Search
Search results
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Dora and the Lost City of Gold (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020
A Fun Family Film For Everyone
Dora and the Lost City of Gold is a 2019 adventure comedy movie directed by James Bobin and producer Kristin Burr, with screenplay by Nicholas Stoller and Matthew Robinson from a story by Tom Wheeler and Nicholas Stoller. It is a loose based continuation and live-action adaptation of the kids show created by Chris Gifford, Valerie Walsh Valdes and Eric Weiner and produced by Paramount Players, Nickelodeon Movies, Walden Media, Media Rights Capital and Burnt Productions with distribution by Paramount Pictures. The film stars Isabela Moner, Eva Longoria, Michael Pena, Jeff Wahlberg and Eugenio Derbez.
Spending her days going on adventures with her cousin Diego (Jeff Wahlberg), her monkey friend Boots (Danny Trejo) and imaginary friends "Map" and "Backpack", Dora (Isabela Moner), daughter of explorers, Cole (Michael Pena) and Elena (Eva Longoria) lives deep in the Peruvian jungle. Diego leaves to be with his family in Los Angeles one day while Dora's family remains searching for Parapata, the lost Inca city of gold. 10 years later, Dora's parents decide to send her to live with her cousin Diego in LA when they decipher the location of Parapata. While on a class trip, Dora and others are lured and captured by mercenaries who fly them to Peru where they plan to force her to find her parents for them.
I was pleasantly surprised with this movie. I guess that happens when you really don't have any expectations at all. I thought this movie was pretty funny and also pretty good for expanding on what was originally a 30 minute kids show that was mostly educational. The girl playing Dora, Isabela Moner, did a great job in her role of Dora. She was optimistically upbeat the whole film even when things didn't go her way but still showed a fragile side to her at the same time that she did incredible feats. Eugenio Derbez was also incredibly funny and did an awesome job as well. The movie was everything you expect for a fun family film and at the same time had good lessons or values to take away from it at the same time. I give this movie a 6/10.
Spending her days going on adventures with her cousin Diego (Jeff Wahlberg), her monkey friend Boots (Danny Trejo) and imaginary friends "Map" and "Backpack", Dora (Isabela Moner), daughter of explorers, Cole (Michael Pena) and Elena (Eva Longoria) lives deep in the Peruvian jungle. Diego leaves to be with his family in Los Angeles one day while Dora's family remains searching for Parapata, the lost Inca city of gold. 10 years later, Dora's parents decide to send her to live with her cousin Diego in LA when they decipher the location of Parapata. While on a class trip, Dora and others are lured and captured by mercenaries who fly them to Peru where they plan to force her to find her parents for them.
I was pleasantly surprised with this movie. I guess that happens when you really don't have any expectations at all. I thought this movie was pretty funny and also pretty good for expanding on what was originally a 30 minute kids show that was mostly educational. The girl playing Dora, Isabela Moner, did a great job in her role of Dora. She was optimistically upbeat the whole film even when things didn't go her way but still showed a fragile side to her at the same time that she did incredible feats. Eugenio Derbez was also incredibly funny and did an awesome job as well. The movie was everything you expect for a fun family film and at the same time had good lessons or values to take away from it at the same time. I give this movie a 6/10.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated 21 Bridges (2019) in Movies
Sep 22, 2020
Direction and Lead Performances elevate a "so-so" script
The world lost a tremendous talent when 44 year old Chadwick Boseman lost his battle with cancer. Whether it was as Jackie Robinson in 42, Thurgood Marshall in THURGOOD or as T'Challa/Black Panther in the Marvel movies, Boseman's charm and charisma lept off the screen and drew you into whatever project he is in.
This charm and charisma is very much in evidence in the by-the-book cops chasing robbers action flick 21 BRIDGES. As the cop chasing "the fugitive", Boseman elevates the proceedings to a level above what this average script had to offer.
Set in NYC, 21 BRIDGES tells the tale of Detective Andre Davis (Bozeman) who must chase down a couple of thieves - and cop killers - before they can escape New York. Told in one night, Davis makes the call to close the "21 Bridges" of the island of Manhattan so the bad guys are stuck on the island.
And...that's the first disappointment with this film, it doesn't do anything with that premise. Do the bad guys try to escape on one of those "21 Bridges"? Nope. The bridges are never really mentioned again...so why call this film "21 Bridges"?
What does work is Boseman's performance. His Davis is competent, honest, smart and earnest and you are drawn into his work. As is the work of the person who is thrust into the action as his partner, Vice Cop Frankie Burns (Sienna Miller). You might roll your eyes when you hear Miller's name for her early career was more about being on the tabloid pages than it was about being on the screen, but she has morphed herself - and her career - into something quite interesting through turns in films like FOXCATCHER and AMERICAN SNIPER and she is as equally interesting as Bozeman in this film. The 2 make a good pair.
The rest of the supporting cast - Taylor Kitsch, Keith David and the great J.K. Simmons - are solid, if not spectacular. But there are 2 standouts. Alexander Siddig (Dr. Bashir in STAR TREK: DEEP SPACE 9) is interesting as the "money launderer" and Stephan James (IF BEALE STREET COULD TALK) is just as charming and charismatic as Bozeman as one of the the thieves on the run. If you are looking for a young, charismatic actor to fill the hole created by Bozeman's death, James could very well fit the bill.
I've mentioned that the script by Adam Mervis and Matthew Michael Carnahan is nothing special, but what is special is the Direction by Brian Kirk (a TV Director of such shows as GAME OF THRONES and LUTHER). This is his Major Motion Picture debut (as far as I could tell) and there were some VERY interesting shots and some taught, tense moments. He'll be a director to watch in the future.
While nothing too special, 21 BRIDGES is better than "good enough" - a cops 'n robbers film that will hold your interest for the relatively quick 1 hour and 39 minute running time.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
This charm and charisma is very much in evidence in the by-the-book cops chasing robbers action flick 21 BRIDGES. As the cop chasing "the fugitive", Boseman elevates the proceedings to a level above what this average script had to offer.
Set in NYC, 21 BRIDGES tells the tale of Detective Andre Davis (Bozeman) who must chase down a couple of thieves - and cop killers - before they can escape New York. Told in one night, Davis makes the call to close the "21 Bridges" of the island of Manhattan so the bad guys are stuck on the island.
And...that's the first disappointment with this film, it doesn't do anything with that premise. Do the bad guys try to escape on one of those "21 Bridges"? Nope. The bridges are never really mentioned again...so why call this film "21 Bridges"?
What does work is Boseman's performance. His Davis is competent, honest, smart and earnest and you are drawn into his work. As is the work of the person who is thrust into the action as his partner, Vice Cop Frankie Burns (Sienna Miller). You might roll your eyes when you hear Miller's name for her early career was more about being on the tabloid pages than it was about being on the screen, but she has morphed herself - and her career - into something quite interesting through turns in films like FOXCATCHER and AMERICAN SNIPER and she is as equally interesting as Bozeman in this film. The 2 make a good pair.
The rest of the supporting cast - Taylor Kitsch, Keith David and the great J.K. Simmons - are solid, if not spectacular. But there are 2 standouts. Alexander Siddig (Dr. Bashir in STAR TREK: DEEP SPACE 9) is interesting as the "money launderer" and Stephan James (IF BEALE STREET COULD TALK) is just as charming and charismatic as Bozeman as one of the the thieves on the run. If you are looking for a young, charismatic actor to fill the hole created by Bozeman's death, James could very well fit the bill.
I've mentioned that the script by Adam Mervis and Matthew Michael Carnahan is nothing special, but what is special is the Direction by Brian Kirk (a TV Director of such shows as GAME OF THRONES and LUTHER). This is his Major Motion Picture debut (as far as I could tell) and there were some VERY interesting shots and some taught, tense moments. He'll be a director to watch in the future.
While nothing too special, 21 BRIDGES is better than "good enough" - a cops 'n robbers film that will hold your interest for the relatively quick 1 hour and 39 minute running time.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Banker's Wife in Books
Mar 6, 2019
Great, exciting, tense novel
Annabel Lerner feels isolated in Geneva: she's not like the other bankers' wives, and she rarely sees her husband Matthew anymore. They moved to Geneva for a fresh start--and yes, to take advantage of the salary Matthew's private banking job at Swiss United offered. But Annabel never realized how stressed Matthew would be or how often he'd travel. And then, suddenly, he's gone: his private plane simply falling off the radar over the French Alps. Before she can even understand what's happening, Annabel is left to deal with the aftermath, including a trail of secrets and the powerful men at Swiss United who don't want them exposed. Meanwhile, Marina Tourneau is a reporter for The Press. Her mentor, Duncan Carr, has been chasing a story involving Morty Reiss, whose hedge fund was one of the largest Ponzi scams of all time. Supposedly, before he could get caught, Morty committed suicide. But Duncan and Marina believe Marty faked his death and Duncan has become obsessed with proving it--to the detriment of his health, his reputation, and his career. But Marina is also engaged to Grant Ellis, whose wealthy father, James, is about to run for President. The plan is for Marina to stop writing and stand by her man. But when she suddenly realizes she's on the trail of the story of her career, what will she do?
Well, this turned out to be a gem of a novel. When I first started reading it, I was a little worried that I wouldn't see what the fuss was all about, but things quickly picked up, and I was hooked. One of the best things about this novel is that it's an old-style thriller--it reminded me of old-school Grisham or Stieg Larsson. It even throws shade at the glutton of Girl books and their (annoying) unreliable narrators, which I love. This is a mystery for folks who love real stories without any fuss or distraction and with strong characters--all of which combine to leave you befuddled and anxious as everything slowly unfurls.
Alger takes us into the complicated and dark world of Swiss banking, where we are introduced to a lot of real bad guys who have no morals. You can't trust them, you know they are bad, and you know your heroes and heroines are in true danger. Rarely do I think this while reading a book (because, face it, the book is always better), but I really think this book would *actually* make a great movie. It's exciting and tense, and the way things are slowly revealed would make for a very effective film.
But, anyway, it's a wonderful novel. You quickly get sucked into Annabel and Marina's worlds--the majority of the story is told from their points of view. There's a decent amount of ancillary characters to keep track of, but it's certainly manageable. The best is not knowing who to trust, what to believe, or how things went down. There's that Girl with a Dragon Tattoo-reporting vibe that I love: the pleasure of solving a case. The story is set in 2015 but is completely timely, yet utterly timeless in its essence of greed, money, and fear--and what people do in the name of all three. I just loved the old-fashioned thrill of it, the long list of suspects, the excitement of trying to work out who did what.
Overall, this is just a great novel. The plot is excellent--tense, exciting, and expertly woven together. The characters are strong, but it's really the story that's the standout here. It truly reminds you of mysteries and thrillers of old (I sound ancient here, but whatever). Don't let the banking theme scare you off: this is a fabulous read, and if you're a mystery or thriller fan, I think you'll really enjoy this one. 4+ stars.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review (thank you!).
Well, this turned out to be a gem of a novel. When I first started reading it, I was a little worried that I wouldn't see what the fuss was all about, but things quickly picked up, and I was hooked. One of the best things about this novel is that it's an old-style thriller--it reminded me of old-school Grisham or Stieg Larsson. It even throws shade at the glutton of Girl books and their (annoying) unreliable narrators, which I love. This is a mystery for folks who love real stories without any fuss or distraction and with strong characters--all of which combine to leave you befuddled and anxious as everything slowly unfurls.
Alger takes us into the complicated and dark world of Swiss banking, where we are introduced to a lot of real bad guys who have no morals. You can't trust them, you know they are bad, and you know your heroes and heroines are in true danger. Rarely do I think this while reading a book (because, face it, the book is always better), but I really think this book would *actually* make a great movie. It's exciting and tense, and the way things are slowly revealed would make for a very effective film.
But, anyway, it's a wonderful novel. You quickly get sucked into Annabel and Marina's worlds--the majority of the story is told from their points of view. There's a decent amount of ancillary characters to keep track of, but it's certainly manageable. The best is not knowing who to trust, what to believe, or how things went down. There's that Girl with a Dragon Tattoo-reporting vibe that I love: the pleasure of solving a case. The story is set in 2015 but is completely timely, yet utterly timeless in its essence of greed, money, and fear--and what people do in the name of all three. I just loved the old-fashioned thrill of it, the long list of suspects, the excitement of trying to work out who did what.
Overall, this is just a great novel. The plot is excellent--tense, exciting, and expertly woven together. The characters are strong, but it's really the story that's the standout here. It truly reminds you of mysteries and thrillers of old (I sound ancient here, but whatever). Don't let the banking theme scare you off: this is a fabulous read, and if you're a mystery or thriller fan, I think you'll really enjoy this one. 4+ stars.
I received a copy of this novel from the publisher and Netgalley in return for an unbiased review (thank you!).
JT (287 KP) rated World War Z (2013) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
Zombies, they’ve been around for a while now in all shapes and sizes, yet like the walking undead the genre shows no signs of dying out. Director Marc Forster teams up with Brad Pitt for a zombie horror (if you can really call it that) which travels the world in search of a vaccine that will stop the world’s population being wiped out.
It doesn’t take long for the first action set piece to explode into life, as Pitt and his family face a race against time to get out of New York city and off the streets as the zombie pandemic takes a grip. It’s certainly enough to hold your attention as we watch the transformation. People scampering this way and that as hordes of zombies swarm the streets like rats coming up from the sewer.
Gerry secures safety on board one of the few remaining battleships and is told that he must join the fight to find a cure, or head back to hell with his family in tow. He then jets off on a whistle stop tour taking him to South Korea, Israeli and of all places Wales (that got a chuckle from the audience) where each destination kicks off another exciting and thoroughly enjoyable zombie set piece.
However one thing is missing from this film, something vital that sets it apart from others, gore. Given the PG-13 rating certain scenes cut away from anything resembling graphic violence, which was a massive shame. The lack of flesh eating action which fans are used to seeing is a real disappointment. It is an element that could have taken this film from good to great and I felt like I had been cheated out of my ticket price.
Forster’s CG zombie hordes are impressive, particularly rampaging through the Israeli back streets and the film certainly delivers on some slick tension with one or two jump out of your seat moments. But for me it’s not enough to carry the entire film through, and when things quieten down you’re not left with much else to fill the time before the next shit hitting fan moment.
The occasional plot hole threatens to rear its ugly head, and given the size of the budget the ending is a real let down, but it clearly hints at a potential sequel. If they choose to go down that route then blood must be spilled and lots of it. The acting in World War Z is hardly filled with standouts, and with the exception of Pitt, most only pop up from time to time. Like Matthew Fox’s paratrooper which pretty much feels like a cameo and James Badge Dale’s Captain Speke, around for minutes before taking one to the head.
Visually it’s great there is no question about that, the zombies are terrifying but it needed just a little bit more to push it into the front as one of the better zombie flicks.
It doesn’t take long for the first action set piece to explode into life, as Pitt and his family face a race against time to get out of New York city and off the streets as the zombie pandemic takes a grip. It’s certainly enough to hold your attention as we watch the transformation. People scampering this way and that as hordes of zombies swarm the streets like rats coming up from the sewer.
Gerry secures safety on board one of the few remaining battleships and is told that he must join the fight to find a cure, or head back to hell with his family in tow. He then jets off on a whistle stop tour taking him to South Korea, Israeli and of all places Wales (that got a chuckle from the audience) where each destination kicks off another exciting and thoroughly enjoyable zombie set piece.
However one thing is missing from this film, something vital that sets it apart from others, gore. Given the PG-13 rating certain scenes cut away from anything resembling graphic violence, which was a massive shame. The lack of flesh eating action which fans are used to seeing is a real disappointment. It is an element that could have taken this film from good to great and I felt like I had been cheated out of my ticket price.
Forster’s CG zombie hordes are impressive, particularly rampaging through the Israeli back streets and the film certainly delivers on some slick tension with one or two jump out of your seat moments. But for me it’s not enough to carry the entire film through, and when things quieten down you’re not left with much else to fill the time before the next shit hitting fan moment.
The occasional plot hole threatens to rear its ugly head, and given the size of the budget the ending is a real let down, but it clearly hints at a potential sequel. If they choose to go down that route then blood must be spilled and lots of it. The acting in World War Z is hardly filled with standouts, and with the exception of Pitt, most only pop up from time to time. Like Matthew Fox’s paratrooper which pretty much feels like a cameo and James Badge Dale’s Captain Speke, around for minutes before taking one to the head.
Visually it’s great there is no question about that, the zombies are terrifying but it needed just a little bit more to push it into the front as one of the better zombie flicks.
Joe Goodhart (27 KP) rated Batman: Detective Comics, Volume 5: A Lonely Place of Living in Books
Nov 30, 2020
Alright, alright, alright! (whoa, who let Matthew McConaughey in here?!?) I am coming to the near ending of James Tynion IV's run on "Rebirth" DETECTIVE COMICS. After this, one more volume to go: VOL. VI: THE FALL OF THE BATMEN. But, now I am getting ahead of myself, eh? Let's refocus back on this volume...
The ride thus far has been quite good! Tynion's treatment of Batman gives us a more faceted aspect of the Dark Knight. Yes, there is still the "Dark" to his "Knight", but there is also a bit of humanity, like the way he is in regard to Tim Drake, as well as Stephanie Brown/Spoiler. It reminds of what I liked most about the character as I was growing up in the 80s and 90s, something that appears to have been forgotten as Tom King continues to present a Batman that really was not needed! I look forward to him taking over from King on the BATMAN main book!
Spoiler, unfortunately, was still kinda mopey and angst-y in this volume as well. I dunno. When she came on board as the fourth Robin and then became the fourth Batgirl, I passed on it. It really did not have any attraction for me. However, in the first three volumes of "Rebirth" DETECTIVE COMICS, before Tim was grabbed by Mr. Oz (or was it Dr. Oz? lol), she was quite likeable, even kinda fun. After the whole "Tim Incident", the suck-itude was strong and hard! Hopefully, she will be more herself in Tynion's final volume of 'TEC!
The story was quite good, as it dealt with Tim Drake, and his role in the DCU since Dr. Manhattan made those missing 10 years go bye-bye. At points, it felt very much like a hackneyed plot element, but it still was not that bad. Not great, mind you, unlike the previous volumes, but not the worse treatment (that goes to King) of the Batman fam!
The other element that left this off my "Favorites" shelf, as well as only as high as 3 Stars, was the art from Eddy Barrows. He had some really great backgrounds and figure shots, but his faces? Um, no. Several times it looked like Tim was grinning when he should not have. Also, there were some other "that's not right" facial moments for much of the other supporting characters. I think he is a good artist, but I think whoever was editing that run should have been more aware of that!
Now, Alvaro Martinez? Perfect! His style was perfectly suited to Gotham City and the world of Batman. I would have loved him for the whole volume instead of the little bit he had. Hmm.. Maybe Tynion IV can bring him along for his upcoming run on BATMAN? #hopeful
So, yeah, I <i>liked</i> "A Lonely Of Living", but I didn't <i>love</i> it, dig? There was some good stuff, but overall, I would likely not want to re-visit it at a later date. Ah well, on to FALL OF THE BATMEN..
The ride thus far has been quite good! Tynion's treatment of Batman gives us a more faceted aspect of the Dark Knight. Yes, there is still the "Dark" to his "Knight", but there is also a bit of humanity, like the way he is in regard to Tim Drake, as well as Stephanie Brown/Spoiler. It reminds of what I liked most about the character as I was growing up in the 80s and 90s, something that appears to have been forgotten as Tom King continues to present a Batman that really was not needed! I look forward to him taking over from King on the BATMAN main book!
Spoiler, unfortunately, was still kinda mopey and angst-y in this volume as well. I dunno. When she came on board as the fourth Robin and then became the fourth Batgirl, I passed on it. It really did not have any attraction for me. However, in the first three volumes of "Rebirth" DETECTIVE COMICS, before Tim was grabbed by Mr. Oz (or was it Dr. Oz? lol), she was quite likeable, even kinda fun. After the whole "Tim Incident", the suck-itude was strong and hard! Hopefully, she will be more herself in Tynion's final volume of 'TEC!
The story was quite good, as it dealt with Tim Drake, and his role in the DCU since Dr. Manhattan made those missing 10 years go bye-bye. At points, it felt very much like a hackneyed plot element, but it still was not that bad. Not great, mind you, unlike the previous volumes, but not the worse treatment (that goes to King) of the Batman fam!
The other element that left this off my "Favorites" shelf, as well as only as high as 3 Stars, was the art from Eddy Barrows. He had some really great backgrounds and figure shots, but his faces? Um, no. Several times it looked like Tim was grinning when he should not have. Also, there were some other "that's not right" facial moments for much of the other supporting characters. I think he is a good artist, but I think whoever was editing that run should have been more aware of that!
Now, Alvaro Martinez? Perfect! His style was perfectly suited to Gotham City and the world of Batman. I would have loved him for the whole volume instead of the little bit he had. Hmm.. Maybe Tynion IV can bring him along for his upcoming run on BATMAN? #hopeful
So, yeah, I <i>liked</i> "A Lonely Of Living", but I didn't <i>love</i> it, dig? There was some good stuff, but overall, I would likely not want to re-visit it at a later date. Ah well, on to FALL OF THE BATMEN..
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.
Kiruji (13 KP) rated X-Men: First Class (2011) in Movies
Jul 18, 2018
I'm not an X-Men fan. I know, it's strange, right? I mean, I'm a comic book fan in general. Iron Man's a dude. I dig the Hulk. I love all things Batman (except when Joel Schumacher tweaked the Batman's Batnipples). I geekgasmed all over my trousers in the lead up to THE DARK KNIGHT and actually watching it at an IMAX was like losing my virginity again. But the X-Men? Kinda leave me cold. Even though, on the face of it, it should be pretty awesome. Mutant humans with the ability to do just about anything you can imagine, fighting each other and various other bad things? Why the hell wouldn't I like that? But I could never get into it. The first X-Men movie, way back in 2000, left me feeling indifferent. It was OK, but nothing special. The second one was worse. The third one just plain awful. WOLVERINE: ORIGINS was quite fun, but then, a hard drinking, smoking, swearing brawler with friendly mutton-chops and blades in his hands was always going to be appealing to me.
And so, it was with a feeling of complete indifference that I flashed my Cineworld Unlimited card at a bored usher and got my ticket and a mixed slushie last week. I only went to see it because my buddy wanted to and, well, we'd missed the start of THE HANGOVER PART II.
So, into the darkened room early for a change. Managed to get prime seats. Mainly because the auditorium was pretty much empty. Something I didn't think was the most fortuitous portent to the movie we were about to watch. On the plus side however, as we were watching a comic book movie, we got the comic book trailer reel... First was THE GREEN LANTERN, which excited me a little (mainly because I have a man crush on Ryan Reynolds). Then came CAPTAIN AMERICA, which excited me a little more (mainly because it looks FREAKIN' AWESOME). Then we got RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES, which intrigued me (mainly because James Franco was doing a 'learned man' accent). Presumably because Cineworld were already scraping the comic book movie barrel, they then repeated the APES trailer, which killed the mood and left me feeling indifferent again.
But I digress. I think you get that I didn't really give a crap one way or the other about the movie I was about to watch. The opening scenes however, are set in a WWII concentration camp and I found my interest piqued. At first, I couldn't figure out whether it had been newly filmed or if they were recycling one of the flashbacks from one of the earlier movies. Then, Kevin Bacon. Suddenly, I was transfixed by the German pouring forth from his mouth which seemed authentic and I couldn't quite work out if he was lip-synching or not. That's somewhat besides the point though, as the scene itself was very tense and only marginally spoiled by the child actor when it was his turn to scream the longest NOOOOOOO!!! (sorry, NEEEEEEEEIN!!!) since Adolf Vader in Episode 3.
The film very quickly moved on in leaps and bounds, sucking me in and winning me over. Kevin Bacon seemed to enjoy hamming it up as the evil Sebastian Shaw. James McAvoy is an exceptionally talented chap and made for an excellent Charles Xavier - a cocky, beer-swilling, genius ladies man. Similarly, Michael Fassbender did a top notch job in playing Erik Lehnsherr, coming across as a Holocaust-surviving Bond, maybe even slightly cooler. Even Jason Flemyng was pretty good, although I don't think he actually spoke at all, which might have helped his case.
I loved the whole origins story, seeing how Xavier and Lehnsherr were good friends despite their obvious differences and started the School for the Gifted together was pretty cool. The only little blight on the movie (after the whole NEEEEEEEIN!!! incident) was that when it came time for Fassbender to don Magneto's helmet, the prop department had obviously measured his noggin wrong and it was clearly too tight. I say that because, every time he slapped it on his dome, his accent turned from gruff-hero-of-indeterminate-country-of-origin to... Well, to Oirish. The only reason I can think of is that the helmet was squeezing his bonce a bit too snugly. It didn't happen when Kevin Bacon was wearing it.
Helmet business aside, on the whole, I left feeling like I'd just seen a proper comic book movie. Full of fantastical, incredible things dancing around a plot that made sense and characters that I, on the whole, cared about at least a little. There was even a Wolverine cameo in it, which made me chuckle more than it should have. Far from being indifferent towards the X-Men now, I'm looking forward to seeing where the story goes next. I just hope Matthew Vaughn is directing again. He's turned out an X-Men film that is much, much better than mediocre and they'd be idiots to give it to anyone else.
And so, it was with a feeling of complete indifference that I flashed my Cineworld Unlimited card at a bored usher and got my ticket and a mixed slushie last week. I only went to see it because my buddy wanted to and, well, we'd missed the start of THE HANGOVER PART II.
So, into the darkened room early for a change. Managed to get prime seats. Mainly because the auditorium was pretty much empty. Something I didn't think was the most fortuitous portent to the movie we were about to watch. On the plus side however, as we were watching a comic book movie, we got the comic book trailer reel... First was THE GREEN LANTERN, which excited me a little (mainly because I have a man crush on Ryan Reynolds). Then came CAPTAIN AMERICA, which excited me a little more (mainly because it looks FREAKIN' AWESOME). Then we got RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES, which intrigued me (mainly because James Franco was doing a 'learned man' accent). Presumably because Cineworld were already scraping the comic book movie barrel, they then repeated the APES trailer, which killed the mood and left me feeling indifferent again.
But I digress. I think you get that I didn't really give a crap one way or the other about the movie I was about to watch. The opening scenes however, are set in a WWII concentration camp and I found my interest piqued. At first, I couldn't figure out whether it had been newly filmed or if they were recycling one of the flashbacks from one of the earlier movies. Then, Kevin Bacon. Suddenly, I was transfixed by the German pouring forth from his mouth which seemed authentic and I couldn't quite work out if he was lip-synching or not. That's somewhat besides the point though, as the scene itself was very tense and only marginally spoiled by the child actor when it was his turn to scream the longest NOOOOOOO!!! (sorry, NEEEEEEEEIN!!!) since Adolf Vader in Episode 3.
The film very quickly moved on in leaps and bounds, sucking me in and winning me over. Kevin Bacon seemed to enjoy hamming it up as the evil Sebastian Shaw. James McAvoy is an exceptionally talented chap and made for an excellent Charles Xavier - a cocky, beer-swilling, genius ladies man. Similarly, Michael Fassbender did a top notch job in playing Erik Lehnsherr, coming across as a Holocaust-surviving Bond, maybe even slightly cooler. Even Jason Flemyng was pretty good, although I don't think he actually spoke at all, which might have helped his case.
I loved the whole origins story, seeing how Xavier and Lehnsherr were good friends despite their obvious differences and started the School for the Gifted together was pretty cool. The only little blight on the movie (after the whole NEEEEEEEIN!!! incident) was that when it came time for Fassbender to don Magneto's helmet, the prop department had obviously measured his noggin wrong and it was clearly too tight. I say that because, every time he slapped it on his dome, his accent turned from gruff-hero-of-indeterminate-country-of-origin to... Well, to Oirish. The only reason I can think of is that the helmet was squeezing his bonce a bit too snugly. It didn't happen when Kevin Bacon was wearing it.
Helmet business aside, on the whole, I left feeling like I'd just seen a proper comic book movie. Full of fantastical, incredible things dancing around a plot that made sense and characters that I, on the whole, cared about at least a little. There was even a Wolverine cameo in it, which made me chuckle more than it should have. Far from being indifferent towards the X-Men now, I'm looking forward to seeing where the story goes next. I just hope Matthew Vaughn is directing again. He's turned out an X-Men film that is much, much better than mediocre and they'd be idiots to give it to anyone else.
Cody Cook (8 KP) rated A Black Theology of Liberation in Books
Jun 29, 2018
James Cone is considered to be the founder of Black Liberation Theology, a variant of the Liberation Theology movement most widely connected with South American theologian Gustavo Gutierrez. Liberation Theology emphasizes those biblical concerns that white European flavored Christianity has often looked over– concerns like justice and liberation for the oppressed and downtrodden (Luke 4:16-21, Matthew 25:31-45, etc.). Though these emphases are quite important, in Liberation movements, they can often drown out other, extremely vital, elements of the Christian faith, as they clearly do in Cone’s Black Liberation Theology.
One major issue for Cone is one of authority. The experience of one group of people (the oppressed) becomes equivalent with universal truth, and not simply an important concern in Christian theology. In other words, Cone makes his own experience the judge of who God is and what God is for. While “white” (a term used by Cone not so much to reflect skin color but an oppressor mentality) Christianity commits this grave error without realizing it, Cone does so with full knowledge. So, for instance, while a conservative “white” theologian would say that his own views and actions *should* be directed by the scripture (whether or not he does in fact direct them by this standard), Cone makes the judgement of the oppressed black community the ultimate truth for them– and if mass violence against whites is decided by the group as the best means to effect their liberation, so be it. Cone explicitly distances himself from the approach of King, identifying more with the violence-prone philosophy of the Nation of Islam as propounded by Malcolm X. If someone criticizes his approach, he seems to assume that they’re doing so as a “white” oppressor and should be ignored– an oppressor has no moral right to question the rightness or wrongness of the actions of the people he is oppressing. This of course ignores the criticisms of violence, even from the oppressed, of black Christians like Martin Luther King Jr., Desmond Tutu, etc. Cone is also unfortunately either unfamiliar with or unconvinced by pacifist Christian claims to be committed to peaceful action, since he equates non-violence with inaction and acquiescence. While he is absolutely correct in seeing liberation as an important theme in the Christian faith, he, like “white” religionists, allows his own experience and emotions to determine what is right and wrong to the point of supporting evil in the interest of what he feels is best for his community. However, what can’t be said of Cone’s position on violence is that it is radical, because it is emphatically not. The political heroes of most white Americans are men who used violence to gain political autonomy. Thus, it is not radical for black men and women to look up to figures like Malcolm X and James Cone who advocate doing the same thing if it seems necessary for freedom and self-determination; it is merely status quo. The problem is that Jesus calls all men and women, regardless of color, to rise above the status quo and the myth of redemptive violence.
Seizing on that point, one major problem with Cone’s view of violent revolution is that when oppressed people rise up through violence, they become the oppressor– co-opting the tools of oppression and dehumanization. “Blacks” become “white” through the use of violence. Cone seems unaware of (doubtful) or unaffected by the history of the Bolshevik, Cuban, or French revolutions, wherein the oppressed quickly became the oppressors and became twofold more a child of hell than their oppressors. His view also reshapes Nat Turner, the slave who claimed to have been directed by God to murder white women and children, into an unqualified hero. Cone’s system re-establishes and re-affirms oppression– it does not end it.
For Cone, God is black and the devil is white, because God supports the oppressed and the devil supports the oppressor. But in so closely identifying God with blackness, the actions of those in the black community are now above being questioned, just like the actions of white enslavers were, according to them, above being questioned because they aligned themselves with God and those whom they oppressed with the devil.
What Cone is really trying to get at is that since Jesus supports the cause of the oppressed, the oppressor must so distance himself from his oppressor identity that he becomes indistinguishable from the oppressed– willing to suffer along with them– if he is to be Christ-like. In other words, the “white” must become “black.” Cone says that God can’t be colorless where people suffer for their color. So, where blacks suffer God is black. Taking this logic, which is indeed rooted in Scripture, where the poor suffer, God is poor. Where babies are killed in the womb, God is an aborted baby. Where gay people are bullied, God is gay. It is our obligation to identify with the downtrodden, because that’s what Jesus did. Paul, quoting a hymn of the church about Jesus, puts it this way:
“In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:
‘Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!'”
–Philippians 2:5-8
Jesus not only gives up his power to express love to the powerless by identifying with them, He also takes on their sin and suffers with and for them. This is the essence of the gospel, and it often gets lost when we translate it into our daily lives. For Cone, this important truth gets lost in the banner of black militantism and the cycle of violence. For so many American Christians, it gets lost when they reduce the political nature of Christianity to scolding those whose private expression of morality doesn’t line up with theirs. We refuse to identify with sinners (which is a category we all fit into) in love.
One major issue for Cone is one of authority. The experience of one group of people (the oppressed) becomes equivalent with universal truth, and not simply an important concern in Christian theology. In other words, Cone makes his own experience the judge of who God is and what God is for. While “white” (a term used by Cone not so much to reflect skin color but an oppressor mentality) Christianity commits this grave error without realizing it, Cone does so with full knowledge. So, for instance, while a conservative “white” theologian would say that his own views and actions *should* be directed by the scripture (whether or not he does in fact direct them by this standard), Cone makes the judgement of the oppressed black community the ultimate truth for them– and if mass violence against whites is decided by the group as the best means to effect their liberation, so be it. Cone explicitly distances himself from the approach of King, identifying more with the violence-prone philosophy of the Nation of Islam as propounded by Malcolm X. If someone criticizes his approach, he seems to assume that they’re doing so as a “white” oppressor and should be ignored– an oppressor has no moral right to question the rightness or wrongness of the actions of the people he is oppressing. This of course ignores the criticisms of violence, even from the oppressed, of black Christians like Martin Luther King Jr., Desmond Tutu, etc. Cone is also unfortunately either unfamiliar with or unconvinced by pacifist Christian claims to be committed to peaceful action, since he equates non-violence with inaction and acquiescence. While he is absolutely correct in seeing liberation as an important theme in the Christian faith, he, like “white” religionists, allows his own experience and emotions to determine what is right and wrong to the point of supporting evil in the interest of what he feels is best for his community. However, what can’t be said of Cone’s position on violence is that it is radical, because it is emphatically not. The political heroes of most white Americans are men who used violence to gain political autonomy. Thus, it is not radical for black men and women to look up to figures like Malcolm X and James Cone who advocate doing the same thing if it seems necessary for freedom and self-determination; it is merely status quo. The problem is that Jesus calls all men and women, regardless of color, to rise above the status quo and the myth of redemptive violence.
Seizing on that point, one major problem with Cone’s view of violent revolution is that when oppressed people rise up through violence, they become the oppressor– co-opting the tools of oppression and dehumanization. “Blacks” become “white” through the use of violence. Cone seems unaware of (doubtful) or unaffected by the history of the Bolshevik, Cuban, or French revolutions, wherein the oppressed quickly became the oppressors and became twofold more a child of hell than their oppressors. His view also reshapes Nat Turner, the slave who claimed to have been directed by God to murder white women and children, into an unqualified hero. Cone’s system re-establishes and re-affirms oppression– it does not end it.
For Cone, God is black and the devil is white, because God supports the oppressed and the devil supports the oppressor. But in so closely identifying God with blackness, the actions of those in the black community are now above being questioned, just like the actions of white enslavers were, according to them, above being questioned because they aligned themselves with God and those whom they oppressed with the devil.
What Cone is really trying to get at is that since Jesus supports the cause of the oppressed, the oppressor must so distance himself from his oppressor identity that he becomes indistinguishable from the oppressed– willing to suffer along with them– if he is to be Christ-like. In other words, the “white” must become “black.” Cone says that God can’t be colorless where people suffer for their color. So, where blacks suffer God is black. Taking this logic, which is indeed rooted in Scripture, where the poor suffer, God is poor. Where babies are killed in the womb, God is an aborted baby. Where gay people are bullied, God is gay. It is our obligation to identify with the downtrodden, because that’s what Jesus did. Paul, quoting a hymn of the church about Jesus, puts it this way:
“In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:
‘Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!'”
–Philippians 2:5-8
Jesus not only gives up his power to express love to the powerless by identifying with them, He also takes on their sin and suffers with and for them. This is the essence of the gospel, and it often gets lost when we translate it into our daily lives. For Cone, this important truth gets lost in the banner of black militantism and the cycle of violence. For so many American Christians, it gets lost when they reduce the political nature of Christianity to scolding those whose private expression of morality doesn’t line up with theirs. We refuse to identify with sinners (which is a category we all fit into) in love.
theVman (16 KP) rated Twin Peaks - Season 3 in TV
May 22, 2017
The Cast (1 more)
The new mysterys
Lack of the familar Twin Peaks stuff (2 more)
The way the story unfolds
Very Slow
The first four episodes
Twin Peaks: The Return
*** Ive tried to write this as spoiler free as i can, you may find some in here but nothing that i think would ruin watching the show for you ***
I don’t think it will come to anyones surprise to say that the first four episodes of Twin Peaks return are strange. But maybe not in the way that we know and love.
I found these first four episodes difficult to enjoy not because they were bad, but because it was not what I was expecting at all. I wanted the key things that I love about Twin Peaks to be there, the returning characters, the iconic score by Angleo Badalamenti, the quirky weirdness grounded by soap opera like stories. I wanted the dark seriousness of murder, lust and money, beautifully intertwined with the ridiculousness of silent drape runners, saving the pine weasel and miss twin peaks contests.Unfortunately I found very little of any of what I wanted.
Yes Cooper is back or more accurately Kyle Maclachlan is back but has yet to act or sound anything like Special Agent Dale Cooper at all, the story calling for him to play a very lifeless rendition of his former glory. Other familiar faces have shown up along the way, but not very many and for not very long at all.
What we have is something very Lynchian, long drawn out scenes, especially in The Black Lodge that after extended moments of a droning humming score and lot of not a lot going on in slow motion followed by more not a lot going on but this time with a white horse or a talking lump of flesh on a leafless tree in the picture, it starts to feel like a lot of weird stuff just for sheer sake of being weird.
Fans of the previous seasons of Twin Peaks might be left wondering what is going on with the stories that were left open, is Leo still holding that rope in his mouth, what happened after the explosion in the bank vault, and what the hell has happened to Annie – well you wont find any of these answers here. Instead we are given a whole bunch of new characters, who’s stories we are still trying to figure out and how they are related to the events of Twin Peaks, which is a made into a bigger and more confusing mystery seeing as none of them actually take place in Twin Peaks at all. In fact, the most recognisable place in the first few hours is The Black Lodge, which features extensively in the first two episodes before “Cooper” bizarrely ends up in Las Vegas. Also knocking us out of our comfort zone and driving home the fact that this is not the same kind of Twin Peaks show we are used to, are the occasional F bombs being dropped and the coy sexiness that flowed through the show has been replaced with plain nudity.
We have been given vision that is pure David Lynch. He produces some fantastical imagery and some unnerving editing that is like watching Eraserhead, Lost Highway and Fire Walk With Me all at the same time on the same screen. As a piece of art it has its place amongst Lynch fans, but as a piece of entertainment for prime time television, it missed the mark for me, and as a return to Twin Peaks, it should be ashamed of itself, as apart from 30 seconds or so in episode 4 where here the familiar twangs of the original score, I didn’t feel like there was any return to that great tv show from the early 90s. There is the odd nugget of new that will keep me watching, Naomi Watts and Matthew Lillard have joined the team in what promises to be entertaining roles, there is a glass box that is being kept in some kind of secret bunker under constant video monitoring that seems to have something to do with The Black Lodge, the log lady is getting message from her log again, a body that doesn’t belong to its head and we are still hanging out at the Bang Bang Bar with Bobby, Shelley and James even if it was for far too brief at time.
Overall: It didn’t deliver on its promise, or give me what I wanted, but there is still a lot more episodes to come. I cant think of another show that would get away with such a slow build or lack of deliverance than the new third season of Twin Peaks.
*** Ive tried to write this as spoiler free as i can, you may find some in here but nothing that i think would ruin watching the show for you ***
I don’t think it will come to anyones surprise to say that the first four episodes of Twin Peaks return are strange. But maybe not in the way that we know and love.
I found these first four episodes difficult to enjoy not because they were bad, but because it was not what I was expecting at all. I wanted the key things that I love about Twin Peaks to be there, the returning characters, the iconic score by Angleo Badalamenti, the quirky weirdness grounded by soap opera like stories. I wanted the dark seriousness of murder, lust and money, beautifully intertwined with the ridiculousness of silent drape runners, saving the pine weasel and miss twin peaks contests.Unfortunately I found very little of any of what I wanted.
Yes Cooper is back or more accurately Kyle Maclachlan is back but has yet to act or sound anything like Special Agent Dale Cooper at all, the story calling for him to play a very lifeless rendition of his former glory. Other familiar faces have shown up along the way, but not very many and for not very long at all.
What we have is something very Lynchian, long drawn out scenes, especially in The Black Lodge that after extended moments of a droning humming score and lot of not a lot going on in slow motion followed by more not a lot going on but this time with a white horse or a talking lump of flesh on a leafless tree in the picture, it starts to feel like a lot of weird stuff just for sheer sake of being weird.
Fans of the previous seasons of Twin Peaks might be left wondering what is going on with the stories that were left open, is Leo still holding that rope in his mouth, what happened after the explosion in the bank vault, and what the hell has happened to Annie – well you wont find any of these answers here. Instead we are given a whole bunch of new characters, who’s stories we are still trying to figure out and how they are related to the events of Twin Peaks, which is a made into a bigger and more confusing mystery seeing as none of them actually take place in Twin Peaks at all. In fact, the most recognisable place in the first few hours is The Black Lodge, which features extensively in the first two episodes before “Cooper” bizarrely ends up in Las Vegas. Also knocking us out of our comfort zone and driving home the fact that this is not the same kind of Twin Peaks show we are used to, are the occasional F bombs being dropped and the coy sexiness that flowed through the show has been replaced with plain nudity.
We have been given vision that is pure David Lynch. He produces some fantastical imagery and some unnerving editing that is like watching Eraserhead, Lost Highway and Fire Walk With Me all at the same time on the same screen. As a piece of art it has its place amongst Lynch fans, but as a piece of entertainment for prime time television, it missed the mark for me, and as a return to Twin Peaks, it should be ashamed of itself, as apart from 30 seconds or so in episode 4 where here the familiar twangs of the original score, I didn’t feel like there was any return to that great tv show from the early 90s. There is the odd nugget of new that will keep me watching, Naomi Watts and Matthew Lillard have joined the team in what promises to be entertaining roles, there is a glass box that is being kept in some kind of secret bunker under constant video monitoring that seems to have something to do with The Black Lodge, the log lady is getting message from her log again, a body that doesn’t belong to its head and we are still hanging out at the Bang Bang Bar with Bobby, Shelley and James even if it was for far too brief at time.
Overall: It didn’t deliver on its promise, or give me what I wanted, but there is still a lot more episodes to come. I cant think of another show that would get away with such a slow build or lack of deliverance than the new third season of Twin Peaks.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Batman (2022) in Movies
Mar 12, 2022
Too Long Of a Setup for a Terrific Payoff
The rap on the films of the DCEU - especially the films directed by Zach Snyder - is that they are too dark, dour and a “downer”, with very little joy or sunshine in the images or themes.
The Writer and Director of the new DCEU film, THE BATMAN, Matt Reeves (CLOVERFIELD) has one simple answer for you: “Hold my beer”.
Doubling down on the dark themes, imagery and attitudes of all involved, THE BATMAN is a 3 hour epic that is unrelenting in it’s bleakness with constant rain and dark images with not a peak of sun or color in the entire film. This bleakness and the slowness of the first 5/6 of this film will turn off the average viewer and will thrill only the most diehard of fans.
And that’s too bad for the last 1/2 hour of this film is pretty terrific, paying off the long setup beforehand with a confrontation between Batman (Robert Pattinson) and The Riddler (Paul Dano) that rivals just about any confrontation scene in comic books movie history (this side of Heath Ledger’s Joker).
Let’s start with the overwhelming look and feel of this film. It is a downer. Gotham City is, yet again, a city in decay with the bad guys over-running the good guys. Which begs this question - why would anyone join the Gotham City Police Department? But Director/Writer Reeves is is sure-handed in his approach to this material and he is unwavering in his bleakness. It is a strongly directed film that knows what it wants to be and does not pretend to be anything else - nor does it apologize for being what it is.
In this world is dropped Robert Pattinson (the TWILIGHT films) as the titular Batman and he is a perfect choice for this role in this film. His Batman is morose, dour, thoughtful and razor focused on being “vengeance”. He is not interested in being a good guy or a superhero, rather this version of Batman is focused on being a really good Detective, ferreting out evil-doers and administering punishment when they are caught. This film barely mentions Batman’s alter-ego, Bruce Wayne, and when Pattinson is on the screen in the guise as Bruce Wayne he looks uninterested in being Bruce Wayne, he’d rather be Batman - and this is a compliment for that is how this movie portrays this dual role. Batman is disguising himself as Bruce Wayne (and not vica-versa).
Assisting Batman in his Detective work is Lt. James Gordon (the always terrific Jeffrey Wright), the only honest cop in a corrupt Police Department. These 2 work as a Detective team, and this film often-times feels like a Detective procedural, some liken it to SEVEN with Brad Pitt/Morgan Freeman, I look at it more like the first season of TRUE DETECTIVE(the one with Matthew McConaughey and Woody Harrelson), dark and interesting in their search for the bad guys.
As is typical of these types of films, we have a rogues gallery of villains. Some fair well - an unrecognizable Colin Farrel as Oz (the Penguin) and John Torturro as mob boss Carmine Falcone. While others fair less well - Peter Sarsgaard as corrupt District Attorney Gil Colson and, unfortunately, Zoe Kravitz as Selina Kyle (Catwoman). Both of these roles are not fleshed out well. Kravitz hits the screen looking good in her cat suit and while there is unmistakable sexual chemistry between Catwoman and Batman (not, it should be noted, between Selina Kyle and Bruce Wayne), but this only takes the character so far and Selina really wasn’t the bad-ass conflicted villain/hero that one would expect.
A pleasant surprise was the performance of the always interesting Paul Dano as the Riddler. He underplays this character in much the same way that most have overplayed him. Clearly, this is a smart, if mentally off, person who talks through riddles but has an overall plan to bring down “The Bat’ and the City. Not to spoil this film, but it didn’t really grab my attention until after the masked Riddler was unmasked and that was very late in the game - almost too late.
And that’s the problem with this film. The last 1/2 hour is TERRIFIC, but one has to sit through 2 1/2 hours of dark, dour setup to get there and for most, that journey will not be worth the payoff.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The Writer and Director of the new DCEU film, THE BATMAN, Matt Reeves (CLOVERFIELD) has one simple answer for you: “Hold my beer”.
Doubling down on the dark themes, imagery and attitudes of all involved, THE BATMAN is a 3 hour epic that is unrelenting in it’s bleakness with constant rain and dark images with not a peak of sun or color in the entire film. This bleakness and the slowness of the first 5/6 of this film will turn off the average viewer and will thrill only the most diehard of fans.
And that’s too bad for the last 1/2 hour of this film is pretty terrific, paying off the long setup beforehand with a confrontation between Batman (Robert Pattinson) and The Riddler (Paul Dano) that rivals just about any confrontation scene in comic books movie history (this side of Heath Ledger’s Joker).
Let’s start with the overwhelming look and feel of this film. It is a downer. Gotham City is, yet again, a city in decay with the bad guys over-running the good guys. Which begs this question - why would anyone join the Gotham City Police Department? But Director/Writer Reeves is is sure-handed in his approach to this material and he is unwavering in his bleakness. It is a strongly directed film that knows what it wants to be and does not pretend to be anything else - nor does it apologize for being what it is.
In this world is dropped Robert Pattinson (the TWILIGHT films) as the titular Batman and he is a perfect choice for this role in this film. His Batman is morose, dour, thoughtful and razor focused on being “vengeance”. He is not interested in being a good guy or a superhero, rather this version of Batman is focused on being a really good Detective, ferreting out evil-doers and administering punishment when they are caught. This film barely mentions Batman’s alter-ego, Bruce Wayne, and when Pattinson is on the screen in the guise as Bruce Wayne he looks uninterested in being Bruce Wayne, he’d rather be Batman - and this is a compliment for that is how this movie portrays this dual role. Batman is disguising himself as Bruce Wayne (and not vica-versa).
Assisting Batman in his Detective work is Lt. James Gordon (the always terrific Jeffrey Wright), the only honest cop in a corrupt Police Department. These 2 work as a Detective team, and this film often-times feels like a Detective procedural, some liken it to SEVEN with Brad Pitt/Morgan Freeman, I look at it more like the first season of TRUE DETECTIVE(the one with Matthew McConaughey and Woody Harrelson), dark and interesting in their search for the bad guys.
As is typical of these types of films, we have a rogues gallery of villains. Some fair well - an unrecognizable Colin Farrel as Oz (the Penguin) and John Torturro as mob boss Carmine Falcone. While others fair less well - Peter Sarsgaard as corrupt District Attorney Gil Colson and, unfortunately, Zoe Kravitz as Selina Kyle (Catwoman). Both of these roles are not fleshed out well. Kravitz hits the screen looking good in her cat suit and while there is unmistakable sexual chemistry between Catwoman and Batman (not, it should be noted, between Selina Kyle and Bruce Wayne), but this only takes the character so far and Selina really wasn’t the bad-ass conflicted villain/hero that one would expect.
A pleasant surprise was the performance of the always interesting Paul Dano as the Riddler. He underplays this character in much the same way that most have overplayed him. Clearly, this is a smart, if mentally off, person who talks through riddles but has an overall plan to bring down “The Bat’ and the City. Not to spoil this film, but it didn’t really grab my attention until after the masked Riddler was unmasked and that was very late in the game - almost too late.
And that’s the problem with this film. The last 1/2 hour is TERRIFIC, but one has to sit through 2 1/2 hours of dark, dour setup to get there and for most, that journey will not be worth the payoff.
Letter Grade: B
7 Stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)