Search
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)
8.1
Rate It
Movie Watch
Harry's fourth year at Hogwarts is about to start and he is enjoying the summer vacation with his...
The National Theatre Story
Book
"The National Theatre Story is filled with artistic, financial and political battles, onstage...
Fearless - Season 1
7.0
Rate It
TV Season
Created by Homeland and 24 writer, Patrick Harbinson, and produced by leading independent programme...
Crime Drama Mystery
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Fortitude - Season 1 in TV
Dec 9, 2018
A genre-spanning atmospheric thriller
I watched Fortitude when it first aired a few years ago, and have decided to give it another watch now to refresh my memory now the final series has aired.
Fortitude is set in a beautiful location in the arctic, and the show really makes the most of showing off this location as often as possible. The plot itself is intriguing and bonkers, but yet doesn't quite go too far. It spans a verify of genres, from murder mystery and crime to drama and gory horror, and it does this really well. Some of the gory horror parts are actually quite disturbing (in an good). This is also a very character driven story, and most of the characters in this are well rounded and developed. It has a fantastic cast including some very well known faces like Stanley Tucci and Michael Gambon. However for me it's Richard Dormer that truly shines in this. He gives Dan a lot of depth and despite his errant and sometime psychotic ways, you do still feel sorry for him. I find it difficult to accept that this is the same person who plays Beric Dondarrion in GoT, he's that good an actor.
If you're looking for something that's well acted, doesn't stick to a specific genre and is honestly a little bizarre and unusual, then this is definitely worth a watch.
Fortitude is set in a beautiful location in the arctic, and the show really makes the most of showing off this location as often as possible. The plot itself is intriguing and bonkers, but yet doesn't quite go too far. It spans a verify of genres, from murder mystery and crime to drama and gory horror, and it does this really well. Some of the gory horror parts are actually quite disturbing (in an good). This is also a very character driven story, and most of the characters in this are well rounded and developed. It has a fantastic cast including some very well known faces like Stanley Tucci and Michael Gambon. However for me it's Richard Dormer that truly shines in this. He gives Dan a lot of depth and despite his errant and sometime psychotic ways, you do still feel sorry for him. I find it difficult to accept that this is the same person who plays Beric Dondarrion in GoT, he's that good an actor.
If you're looking for something that's well acted, doesn't stick to a specific genre and is honestly a little bizarre and unusual, then this is definitely worth a watch.
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Sleepy Hollow (1999) in Movies
Apr 20, 2020 (Updated Apr 20, 2020)
Sleepy Hollow is one of those films that I will always love. I first saw it when I was 13, when DVDs were still pretty new, and I would watch it over and over again.
It's just about creepy enough to offer itself to horror fans, and has the right amount of Tim Burton campiness to still appeal to younger audiences (not too young mind, plenty of blood flying about).
Johnny Depp plays Ichabod Crane, a constable sent from New York to the small town of Sleepy Hollow to investigate a series of bizarre murders, at the tail end of the 1700s.
The townsfolk are gripped with fear, convinced that the murders are the work of the fabled Headless Horseman, but Ichabod is certain that there's a less supernatural involvement behind the scenes.
The 18th Century setting is perfect for Burton's gothic style. The whole film is draped in a misty asthethic, lending it a cold and dreary atmosphere.
This is further complimented by Danny Elfman's incredible church-organ-heavy score.
The Horseman himself looks ghostly and makes for some unforgettable shots as he chases down and decapitates his way through the cast.
Said cast is a heavy duty one as well. Johnny Depp is front and centre, pretty much just being typical Johnny Depp, but it works wonders with Ichabod's almost mad-scientist character.
The rest of the cast boasts the likes of Christina Ricci, Michael Gambon, Christopher Walken, Miranda Richardson, Ian McDiarmid, Michael Gough, Richard Griffiths, Christopher Lee, Jeffrey Jones... It's an impressive list.
Some of the acting is a bit overboard at times (looking at you Christopher Walken) but it kind of adds a bit of surrealism to the whole affair.
The effects are pretty solid as well. Burton's approach to using a large amount of practical effects is admirable, and what CGI is used is subtle enough to not show the films age.
Despite it cheesyness, Sleepy Hollow manages to be both a dark and fun horror adventure, that I always enjoy watching and remains a highlight in Tim Burton's resume.
It's just about creepy enough to offer itself to horror fans, and has the right amount of Tim Burton campiness to still appeal to younger audiences (not too young mind, plenty of blood flying about).
Johnny Depp plays Ichabod Crane, a constable sent from New York to the small town of Sleepy Hollow to investigate a series of bizarre murders, at the tail end of the 1700s.
The townsfolk are gripped with fear, convinced that the murders are the work of the fabled Headless Horseman, but Ichabod is certain that there's a less supernatural involvement behind the scenes.
The 18th Century setting is perfect for Burton's gothic style. The whole film is draped in a misty asthethic, lending it a cold and dreary atmosphere.
This is further complimented by Danny Elfman's incredible church-organ-heavy score.
The Horseman himself looks ghostly and makes for some unforgettable shots as he chases down and decapitates his way through the cast.
Said cast is a heavy duty one as well. Johnny Depp is front and centre, pretty much just being typical Johnny Depp, but it works wonders with Ichabod's almost mad-scientist character.
The rest of the cast boasts the likes of Christina Ricci, Michael Gambon, Christopher Walken, Miranda Richardson, Ian McDiarmid, Michael Gough, Richard Griffiths, Christopher Lee, Jeffrey Jones... It's an impressive list.
Some of the acting is a bit overboard at times (looking at you Christopher Walken) but it kind of adds a bit of surrealism to the whole affair.
The effects are pretty solid as well. Burton's approach to using a large amount of practical effects is admirable, and what CGI is used is subtle enough to not show the films age.
Despite it cheesyness, Sleepy Hollow manages to be both a dark and fun horror adventure, that I always enjoy watching and remains a highlight in Tim Burton's resume.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Paddington (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
The timeless storybook written by Michael Bond about a loveable, well-mannered immigrant Bear who tries to adapt to the human world.
The movie opens up with an English Explorer, Montgomery Clyde (Tim Downie), who ventures to the darkest Peru and encounters Paddington’s Aunt Lucy(voiced by Imelda Stauton) and Uncle Pastuzo(voiced by Michael Gambon). Instead of shooting them to take back to the Geographers’ Guild to be stuffed, he teaches them to speak English and introduces them to marmalade. He ends his adventure by telling the two bears he would always give them a home in London. Fast forward 40 years, Lucy and Pastuzo are now raising their very energetic nephew (voiced by Ben Wishaw) and teach him everything they know about London and how to make marmalade. Sadly, tragedy strikes after a devastating earthquake destroys their home. This forces Aunt Lucy to allow the young bear to stowaway on a ship bound for London to find Montgomery Clyde, the explorer, while she takes residence at a facility for retired bears.
The little bear is discovered by the Brown family while wandering Paddington Station. After reading the tag that says, “Please look after this bear,” the Browns take him home and give him the name Paddington. They also agreed to help him find the explorer that once befriended his aunt and uncle. Confused by his new unfamiliar surroundings, Paddington becomes an accident prone guest who inadvertently creates chaos and devastation where ever he goes.
Writer/Director Paul King has made an ingeniously witty, funny film that will appeal to moviegoers of all ages. A sweet and playful take on the beloved 1950s children’s book. For the most part, it does follow the storyline of the book. With the exception of the character Millicent, played by Nicole Kidman, who is a museum taxidermist. She wants nothing more than to make Paddington the newest member of the museum’s collection of stuffed exotic animals.
You can’t help but fall in love with Paddington, and it’s just as easy to love the Brown family. This is a delightfully charming film with the perfect amount of quirkiness. A story of a lost child trying to find friends and a place to belong. A wonderful movie that will melt your heart!
The movie opens up with an English Explorer, Montgomery Clyde (Tim Downie), who ventures to the darkest Peru and encounters Paddington’s Aunt Lucy(voiced by Imelda Stauton) and Uncle Pastuzo(voiced by Michael Gambon). Instead of shooting them to take back to the Geographers’ Guild to be stuffed, he teaches them to speak English and introduces them to marmalade. He ends his adventure by telling the two bears he would always give them a home in London. Fast forward 40 years, Lucy and Pastuzo are now raising their very energetic nephew (voiced by Ben Wishaw) and teach him everything they know about London and how to make marmalade. Sadly, tragedy strikes after a devastating earthquake destroys their home. This forces Aunt Lucy to allow the young bear to stowaway on a ship bound for London to find Montgomery Clyde, the explorer, while she takes residence at a facility for retired bears.
The little bear is discovered by the Brown family while wandering Paddington Station. After reading the tag that says, “Please look after this bear,” the Browns take him home and give him the name Paddington. They also agreed to help him find the explorer that once befriended his aunt and uncle. Confused by his new unfamiliar surroundings, Paddington becomes an accident prone guest who inadvertently creates chaos and devastation where ever he goes.
Writer/Director Paul King has made an ingeniously witty, funny film that will appeal to moviegoers of all ages. A sweet and playful take on the beloved 1950s children’s book. For the most part, it does follow the storyline of the book. With the exception of the character Millicent, played by Nicole Kidman, who is a museum taxidermist. She wants nothing more than to make Paddington the newest member of the museum’s collection of stuffed exotic animals.
You can’t help but fall in love with Paddington, and it’s just as easy to love the Brown family. This is a delightfully charming film with the perfect amount of quirkiness. A story of a lost child trying to find friends and a place to belong. A wonderful movie that will melt your heart!
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 Judy (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Neither a true biopic nor a musical, a very sad and sombre film worth seeing for a sure-fire nominee for Zellweger for the Oscars.
Decline and Fall (Part 1).
This is an extremely sombre film. I will go as far as saying that it is well-and-truly a “Father Ted” film (see glossary).
The Story.
Young Judy Garland is a starlet in the MGM studio system run by Louis B. Mayer (a villainous Richard Cordery). She doesn’t have a life outside of the movies; is fed diet pills and “pep-pills” that destroy her sleep; and she is starting to get fed up with it all. No wonder then that she grows up to be an alcoholic insomniac with a trail of failed marriages and a temperamental nature.
Thus, through flash-backs to the young Judy (the English Darci Shaw, in her movie debut) we track the older Judy (Renée Zellweger) through the last tragic years of her life. Unable to work, due to a reputation that proceeds her, she is forced to take up the offer from Bernard Delfont (Michael Gambon) of a residency at London’s “Talk of the Town”. This separates her from her older daughter (Liza Minnelli played by Gemma-Leah Devereux) and, crucially, her younger children Lorna (Bella Ramsey) and Joey (Lewin Lloyd). (Their Dad is Sidney Luft (“Victoria’s” Rufus Sewell): hence Lorna being Lorna Luft). This separation increases Judy’s mental decline.
Also in a constant state of stress is Rosalyn Wilder (Jessie Buckley) who has the unenviable job of trying to keep Garland on the straight and narrow to perform every night.
A Towering Performance.
Whatever I think about the film overall (and we’ll come to that), this is 100% the “Renée Zellweger show”. It’s an extraordinary performance, and is pitch perfect, both in terms of capturing Garland’s mannerisms and vocal style. If Zellweger doesn’t get an Oscar nomination for this then I’ll eat my favourite orange baseball hat! I’ll have to review the final short-list, but I would not be remotely surprised if she won for this.
Elsewhere is the cast, Michael Gambon gives a reliable performance as Delfont (his second depiction this year after the turn by Rufus Jones in “Stan and Ollie“!) and the rising star that is Jessie Buckley is also effective as Wilder in a much quieter role than we’re used to seeing her in.
Musical? Or biopic?
Is this a musical? Or a biopic? Or neither? Actually, I would suggest it’s neither. There’s been a curious split in the last year between films like “Bohemian Rhapsody“, which were biopics with music, to “Rocketman” which was very much a musical based around a biopic.
“Judy” can’t be classed as a musical since (and I checked my watch) the first musical number doesn’t come until FORTY MINUTES into the picture. Neither is it a true biopic, focusing only on a few short months of Garland’s extensive career, the ‘young Judy’ scenes being nothing but short flashbacks to set the scene. This probably makes sense, else a true biopic of the wonder that was Judy Garland would have turned into a 4 hour plus epic!
A rough ride, but could I care?
Above all, it’s a depressing watch, like seeing a sick animal in distress. But I never felt the film got to the heart of the matter to really make me CARE enough. The nearest it gets is with a moving portion where Judy makes the evening (if not the lifetime) of some super-fans – Dan (Andy Nyman) and Stan (Daniel Cerqueira). She goes home with them for omelettes and a sing-song: a strong nod towards Garland’s extensive following, even today, among the gay community. The finale, where the couple try to salvage an on-stage psychiatric session by Judy is touching but, for me, not tear-inducing.
The screenplay is by Tom Edge, from the stage play by Peter Quilter. The director is relative movie-newcomer Rupert Goold.
I liked this movie, but did I like it enough to rush and see it again? No, not really. Worth seeing though to appreciate the odds-on favourite (surely!) for the Best Actress Oscar of this year.
This is an extremely sombre film. I will go as far as saying that it is well-and-truly a “Father Ted” film (see glossary).
The Story.
Young Judy Garland is a starlet in the MGM studio system run by Louis B. Mayer (a villainous Richard Cordery). She doesn’t have a life outside of the movies; is fed diet pills and “pep-pills” that destroy her sleep; and she is starting to get fed up with it all. No wonder then that she grows up to be an alcoholic insomniac with a trail of failed marriages and a temperamental nature.
Thus, through flash-backs to the young Judy (the English Darci Shaw, in her movie debut) we track the older Judy (Renée Zellweger) through the last tragic years of her life. Unable to work, due to a reputation that proceeds her, she is forced to take up the offer from Bernard Delfont (Michael Gambon) of a residency at London’s “Talk of the Town”. This separates her from her older daughter (Liza Minnelli played by Gemma-Leah Devereux) and, crucially, her younger children Lorna (Bella Ramsey) and Joey (Lewin Lloyd). (Their Dad is Sidney Luft (“Victoria’s” Rufus Sewell): hence Lorna being Lorna Luft). This separation increases Judy’s mental decline.
Also in a constant state of stress is Rosalyn Wilder (Jessie Buckley) who has the unenviable job of trying to keep Garland on the straight and narrow to perform every night.
A Towering Performance.
Whatever I think about the film overall (and we’ll come to that), this is 100% the “Renée Zellweger show”. It’s an extraordinary performance, and is pitch perfect, both in terms of capturing Garland’s mannerisms and vocal style. If Zellweger doesn’t get an Oscar nomination for this then I’ll eat my favourite orange baseball hat! I’ll have to review the final short-list, but I would not be remotely surprised if she won for this.
Elsewhere is the cast, Michael Gambon gives a reliable performance as Delfont (his second depiction this year after the turn by Rufus Jones in “Stan and Ollie“!) and the rising star that is Jessie Buckley is also effective as Wilder in a much quieter role than we’re used to seeing her in.
Musical? Or biopic?
Is this a musical? Or a biopic? Or neither? Actually, I would suggest it’s neither. There’s been a curious split in the last year between films like “Bohemian Rhapsody“, which were biopics with music, to “Rocketman” which was very much a musical based around a biopic.
“Judy” can’t be classed as a musical since (and I checked my watch) the first musical number doesn’t come until FORTY MINUTES into the picture. Neither is it a true biopic, focusing only on a few short months of Garland’s extensive career, the ‘young Judy’ scenes being nothing but short flashbacks to set the scene. This probably makes sense, else a true biopic of the wonder that was Judy Garland would have turned into a 4 hour plus epic!
A rough ride, but could I care?
Above all, it’s a depressing watch, like seeing a sick animal in distress. But I never felt the film got to the heart of the matter to really make me CARE enough. The nearest it gets is with a moving portion where Judy makes the evening (if not the lifetime) of some super-fans – Dan (Andy Nyman) and Stan (Daniel Cerqueira). She goes home with them for omelettes and a sing-song: a strong nod towards Garland’s extensive following, even today, among the gay community. The finale, where the couple try to salvage an on-stage psychiatric session by Judy is touching but, for me, not tear-inducing.
The screenplay is by Tom Edge, from the stage play by Peter Quilter. The director is relative movie-newcomer Rupert Goold.
I liked this movie, but did I like it enough to rush and see it again? No, not really. Worth seeing though to appreciate the odds-on favourite (surely!) for the Best Actress Oscar of this year.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Judy (2019) in Movies
Feb 6, 2020
Brilliant performance by Zellwegger - and not much else
Renee Zellwegger is absolutely brilliant in her channeling of Judy Garland in the film JUDY. She deserves to - and WILL WIN - the Oscar for Best Actress. Her performance is amazing and I forgot that I was watching an actress playing Judy Garland and fell into a trance thinking I was actually watching the real Judy Garland.
Too bad the rest of the film is not this good.
Based on actual events, JUDY tells the story of a late in her career Judy Garland's trek to London for a series of Concerts. She is down on her luck, addicted to pills, filled with self doubt and ghosts from her past. In general...she is a wreck...and needs the $$ from these concerts to keep custody of her 2 young children.
And...Zellwegger plays all of these emotions as Judy very, very well as well as shining in the performance scenes where Judy was able - albeit for a short time - to "come up for air" and perform as the world class performer she is. Zellwegger trained for over a year with a vocal coach to get the singing/performance part of this film down - and it shows. She is brilliant in these moments.
The trouble with this film as written by Tom Edge (based on the stage play "End of the Rainbow" by Peter Quilter) and Director Rupert Goold is that this film doesn't really go anywhere. There is no arc to Judy's story. She starts the film as a trainwreck...and ends the film as a trainwreck. There isn't evem a realization by Judy that she is a trainwreck. She just IS a trainwreck.
And that does not a compelling movie make.
Rufus Sewell, Jessie Buckley, Finn Wittrock and Michael Gambon are all along for a ride on this train and all choose to get off before the end and the inevitable trainwreck that is going to happen.
Is this film worth seeing? Sure...for Zellwegger's Oscar winning performance. Unfortunately, it doesn't have anything else to recommend it.
Letter Grade B (solely on the performance)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (OfMarquis)
Too bad the rest of the film is not this good.
Based on actual events, JUDY tells the story of a late in her career Judy Garland's trek to London for a series of Concerts. She is down on her luck, addicted to pills, filled with self doubt and ghosts from her past. In general...she is a wreck...and needs the $$ from these concerts to keep custody of her 2 young children.
And...Zellwegger plays all of these emotions as Judy very, very well as well as shining in the performance scenes where Judy was able - albeit for a short time - to "come up for air" and perform as the world class performer she is. Zellwegger trained for over a year with a vocal coach to get the singing/performance part of this film down - and it shows. She is brilliant in these moments.
The trouble with this film as written by Tom Edge (based on the stage play "End of the Rainbow" by Peter Quilter) and Director Rupert Goold is that this film doesn't really go anywhere. There is no arc to Judy's story. She starts the film as a trainwreck...and ends the film as a trainwreck. There isn't evem a realization by Judy that she is a trainwreck. She just IS a trainwreck.
And that does not a compelling movie make.
Rufus Sewell, Jessie Buckley, Finn Wittrock and Michael Gambon are all along for a ride on this train and all choose to get off before the end and the inevitable trainwreck that is going to happen.
Is this film worth seeing? Sure...for Zellwegger's Oscar winning performance. Unfortunately, it doesn't have anything else to recommend it.
Letter Grade B (solely on the performance)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (OfMarquis)
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
The sixth instalment in the internationally loved wizarding franchise has been perhaps one of the most awaited films of the decade; even more so considering the gruelling year fans have had to wait since it was decided to push the film back 12 months.
David Yates is once again at the helm, which after the fifth film is somewhat of a surprise to many critics. With rumours speculating the return of Alfonso Cuaron as director, I breathed a sigh of relief, thinking perhaps we could get things back on track.
Alas, it was not to be. After two disappointing instalments, a third would be disastrous, though unfortunately, it seems to be the case here. Yates’ films just refuse to hit the spot, delving into unnecessary storylines that really don’t progress the film further. Take for example the climatic finale of the book atop the astronomy tower; well it’s been cut, replaced with an hour or so of non-stop snogging… ridiculous? I have words much stronger than that to describe it, but yes, ridiculous can do for now.
It would be silly to expect things to be perfect, but a little cohesion would have been welcome; to people who have not read the books, these films are starting to get incomprehensible and even to those that have, it still isn’t an enjoyable experience. Remember the chapter where The Burrow blows up? No? Well that’s because there isn’t one, but it’s been added, for explosions sake.
The Dursleys are cut, Dobby – cut, Dumbledore’s funeral – cut, Kreacher – cut, Bill and Fleur – cut, in fact most of the important things from the book; have been cut.
Happily, there is a rather small pot of gold at the end of this murky rainbow. The acting from most is absolutely excellent, Daniel Radcliffe has grown into his role brilliantly and Michael Gambon seems to finally have chosen the right moods for Dumbledore and his character. Newcomer Jim Broadbent is superb in his role as potions master Horace Slughorn and Alan Rickman is as usual glorious and fully able to spread his wings in the larger role he has been given in this film. On the negative side, Bonnie Wright as Ginny Weasley hasn’t developed into her role well, with her acting still being stilted; unfortunate, as her part is much larger in this film than the others.
Unfortunately, just like the previous two films, Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince really hasn’t hit the spot, it seems the larger books of the boy wizards saga have in reality stumped their respective directors, ending up as a complete mess. It certainly has its moments, though at 153 minutes it should have; but it seems the best film from the 8 has been made slightly too prematurely. Film number 7, come on down!
https://moviemetropolis.net/2010/10/28/harry-potter-the-half-blood-prince/
David Yates is once again at the helm, which after the fifth film is somewhat of a surprise to many critics. With rumours speculating the return of Alfonso Cuaron as director, I breathed a sigh of relief, thinking perhaps we could get things back on track.
Alas, it was not to be. After two disappointing instalments, a third would be disastrous, though unfortunately, it seems to be the case here. Yates’ films just refuse to hit the spot, delving into unnecessary storylines that really don’t progress the film further. Take for example the climatic finale of the book atop the astronomy tower; well it’s been cut, replaced with an hour or so of non-stop snogging… ridiculous? I have words much stronger than that to describe it, but yes, ridiculous can do for now.
It would be silly to expect things to be perfect, but a little cohesion would have been welcome; to people who have not read the books, these films are starting to get incomprehensible and even to those that have, it still isn’t an enjoyable experience. Remember the chapter where The Burrow blows up? No? Well that’s because there isn’t one, but it’s been added, for explosions sake.
The Dursleys are cut, Dobby – cut, Dumbledore’s funeral – cut, Kreacher – cut, Bill and Fleur – cut, in fact most of the important things from the book; have been cut.
Happily, there is a rather small pot of gold at the end of this murky rainbow. The acting from most is absolutely excellent, Daniel Radcliffe has grown into his role brilliantly and Michael Gambon seems to finally have chosen the right moods for Dumbledore and his character. Newcomer Jim Broadbent is superb in his role as potions master Horace Slughorn and Alan Rickman is as usual glorious and fully able to spread his wings in the larger role he has been given in this film. On the negative side, Bonnie Wright as Ginny Weasley hasn’t developed into her role well, with her acting still being stilted; unfortunate, as her part is much larger in this film than the others.
Unfortunately, just like the previous two films, Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince really hasn’t hit the spot, it seems the larger books of the boy wizards saga have in reality stumped their respective directors, ending up as a complete mess. It certainly has its moments, though at 153 minutes it should have; but it seems the best film from the 8 has been made slightly too prematurely. Film number 7, come on down!
https://moviemetropolis.net/2010/10/28/harry-potter-the-half-blood-prince/