must they think if and when they get to view this?
I was a big fan of Larrain’s 2017 biopic on Jackie Kennedy – “Jackie” – which really covered the very similar ground, of a lady in the focus of publicity struggling with mental illness. But at least that had the benefit of historical distance.
I seem to be swimming against the critical tide here, since the movie currently has an IMDB rating of 7.4/10. But frankly, for me, I thought the recent series of “The Crown” did this so much better.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Ad Astra (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Impressive visuals, but rather disappointing as an overall package.
Like father, like son?
I really love sci-fi films with high ambitions. “Psychological” sci-fi like “Solaris” for example. And “Arrival” topped my movie list for 2016. In similar vein, “Ad Astra” is also a movie concerning attempted contact with alien life. So I had high hopes for it. But would this Sci-fi epic ultimately challenge my brain again, or end up in the “Crystal Skull” sin bin with a dodgy alien meeting?
The Plot
Set a few years into the future, Roy McBride (Brad Pitt) is the son of a legend. H. Clifford McBride (Tommy Lee Jones) was a space exploration pioneer. His picture hangs in the NASA hall of fame next to Buzz Aldrin’s. McBride senior went missing presumed dead near Neptune during a mission. The mission was to get outside the Sun’s heliosphere to scan for potential alien transmissions from nearby solar systems.
But something went badly wrong, and now the earth (and potentially all human life migrating into the solar system) is at risk from massive electromagnetic bursts arising from Neptune. Is Clifford alive and involved in the emerging crisis? The authorities send Roy on a secret mission to Mars to try to communicate with his father.
Majestic cinematography
Let’s start with a real positive. The cinematography here is first rate. Hoyte Van-Hoytema – well known for “Interstellar“, “Spectre” and “Dunkirk” – knocks this out of the park. In the same manner as “Blade Runner 2049“, many of the frames of this film could be blown up and placed on art gallery walls around the world.
Add to that some cracking film editing from John Axelrad and Lee Haugen, and some beautiful sound design and I predict the movie should feature strongly in the technical awards at the Oscars.
But “science fiction” has the word “science” in it….
I’d like to park my physics brain sometimes when I go to the movies, but I just can’t. So I really need sci-fi films to live up to the science part of their name. There are a number of areas, particularly at the back end of the film, when credibility goes out the window.
I can’t really say more here without giving spoilers, so I will leave them to a “Spoiler section” below the trailer…. don’t read this if you haven’t seen the film!
What IS this movie trying to be?
In my view the film is pretty schizophrenic in nature. This is what confused me about the trailer, jumping from a cerebral sci-fi vibe to moon buggy shoot-outs.
On one hand, its the standard (but always interesting) tale of a child abandoned by a hero-father and his attempts to reconcile what that’s done to his life and relationships. How can he ever square that circle without contacting his dad? As the film’s tag-line goes “The answers we seek are just outside our reach”.
On the other there are episodes of action that would fit happily into an action scene from Star Trek.
The two elements never really gel, leading to the feeling of the film having been written as a set of disconnected pages and the writers then saying “Hey, Jimmy, once you’ve finished making us the tea, could you just write a few lines to join those pages up into a shooting script?”. Then later, “What do you mean Jimmy you used BOTH piles of paper?!”.
The greatest sin of all
Unfortunately, the film commits a cardinal sin in my book. Those of you who follow my blog regularly might know what I’m going to say….
Voiceovers! I BLOODY HATE THEM!! It’s at the very extreme of what the great Mark Kermode calls “show don’t tell”.
Here, we don’t just have a little Brad Pitt set-up intro and he then shuts up. He just drones on and on and on with his inner thoughts. At least Matt Damon in “The Martian” got away with it by cleverly filming his video blog. And it’s not as if there isn’t a prime opportunity to use that device here! He is constantly having to talk to a computer to do his regular psychological tests! But that option is not picked up.
BIG BLACK MARK!
But the film has its moments
Bubbling under all of this are some stand-out moments where, for me, the film soared. One of them (ultimately setting me up for as much of a disappointing fall as some of the characters!) is the stunning opening shots aboard the “Sky Antenna” structure. Impressive and exciting, with falling bits of metal playing Russian Roulette with Roy’s iife.
Another strength for me is Brad Pitt. I’ve seen wildly differing views on this, but for me its a quiet but strong acting performance. There are many scenes when he has no lines, his inner (and our outer) voice gives it a miss, and he acts the socks off his peers. What with “Once Upon A Time… In Hollywood” its been a really good year for Pitt. I suspect “Hollywood” might be the one though that gets him his fourth acting Oscar nomination.
For a 2019 film, it’s actually a very male-heavy film, made more so by Pitt’s love-interest (Liv Tyler) being given virtually nothing to do other that look a bit sulky from a distance. I’m not even sure she gets a single line in the whole film! (“Miss Tyler – please sign for your script”. “But, there’s nothing in the envelope?”. “Quite Miss Tyler, Quite”).
The only decent female role goes to Ruth Negga as the Mars colony leader. Even then, she only has limited screen time and although having the title “Mars CEO” really doesn’t seem to have much power.
Elsewhere, its great to see both Tommy Lee Jones and Donald Sutherland back on the big screen again.
Final Thoughts
As any veteran RAF person will know, “Ad Astra” is Latin for “To the stars”. In space terms this is less “to the stars” and more “just beyond your front door”.
James Gray‘s film undoubtedly has high ambitions but, through its spasmodic script, never really gets there. It has the beauty of “Gravity” but none of the refinement; there’s an essence of “Space Odyssey” in places, but it never goes for the mystical angle; it has the potential to reflect the near-insanity through loneliness of “Silent Running” but never commits fully to that storyline. But if its novelty you’re looking for, it ticks the “floating monkeys in space” box!
I think it’s worth seeing on the big screen just for its visual beauty and Pitt’s performance. And as a major block-buster sci-fi film I enjoyed it to a degree. But for me it had just so many irritations that it failed to live up to my high expectations. A great shame and a frustrating disappointment.
But at least it’s great news for Richard Branson and Virgin Atlantic shareholders. They can be assured that the future is bright for their “long distance” flights in the future!
I really love sci-fi films with high ambitions. “Psychological” sci-fi like “Solaris” for example. And “Arrival” topped my movie list for 2016. In similar vein, “Ad Astra” is also a movie concerning attempted contact with alien life. So I had high hopes for it. But would this Sci-fi epic ultimately challenge my brain again, or end up in the “Crystal Skull” sin bin with a dodgy alien meeting?
The Plot
Set a few years into the future, Roy McBride (Brad Pitt) is the son of a legend. H. Clifford McBride (Tommy Lee Jones) was a space exploration pioneer. His picture hangs in the NASA hall of fame next to Buzz Aldrin’s. McBride senior went missing presumed dead near Neptune during a mission. The mission was to get outside the Sun’s heliosphere to scan for potential alien transmissions from nearby solar systems.
But something went badly wrong, and now the earth (and potentially all human life migrating into the solar system) is at risk from massive electromagnetic bursts arising from Neptune. Is Clifford alive and involved in the emerging crisis? The authorities send Roy on a secret mission to Mars to try to communicate with his father.
Majestic cinematography
Let’s start with a real positive. The cinematography here is first rate. Hoyte Van-Hoytema – well known for “Interstellar“, “Spectre” and “Dunkirk” – knocks this out of the park. In the same manner as “Blade Runner 2049“, many of the frames of this film could be blown up and placed on art gallery walls around the world.
Add to that some cracking film editing from John Axelrad and Lee Haugen, and some beautiful sound design and I predict the movie should feature strongly in the technical awards at the Oscars.
But “science fiction” has the word “science” in it….
I’d like to park my physics brain sometimes when I go to the movies, but I just can’t. So I really need sci-fi films to live up to the science part of their name. There are a number of areas, particularly at the back end of the film, when credibility goes out the window.
I can’t really say more here without giving spoilers, so I will leave them to a “Spoiler section” below the trailer…. don’t read this if you haven’t seen the film!
What IS this movie trying to be?
In my view the film is pretty schizophrenic in nature. This is what confused me about the trailer, jumping from a cerebral sci-fi vibe to moon buggy shoot-outs.
On one hand, its the standard (but always interesting) tale of a child abandoned by a hero-father and his attempts to reconcile what that’s done to his life and relationships. How can he ever square that circle without contacting his dad? As the film’s tag-line goes “The answers we seek are just outside our reach”.
On the other there are episodes of action that would fit happily into an action scene from Star Trek.
The two elements never really gel, leading to the feeling of the film having been written as a set of disconnected pages and the writers then saying “Hey, Jimmy, once you’ve finished making us the tea, could you just write a few lines to join those pages up into a shooting script?”. Then later, “What do you mean Jimmy you used BOTH piles of paper?!”.
The greatest sin of all
Unfortunately, the film commits a cardinal sin in my book. Those of you who follow my blog regularly might know what I’m going to say….
Voiceovers! I BLOODY HATE THEM!! It’s at the very extreme of what the great Mark Kermode calls “show don’t tell”.
Here, we don’t just have a little Brad Pitt set-up intro and he then shuts up. He just drones on and on and on with his inner thoughts. At least Matt Damon in “The Martian” got away with it by cleverly filming his video blog. And it’s not as if there isn’t a prime opportunity to use that device here! He is constantly having to talk to a computer to do his regular psychological tests! But that option is not picked up.
BIG BLACK MARK!
But the film has its moments
Bubbling under all of this are some stand-out moments where, for me, the film soared. One of them (ultimately setting me up for as much of a disappointing fall as some of the characters!) is the stunning opening shots aboard the “Sky Antenna” structure. Impressive and exciting, with falling bits of metal playing Russian Roulette with Roy’s iife.
Another strength for me is Brad Pitt. I’ve seen wildly differing views on this, but for me its a quiet but strong acting performance. There are many scenes when he has no lines, his inner (and our outer) voice gives it a miss, and he acts the socks off his peers. What with “Once Upon A Time… In Hollywood” its been a really good year for Pitt. I suspect “Hollywood” might be the one though that gets him his fourth acting Oscar nomination.
For a 2019 film, it’s actually a very male-heavy film, made more so by Pitt’s love-interest (Liv Tyler) being given virtually nothing to do other that look a bit sulky from a distance. I’m not even sure she gets a single line in the whole film! (“Miss Tyler – please sign for your script”. “But, there’s nothing in the envelope?”. “Quite Miss Tyler, Quite”).
The only decent female role goes to Ruth Negga as the Mars colony leader. Even then, she only has limited screen time and although having the title “Mars CEO” really doesn’t seem to have much power.
Elsewhere, its great to see both Tommy Lee Jones and Donald Sutherland back on the big screen again.
Final Thoughts
As any veteran RAF person will know, “Ad Astra” is Latin for “To the stars”. In space terms this is less “to the stars” and more “just beyond your front door”.
James Gray‘s film undoubtedly has high ambitions but, through its spasmodic script, never really gets there. It has the beauty of “Gravity” but none of the refinement; there’s an essence of “Space Odyssey” in places, but it never goes for the mystical angle; it has the potential to reflect the near-insanity through loneliness of “Silent Running” but never commits fully to that storyline. But if its novelty you’re looking for, it ticks the “floating monkeys in space” box!
I think it’s worth seeing on the big screen just for its visual beauty and Pitt’s performance. And as a major block-buster sci-fi film I enjoyed it to a degree. But for me it had just so many irritations that it failed to live up to my high expectations. A great shame and a frustrating disappointment.
But at least it’s great news for Richard Branson and Virgin Atlantic shareholders. They can be assured that the future is bright for their “long distance” flights in the future!