Search
Search results
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Monty Python's Life of Brian (1979) in Movies
Mar 15, 2021
A classic
Film #16 on the 100 Movies Bucket List: Monty Python’s Life of Brian
Life of Brian (1979] is an old school comedy classic, and alongside Python’s take on the Holy Grail, were fairly revered comedies when I was growing up and I doubt there’s many people over a certain age that haven’t seen these films. Films like this are my favourite type of comedy, and I just wish they still made films similar today.
Life of Brian follows Brian (Graham Chapman), who was born on the same night one stable down from Jesus, yet has lived an entirely different life. Fed up of the Romans, Brian joins the People’s Front of Judea led by Reggie (John a Cleese), whose aim is to get the Romans out of Judea. After being caught infiltrating the palace and put in front of Pontius Pilate (Michael Palin), Brian escapes capture and in his bid to hide from the Romans, winds up relaying some of the teachings he learnt from Jesus. This spurs a crowd into thinking he is the next Messiah, leaving Brian to try and evade his followers as well as the Romans, with rather dire consequences.
This is the Pythons second proper feature film, following on from the hugely successful Holy Grail and their tv series, Flying Circus. Directed by Terry Jones, the purpose of Life of Brian was to lampoon and satirise the New Testament, and more specifically, to make fun of followers of mistaken religious figures. To be quite honest, I don’t think they could make comedy films like this anymore. This lampoon, satire style was fairly rife even up until the 90s (with the likes of Hot Shots and The Naked Gun sequels), but I think they’d struggle to make anything like this nowadays which is a great shame. The humour in this isn’t offensive at all, it’s intelligent and adult and whipsmart and wonderfully done. Admittedly there are a few scenes that may cause some offence purely because it was made when times were different over 40 years ago, but there’s also a lot in here that is surprisingly relevant even in today’s society – one scene where the People’s Front of Judea discuss women’s rights and a request from Stan to be known as Loretta is unexpectedly well done and respectful, albeit with a Python comedy edge. There are some genius works of comedy in this film too that have become cult favourites, from Palin’s depiction of Pontius Pilate with a speech impediment (“Stwike him centuwion, vewy wuffly!”) to Terry Jones’ mother crying out to Brian’s followers that “he’s not the Messiah, he’s a very naughty boy!”. Personally, Palin’s take on Pilate and all of his scenes are my favourite of the entire film.
This isn’t to say that Life of Brian is perfect. There are some scenes and acting that are maybe a little too pantomime-esque (even for a parody) and there are some jokes and scenes that don’t quite land - the alien scene (yes I did say “alien”) is one that jumps to mind. Because of this some scenes can seem rather drawn out if you don’t get the gag. Humour like this isn’t for everyone, although for me it’s my favourite kind. This is British comedy at its best and a shining example that humour doesn’t be crude to be funny. I mean who else other than the Monty Python troupe could pull off crucified men singing “Always Look on the Bright Side of Life”?
Life of Brian (1979] is an old school comedy classic, and alongside Python’s take on the Holy Grail, were fairly revered comedies when I was growing up and I doubt there’s many people over a certain age that haven’t seen these films. Films like this are my favourite type of comedy, and I just wish they still made films similar today.
Life of Brian follows Brian (Graham Chapman), who was born on the same night one stable down from Jesus, yet has lived an entirely different life. Fed up of the Romans, Brian joins the People’s Front of Judea led by Reggie (John a Cleese), whose aim is to get the Romans out of Judea. After being caught infiltrating the palace and put in front of Pontius Pilate (Michael Palin), Brian escapes capture and in his bid to hide from the Romans, winds up relaying some of the teachings he learnt from Jesus. This spurs a crowd into thinking he is the next Messiah, leaving Brian to try and evade his followers as well as the Romans, with rather dire consequences.
This is the Pythons second proper feature film, following on from the hugely successful Holy Grail and their tv series, Flying Circus. Directed by Terry Jones, the purpose of Life of Brian was to lampoon and satirise the New Testament, and more specifically, to make fun of followers of mistaken religious figures. To be quite honest, I don’t think they could make comedy films like this anymore. This lampoon, satire style was fairly rife even up until the 90s (with the likes of Hot Shots and The Naked Gun sequels), but I think they’d struggle to make anything like this nowadays which is a great shame. The humour in this isn’t offensive at all, it’s intelligent and adult and whipsmart and wonderfully done. Admittedly there are a few scenes that may cause some offence purely because it was made when times were different over 40 years ago, but there’s also a lot in here that is surprisingly relevant even in today’s society – one scene where the People’s Front of Judea discuss women’s rights and a request from Stan to be known as Loretta is unexpectedly well done and respectful, albeit with a Python comedy edge. There are some genius works of comedy in this film too that have become cult favourites, from Palin’s depiction of Pontius Pilate with a speech impediment (“Stwike him centuwion, vewy wuffly!”) to Terry Jones’ mother crying out to Brian’s followers that “he’s not the Messiah, he’s a very naughty boy!”. Personally, Palin’s take on Pilate and all of his scenes are my favourite of the entire film.
This isn’t to say that Life of Brian is perfect. There are some scenes and acting that are maybe a little too pantomime-esque (even for a parody) and there are some jokes and scenes that don’t quite land - the alien scene (yes I did say “alien”) is one that jumps to mind. Because of this some scenes can seem rather drawn out if you don’t get the gag. Humour like this isn’t for everyone, although for me it’s my favourite kind. This is British comedy at its best and a shining example that humour doesn’t be crude to be funny. I mean who else other than the Monty Python troupe could pull off crucified men singing “Always Look on the Bright Side of Life”?
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
The 2nd best star wars film
The Star Wars universe just got a whole lot bigger. When Rogue One: A Star Wars Story was announced by Disney a couple of years ago, diehard fans of the sci-fi saga met the news with a huge dose of scepticism.
After all, the prequel trilogy was an unmitigated disaster, doing all it could to destroy not only the greatest villain in the history of film, but the series itself. Then Gareth Edwards was announced as director, whose film credits include the brilliant Monsters and Godzilla, which was critically praised but received a lukewarm reception publically.
THEN Disney announced the film was undergoing “heavy” reshoots to its first cut, reportedly due to executives being unhappy with the finished product’s tone.
So it’s clear that it’s not been plain sailing for Rogue One, but that headline isn’t a misprint – the finished article is just that damn good. But why?
In a time of conflict, a group of unlikely heroes band together on a mission to steal the plans to the Death Star, the Empire’s ultimate weapon of destruction. This key event in the Star Wars timeline brings together ordinary people who choose to do extraordinary things, and in doing so, become part of something greater than themselves.
If you cast your minds back to 1977 and the release of A New Hope, Rogue One takes place just before those events, acting as a stop-gap between the ending of Revenge of the Sith and the film that started it all.
A cast that includes Felicity Jones, Forest Whitaker, Diego Luna, Ben Mendelsohn and Mads Mikkelsen all gel together incredibly well to form one of the most coherent ensemble groups the galaxy has ever seen. Not since the introduction of Han, Chewie, Luke and Leia has the Star Wars franchise been so superbly kept afloat. Jones in particular is excellent and adds yet another leading lady to a franchise that loves putting women at the forefront, and rightly so.
Elsewhere, the cinematography is sublime. Director Gareth Edwards is renowned for his stunning shot choices and Rogue One is no exception. The intense variety of planets created from photo-realistic CGI and real landscapes adds an immersive quality that it has to be said, was lacking somewhat in The Force Awakens.
Then there is the much publicised return of Lord Vader. The aforementioned villain has been playing heavy on the minds of Star Wars fans for years after he was ridiculously robbed of any street cred at the climax of Revenge of the Sith. Mercifully, Edwards keeps his appearances to but a few, though he does loom heavy throughout the course of the film’s 133 minute running time, and returns to the dark presence he once was – it’s also nice to see James Earl Jones returning to the series.
There are Star Wars easter eggs abound, some only noticeable to diehards, whilst others smack you in the face with their lack of subtlety – though each and every one is placed at a point where the film feels better because of it. I’m not going to mention any by name, but a couple of old faces received cheers from the audience.
Any negatives? Well, Forest Whitaker’s Saw Gerrera fails to make a lasting impact and feels a little too much like executives wanted to shoehorn the Clone Wars television series into the film, and as much as it pains me to say, Michael Giacchino’s bombastic score, whilst brimming with nostalgia, doesn’t hit the right notes 100% of the time – with some musical elements feeling a little out of place with what is occurring on the screen.
Then there’s the dreaded reshoots. Well, they’re not noticeable… unless you’ve been watching the trailers, from which there are numerous scenes that aren’t included in the final cut. That’s a shame, though they’ll feature on the extended edition that will no doubt follow when the film is released on DVD and Blu-Ray.
Overall, Rogue One is better than anyone could have hoped. 2016 has been one of the worst years in decades for disappointing blockbusters and as it nears its end, we have one of the best yet. Smartly written with a heartfelt and engaging story, it adds a new and exciting layer to the Star Wars saga, and what’s even more impressive is its ability to make A New Hope a better film because of its existence.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/12/16/the-2nd-best-star-wars-film-rogue-one-review/
After all, the prequel trilogy was an unmitigated disaster, doing all it could to destroy not only the greatest villain in the history of film, but the series itself. Then Gareth Edwards was announced as director, whose film credits include the brilliant Monsters and Godzilla, which was critically praised but received a lukewarm reception publically.
THEN Disney announced the film was undergoing “heavy” reshoots to its first cut, reportedly due to executives being unhappy with the finished product’s tone.
So it’s clear that it’s not been plain sailing for Rogue One, but that headline isn’t a misprint – the finished article is just that damn good. But why?
In a time of conflict, a group of unlikely heroes band together on a mission to steal the plans to the Death Star, the Empire’s ultimate weapon of destruction. This key event in the Star Wars timeline brings together ordinary people who choose to do extraordinary things, and in doing so, become part of something greater than themselves.
If you cast your minds back to 1977 and the release of A New Hope, Rogue One takes place just before those events, acting as a stop-gap between the ending of Revenge of the Sith and the film that started it all.
A cast that includes Felicity Jones, Forest Whitaker, Diego Luna, Ben Mendelsohn and Mads Mikkelsen all gel together incredibly well to form one of the most coherent ensemble groups the galaxy has ever seen. Not since the introduction of Han, Chewie, Luke and Leia has the Star Wars franchise been so superbly kept afloat. Jones in particular is excellent and adds yet another leading lady to a franchise that loves putting women at the forefront, and rightly so.
Elsewhere, the cinematography is sublime. Director Gareth Edwards is renowned for his stunning shot choices and Rogue One is no exception. The intense variety of planets created from photo-realistic CGI and real landscapes adds an immersive quality that it has to be said, was lacking somewhat in The Force Awakens.
Then there is the much publicised return of Lord Vader. The aforementioned villain has been playing heavy on the minds of Star Wars fans for years after he was ridiculously robbed of any street cred at the climax of Revenge of the Sith. Mercifully, Edwards keeps his appearances to but a few, though he does loom heavy throughout the course of the film’s 133 minute running time, and returns to the dark presence he once was – it’s also nice to see James Earl Jones returning to the series.
There are Star Wars easter eggs abound, some only noticeable to diehards, whilst others smack you in the face with their lack of subtlety – though each and every one is placed at a point where the film feels better because of it. I’m not going to mention any by name, but a couple of old faces received cheers from the audience.
Any negatives? Well, Forest Whitaker’s Saw Gerrera fails to make a lasting impact and feels a little too much like executives wanted to shoehorn the Clone Wars television series into the film, and as much as it pains me to say, Michael Giacchino’s bombastic score, whilst brimming with nostalgia, doesn’t hit the right notes 100% of the time – with some musical elements feeling a little out of place with what is occurring on the screen.
Then there’s the dreaded reshoots. Well, they’re not noticeable… unless you’ve been watching the trailers, from which there are numerous scenes that aren’t included in the final cut. That’s a shame, though they’ll feature on the extended edition that will no doubt follow when the film is released on DVD and Blu-Ray.
Overall, Rogue One is better than anyone could have hoped. 2016 has been one of the worst years in decades for disappointing blockbusters and as it nears its end, we have one of the best yet. Smartly written with a heartfelt and engaging story, it adds a new and exciting layer to the Star Wars saga, and what’s even more impressive is its ability to make A New Hope a better film because of its existence.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/12/16/the-2nd-best-star-wars-film-rogue-one-review/
Lottie disney bookworm (1056 KP) rated The Wendy (Tales of The Wendy #1) in Books
Dec 29, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
If I am being completely honest, Peter Pan has never been my favourite Disney film. Oh sure the lost boys and Michael were cute; Tink was sassy and Hook was a good villain but why did everyone moon over Peter so much? And Wendy was always a bit, well a bit wet!
Enter Erin Michelle Sky and Steven Brown with their Tales of Wendy series to prove me wrong! The Wendy is the first in this series but I am already desperate to finish the second book, The Navigator before their third is released at the end of this year.
The Wendy, as you may expect, centres around Wendy Darling. However, this is not the prissy, mother-idolising figure I love to roll my eyes at: oh no, this Wendy Darling is growing up in the late 1700s in a London orphanage. In a world where her sole career option seems to be to become a mother, this feisty ten-year-old would prefer to “marry Davy Jones than grow up and look after babies”. This Wendy Darling is the one I have been waiting for.
Wendy’s dream is to join the Navy and sail the world. Unlike the rest of 18th Century Britain, she doesn’t see why being a girl should prevent this.
Therefore, over the years she becomes adapt at mathematics, science, navigation, marksmanship and swordsmanship. Nevertheless, despite being just as good, if not better than her childhood friend Charlie, he earns the rank of Officer in the British Navy whilst Wendy is assigned to the Home Office as a Diviner, one who can detect the presence of magic: a post to be filled only by women and dogs.
It is here that the reader meets John and Michael: Wendy’s “brothers-in-arms but in no way related, despite what you may have heard”. They are all stationed in Dover Castle, along with the Brigade’s dog Nana (who else?!). Their mission: to protect Britain from a magical threat, the innisfay or “everlost”, whom are known to kidnap orphans. Sound familiar?
The Wendy is definitely the best retelling of Peter Pan I have read so far. Despite the presence of all our favourite names, the characters are a far cry from their animated counterparts. Michael and John are wonderfully dry and sarcastic; Hook is powerful and attractive; Tink is a shape shifter; Peter, despite possessing a pair of wings and armour, is essentially the same and Wendy is an ambitious, feisty, yet beautifully flawed protagonist.
There are many little nods to the film which are greatly appreciated. Wendy “moving out of the nursery” means leaving the orphanage and gaining an apprenticeship and “thinking happy thoughts” as a means of flight is a practical joke by Peter to make Wendy smile.
Sky and Brown’s conversationalist style of writing makes this a very easy read, despite Wendy galloping all over the South of England with a variety of characters. It also allows the reader to really bond with Wendy and empathise with her and her struggles to achieve the employment she has longed so for since childhood.
As you may have gathered, sexism plays a large part in Wendy’s uphill struggle: as the only main female character she is constantly undermined in her ambition to become a sailor. Even when she proves to be useful in her post within the Home Office she is removed to the country “for her own safety”. Those men whom do not undermine her moon after her romantically: it truly is infuriating.
In some situations, this ingrained attitude was slightly heart-breaking but equally a sign of the times in which this novel was set: Wendy’s thoughts often returned to the propriety of her actions and the danger she experiences just through wearing “men’s clothes” is powerful moment. However, Wendy never lets these attitudes halt her ambition, ending her first novel as a true inspiration to girls following in her footsteps: Navigator Darling.
I can’t wait to discover the next step in her journey which, conveniently, lays past the second star to the right and straight on till morning!
Enter Erin Michelle Sky and Steven Brown with their Tales of Wendy series to prove me wrong! The Wendy is the first in this series but I am already desperate to finish the second book, The Navigator before their third is released at the end of this year.
The Wendy, as you may expect, centres around Wendy Darling. However, this is not the prissy, mother-idolising figure I love to roll my eyes at: oh no, this Wendy Darling is growing up in the late 1700s in a London orphanage. In a world where her sole career option seems to be to become a mother, this feisty ten-year-old would prefer to “marry Davy Jones than grow up and look after babies”. This Wendy Darling is the one I have been waiting for.
Wendy’s dream is to join the Navy and sail the world. Unlike the rest of 18th Century Britain, she doesn’t see why being a girl should prevent this.
Therefore, over the years she becomes adapt at mathematics, science, navigation, marksmanship and swordsmanship. Nevertheless, despite being just as good, if not better than her childhood friend Charlie, he earns the rank of Officer in the British Navy whilst Wendy is assigned to the Home Office as a Diviner, one who can detect the presence of magic: a post to be filled only by women and dogs.
It is here that the reader meets John and Michael: Wendy’s “brothers-in-arms but in no way related, despite what you may have heard”. They are all stationed in Dover Castle, along with the Brigade’s dog Nana (who else?!). Their mission: to protect Britain from a magical threat, the innisfay or “everlost”, whom are known to kidnap orphans. Sound familiar?
The Wendy is definitely the best retelling of Peter Pan I have read so far. Despite the presence of all our favourite names, the characters are a far cry from their animated counterparts. Michael and John are wonderfully dry and sarcastic; Hook is powerful and attractive; Tink is a shape shifter; Peter, despite possessing a pair of wings and armour, is essentially the same and Wendy is an ambitious, feisty, yet beautifully flawed protagonist.
There are many little nods to the film which are greatly appreciated. Wendy “moving out of the nursery” means leaving the orphanage and gaining an apprenticeship and “thinking happy thoughts” as a means of flight is a practical joke by Peter to make Wendy smile.
Sky and Brown’s conversationalist style of writing makes this a very easy read, despite Wendy galloping all over the South of England with a variety of characters. It also allows the reader to really bond with Wendy and empathise with her and her struggles to achieve the employment she has longed so for since childhood.
As you may have gathered, sexism plays a large part in Wendy’s uphill struggle: as the only main female character she is constantly undermined in her ambition to become a sailor. Even when she proves to be useful in her post within the Home Office she is removed to the country “for her own safety”. Those men whom do not undermine her moon after her romantically: it truly is infuriating.
In some situations, this ingrained attitude was slightly heart-breaking but equally a sign of the times in which this novel was set: Wendy’s thoughts often returned to the propriety of her actions and the danger she experiences just through wearing “men’s clothes” is powerful moment. However, Wendy never lets these attitudes halt her ambition, ending her first novel as a true inspiration to girls following in her footsteps: Navigator Darling.
I can’t wait to discover the next step in her journey which, conveniently, lays past the second star to the right and straight on till morning!
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated Dolemite Is My Name (2019) in Movies
Feb 11, 2020
Perfect Score With No Shame
Dolemite is My Name follows the story of Rudy Ray Moore (Eddie Murphy) and his rise to fame with the creation of his legendary character Dolemite.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
The first five minutes involves a hilarious scene of Rudy trying to get his record played by a DJ (played by Snoop Dogg) who only puts on the hits. It’s a great introduction to the character and his plight. Beautiful way to get things kicked off.
Characters: 10
Rudy would be enough to score this category a ten on his own. His charisma oozes onto the screen, only matched by his never-quit attitude. It’s no wonder he quickly became one of my favorite protagonists in film. Dolemite is My Name doesn’t stop there as each character brings a fun, unique flare to the film. You’ll get to see Wesley Snipes playing the role of actor/director D’Urville Martin. With all the craziness going on throughout the movie, D’Urville remains unamused and his lack of enthusiasm adds a hilarious punch to the film. I also thoroughly enjoyed characters Jerry Jones (Keegan Michael-Key) and Lady Reed (Da’Vine Joy Randolph).
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
Rudy is trying to get a movie off the ground with little money and resources. It feels like everywhere he turns, a new problem arises. The ensuing shakeups keeps things interesting and keeps Rudy advancing the story. Everything crazy that can possibly happen throughout the filming of his movie absolutely does and it’s fun to watch how things unfold.
Entertainment Value: 10
Memorability: 10
Pace: 10
Plot: 10
From albums to movies, you get to see every nuance of Rudy’s journey as the story progresses. Varying other side stories keep things interesting while not deviating too much as to slow the overall pace down. Every little piece works perfectly.
Resolution: 10
Great wrap to the movie that makes you appreciate Rudy even more. It’s both a culmination for all Rudy’s hard work and the true definition of who he is as a person. I appreciate its simplicity and finality, not overstaying its welcome.
Overall: 100
Call me crazy, but at the time of this review, Dolemite is my Name holds the ninth spot in my All-Time Top Ten List. It has everything you want in a movie from funny to heart. Hands-down, it is the best biopic I’ve seen.
Acting: 10
Beginning: 10
The first five minutes involves a hilarious scene of Rudy trying to get his record played by a DJ (played by Snoop Dogg) who only puts on the hits. It’s a great introduction to the character and his plight. Beautiful way to get things kicked off.
Characters: 10
Rudy would be enough to score this category a ten on his own. His charisma oozes onto the screen, only matched by his never-quit attitude. It’s no wonder he quickly became one of my favorite protagonists in film. Dolemite is My Name doesn’t stop there as each character brings a fun, unique flare to the film. You’ll get to see Wesley Snipes playing the role of actor/director D’Urville Martin. With all the craziness going on throughout the movie, D’Urville remains unamused and his lack of enthusiasm adds a hilarious punch to the film. I also thoroughly enjoyed characters Jerry Jones (Keegan Michael-Key) and Lady Reed (Da’Vine Joy Randolph).
Cinematography/Visuals: 10
Conflict: 10
Rudy is trying to get a movie off the ground with little money and resources. It feels like everywhere he turns, a new problem arises. The ensuing shakeups keeps things interesting and keeps Rudy advancing the story. Everything crazy that can possibly happen throughout the filming of his movie absolutely does and it’s fun to watch how things unfold.
Entertainment Value: 10
Memorability: 10
Pace: 10
Plot: 10
From albums to movies, you get to see every nuance of Rudy’s journey as the story progresses. Varying other side stories keep things interesting while not deviating too much as to slow the overall pace down. Every little piece works perfectly.
Resolution: 10
Great wrap to the movie that makes you appreciate Rudy even more. It’s both a culmination for all Rudy’s hard work and the true definition of who he is as a person. I appreciate its simplicity and finality, not overstaying its welcome.
Overall: 100
Call me crazy, but at the time of this review, Dolemite is my Name holds the ninth spot in my All-Time Top Ten List. It has everything you want in a movie from funny to heart. Hands-down, it is the best biopic I’ve seen.
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Toy Story 4 (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020
Funny, Heartwarming, And Beautifully Animated
Toy Story 4 is a 2019 CG/comedy movie directed by Josh Cooley and based on screenplay written by Andrew Stanton, and Stephany Folsom; along with John Lasseter, Rashida Jones, Will McCormack, Valerie LaPointe, and Martin Hynes. It was produced by Picard Animation Studios for Walt Disney Pictures and distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures. The film stars Tom Hanks, Tim Allen, Annie Potts, Tony Hale, Keegan-Michael Key, Jordan Peele and Keanu Reeves.
Woody (Tom Hanks) and the other toys are happy in their new life after Andy donates his toys to Bonnie; but Woody worries Bonnie will feel overwhelmed at school when she starts kindergarten. Woody sneaks into her backpack and recovers her arts and crafts supplies when a classmate throws them away. She uses the supplies, including a spork Woody grabbed to create a handmade toy she names "Forky" (Tony Hale). And when Bonnie and her family go on a road trip, Forky jumps out of the window setting off a chain of events that will change the group forever.
This movie was funny, stunningly animated, and emotionally touching. They really were shooting to impress with the amount of detail they had in this movie, from the glossy porcelain shine of Bopeep, to the fur on the cat, to all the other toys little details. I liked how the action was very character driven and how the storytelling was really well done. The character growth/arc for Bopeep was one of my favorites and I really enjoyed the cast of new characters and how they were incorporated as well like, Keanu Reeves and Key and Peele. This was such a great movie and it got me choked up at the end of the movie and I couldn't find anything to really complain about but then I read an article that made me question how I felt about it and what I saw. I'll see if I can add the link to it at the end of my review. It ultimately made me drop my rating by a point, I almost gave this movie a 9, but I give it a 8/10. But I do give it my "Must See Seal Of Approval".
Here is the link to the article: https://www.gamespot.com/articles/theres-a-problem-with-toy-story-4-opinion/1100-6468073/
Woody (Tom Hanks) and the other toys are happy in their new life after Andy donates his toys to Bonnie; but Woody worries Bonnie will feel overwhelmed at school when she starts kindergarten. Woody sneaks into her backpack and recovers her arts and crafts supplies when a classmate throws them away. She uses the supplies, including a spork Woody grabbed to create a handmade toy she names "Forky" (Tony Hale). And when Bonnie and her family go on a road trip, Forky jumps out of the window setting off a chain of events that will change the group forever.
This movie was funny, stunningly animated, and emotionally touching. They really were shooting to impress with the amount of detail they had in this movie, from the glossy porcelain shine of Bopeep, to the fur on the cat, to all the other toys little details. I liked how the action was very character driven and how the storytelling was really well done. The character growth/arc for Bopeep was one of my favorites and I really enjoyed the cast of new characters and how they were incorporated as well like, Keanu Reeves and Key and Peele. This was such a great movie and it got me choked up at the end of the movie and I couldn't find anything to really complain about but then I read an article that made me question how I felt about it and what I saw. I'll see if I can add the link to it at the end of my review. It ultimately made me drop my rating by a point, I almost gave this movie a 9, but I give it a 8/10. But I do give it my "Must See Seal Of Approval".
Here is the link to the article: https://www.gamespot.com/articles/theres-a-problem-with-toy-story-4-opinion/1100-6468073/
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Eyes of Tammy Faye (2021) in Movies
Feb 13, 2022
Good Performances, Thin Script
Jessica Chastain is, in my opinion - and with all apologies to Glenn Close - the best actress working today that has yet to win an Academy Award. Having been nominated twice previously (Supporting Actress for THE HELP in 2012 and Actress for ZERO DARKY THIRTY in 2013 - a performance I thought she was a shoo-in Oscar winner for, she would lose to Jennifer Lawrence for SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK), Chastain has earned her 3rd Oscar nomination for portraying Tammy Faye Bakker in THE EYES OF TAMMY FAYE. It would be absurdly bizarre if THIS was the role she would win for.
Telling the story of Tammy Faye Bakker, the heavily made-up spouse/partner to disgraced Televangelist Jim Bakker, THE EYES OF TAMMY FAYE has, at it’s core, some TERRIFIC performances by Chastain, Andrew Garfield (Jim Bakker), Cherry Jones (Tammy Faye’s mother) and Vincent D’Onofrio (Jerry Falwell), it’s a shame that these performances couldn’t be performed with a better written and directed film.
Directed by Michael Showalter and Written by Fenton Bailey, Randy Barbato and Abe Sylvie (which might explain part of the issue), THE EYES OF TAMMY FAYE just doesn’t go deep enough into the characters portrayed, but - instead - opts for the superficial, opting to paint each character in one dimension. There is the “not attached to the real world/idealistic” Tammy Faye. The “he seems nice on the surface, but there is something else going on underneath” Jim Bakker. The “evil/power hungry” Jerry Falwell and the “never approving” Mother.
All of these, on the surface, are the makings of a good film, unfortunately Showalter and the 3 writers never mine the depths of these characters showing other sides and/or connecting the characters to each other.
Which is a shame for the performances of all the main characters are terrific and would have been much more so had they had better material to work with. Chastain, rightfully, has been Oscar nominated for her turn. She won’t win, but she is deserving of the nomination and would have been a quite serious contender had she had better material.
Which, ultimately, makes this film fall flat. The ingredients were there, they just weren’t put together well enough to make a satisfying experience.
Letter Grade: B- (for the performances)
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Telling the story of Tammy Faye Bakker, the heavily made-up spouse/partner to disgraced Televangelist Jim Bakker, THE EYES OF TAMMY FAYE has, at it’s core, some TERRIFIC performances by Chastain, Andrew Garfield (Jim Bakker), Cherry Jones (Tammy Faye’s mother) and Vincent D’Onofrio (Jerry Falwell), it’s a shame that these performances couldn’t be performed with a better written and directed film.
Directed by Michael Showalter and Written by Fenton Bailey, Randy Barbato and Abe Sylvie (which might explain part of the issue), THE EYES OF TAMMY FAYE just doesn’t go deep enough into the characters portrayed, but - instead - opts for the superficial, opting to paint each character in one dimension. There is the “not attached to the real world/idealistic” Tammy Faye. The “he seems nice on the surface, but there is something else going on underneath” Jim Bakker. The “evil/power hungry” Jerry Falwell and the “never approving” Mother.
All of these, on the surface, are the makings of a good film, unfortunately Showalter and the 3 writers never mine the depths of these characters showing other sides and/or connecting the characters to each other.
Which is a shame for the performances of all the main characters are terrific and would have been much more so had they had better material to work with. Chastain, rightfully, has been Oscar nominated for her turn. She won’t win, but she is deserving of the nomination and would have been a quite serious contender had she had better material.
Which, ultimately, makes this film fall flat. The ingredients were there, they just weren’t put together well enough to make a satisfying experience.
Letter Grade: B- (for the performances)
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
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 The Shape of Water (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A mystical tale of fish and fingers.
With perfect timing after scooping 13 Oscar nominations, “The Shape of Water” arrives for preview screenings in the UK. Is it worth all the hype?
Well, in a word, yes.
Not since Spielberg entranced the world in 1982 with a love story between an isolated and lonely child and an alien, stranded a million light-years from home, have we seen a magical fairy-tale so well told.
Cleaning up at the (box) office. Sally Hawkins and Doug Jones as the creature.
Here Lewisham’s own Sally Hawkins (“Paddington”, “Godzilla“) plays Elisa Esposito, an attractive but mousy mute living above a cinema and next door to her best friend: a struggling artist called Giles (Richard Jenkins). Sexually-frustrated, Elisa works out those tensions in the bath every morning before heading off to work as a cleaner at a government research institute. Together with partner Zelda Fuller (Octavia Spencer, “Hidden Figures“) she is asked to clean a highly secured room where a mysterious aquatic creature is being studied by the cruel and militaristic Strickland (Michael Shannon, “Midnight Special“, “Nocturnal Animals“) and the more compassionate scientist Hoffstetler. (The latter is played by Michael Stuhlbarg (“Miss Sloane“, “Steve Jobs“) in a performance that wasn’t recognised by the Academy, but for me really held the film’s story together). Elisa forms a relationship with the creature, and as the scientific investigations turn darker, she becomes determined to help him.
When you think about it, the similarities in the screenplay with E.T. are quite striking. But this is most definitely not a kid’s film, containing full frontal nudity, sex and some considerable violence, some of it “hands-over-the-eyes” worthy. Most of this violence comes courtesy of Shannon’s character, who is truly monstrous. He is uncontrollably vicious, single-minded and amoral: a hand over the mouth to silence his wife during vigourous sex cleverly belies where his true lust currently lies. (Shannon is just so convincing in all of his roles that, after “Nocturnal Animals“, it is a bit of a surprise to see that he is still alive and well!)
It’s worth pointing out for balance at this point that my wife thought this portrayal was over-egged for its villany, and she rated the film less highly than I did because of it.
Michael Shannon as evil incarnate.
So its no Oscar nomination this time for Shannon as a supporting actor. But that honour goes to Richard Jenkins, who is spectacularly good as the movie-musical-loving and pie-munching neighbour who is drawn unwillingly into Elisa’s plans. Giles is a richly fashioned character – also the film’s narrator – who struggles to fit in with the cruel and rascist 1962 world that he finds himself in. “Sometimes I think I was born too early or too late for my life” he bemoans to the creature whose loneliness he relates to. A scene in a cafe where he fastidiously wipes all traces of pie-filling from his tongue is masterfully done.
Richard Hawkins and Sally Hawkins, hatching a plan.
Octavia Spencer is also Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actress, and it’s a magical partnership she shares with Hawkins, with each bouncing off each other wonderfully.
This leads to a ‘no brainer’ Oscar nomination for Sally Hawkins who delivers a star turn. She has to go through such a huge range of emotions in this film, and she genuinely makes you really care about the outcome like few films this year. It’s a little tricky since I haven’t seen “I Tonya” or “Ladybird” yet, but I would have thought that Ms Hawkins is going to possibly give Frances McDormand the closest run for her money on March 4th. My money would still be on McDormand for “3 Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri“, but the Oscar voters are bound to love “The Shape of Water”. For like “La La Land” last year, the film is (rather surprisingly for me) another love letter to Hollywood’s golden years, with Elisa and Giles living out their lives with classic movie music and dance numbers: a medium that Elisa only ever truly finds here “voice” through.
Eliza and Zelda about to give two fingers to the establishment.
In the technical categories the Oscar nominations were for Cinematography (Dan Laustsen); Film Editing (Sidney Wolinsky); Sound Editing (Nathan Robitaille and Nelson Ferreira); Sound Mixing (Glen Gauthier, Christian Cooke and Brad Zoern); Production Design (Paul D. Austerberry, Jeffrey A. Melvin and Shane Vieau); Original Score (Alexandre Desplat) and Costume Design (Luis Sequeira). And you really wouldn’t want to bet against any of these not to win, for the film is a technical delight. Right from the dreamlike opening titles (arguably, they missed a deserved nomination here for Visual Effects), the film is gorgeous to look at, with such brilliant detail in the production design that there is interesting stuff to look at in every frame. And the film editing is extraordinary: Elisa wobbles on the bucket she’s standing on, but it’s Strickland’s butt, perched on a table, that slips off. This is a film that deserves multiple repeat viewings.
The monster feeding the monster. Nick Searcy as General Hoyt with Strickland (Michael Shannon).
An the helm is the multi-talented Guillermo del Toro (“Pacific Rim”, “Crimson Peak”) who both directed and co-wrote the exceptionally smart screenplay (with Vanessa Taylor, “Divergent”) and is nominated for both. I actually found the story to be rather predictable, as regards Elisa’s story arc, but that in no way reduced my enjoyment of the film. For the “original screenplay” is nothing if not “original”…. it’s witty, intelligent and shocking at different turns.
The violence and sex won’t be for everyone… but this is a deep and rich movie experience that everyone who loves the movies should at least appreciate… hopefully in a dry cinema!
Well, in a word, yes.
Not since Spielberg entranced the world in 1982 with a love story between an isolated and lonely child and an alien, stranded a million light-years from home, have we seen a magical fairy-tale so well told.
Cleaning up at the (box) office. Sally Hawkins and Doug Jones as the creature.
Here Lewisham’s own Sally Hawkins (“Paddington”, “Godzilla“) plays Elisa Esposito, an attractive but mousy mute living above a cinema and next door to her best friend: a struggling artist called Giles (Richard Jenkins). Sexually-frustrated, Elisa works out those tensions in the bath every morning before heading off to work as a cleaner at a government research institute. Together with partner Zelda Fuller (Octavia Spencer, “Hidden Figures“) she is asked to clean a highly secured room where a mysterious aquatic creature is being studied by the cruel and militaristic Strickland (Michael Shannon, “Midnight Special“, “Nocturnal Animals“) and the more compassionate scientist Hoffstetler. (The latter is played by Michael Stuhlbarg (“Miss Sloane“, “Steve Jobs“) in a performance that wasn’t recognised by the Academy, but for me really held the film’s story together). Elisa forms a relationship with the creature, and as the scientific investigations turn darker, she becomes determined to help him.
When you think about it, the similarities in the screenplay with E.T. are quite striking. But this is most definitely not a kid’s film, containing full frontal nudity, sex and some considerable violence, some of it “hands-over-the-eyes” worthy. Most of this violence comes courtesy of Shannon’s character, who is truly monstrous. He is uncontrollably vicious, single-minded and amoral: a hand over the mouth to silence his wife during vigourous sex cleverly belies where his true lust currently lies. (Shannon is just so convincing in all of his roles that, after “Nocturnal Animals“, it is a bit of a surprise to see that he is still alive and well!)
It’s worth pointing out for balance at this point that my wife thought this portrayal was over-egged for its villany, and she rated the film less highly than I did because of it.
Michael Shannon as evil incarnate.
So its no Oscar nomination this time for Shannon as a supporting actor. But that honour goes to Richard Jenkins, who is spectacularly good as the movie-musical-loving and pie-munching neighbour who is drawn unwillingly into Elisa’s plans. Giles is a richly fashioned character – also the film’s narrator – who struggles to fit in with the cruel and rascist 1962 world that he finds himself in. “Sometimes I think I was born too early or too late for my life” he bemoans to the creature whose loneliness he relates to. A scene in a cafe where he fastidiously wipes all traces of pie-filling from his tongue is masterfully done.
Richard Hawkins and Sally Hawkins, hatching a plan.
Octavia Spencer is also Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actress, and it’s a magical partnership she shares with Hawkins, with each bouncing off each other wonderfully.
This leads to a ‘no brainer’ Oscar nomination for Sally Hawkins who delivers a star turn. She has to go through such a huge range of emotions in this film, and she genuinely makes you really care about the outcome like few films this year. It’s a little tricky since I haven’t seen “I Tonya” or “Ladybird” yet, but I would have thought that Ms Hawkins is going to possibly give Frances McDormand the closest run for her money on March 4th. My money would still be on McDormand for “3 Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri“, but the Oscar voters are bound to love “The Shape of Water”. For like “La La Land” last year, the film is (rather surprisingly for me) another love letter to Hollywood’s golden years, with Elisa and Giles living out their lives with classic movie music and dance numbers: a medium that Elisa only ever truly finds here “voice” through.
Eliza and Zelda about to give two fingers to the establishment.
In the technical categories the Oscar nominations were for Cinematography (Dan Laustsen); Film Editing (Sidney Wolinsky); Sound Editing (Nathan Robitaille and Nelson Ferreira); Sound Mixing (Glen Gauthier, Christian Cooke and Brad Zoern); Production Design (Paul D. Austerberry, Jeffrey A. Melvin and Shane Vieau); Original Score (Alexandre Desplat) and Costume Design (Luis Sequeira). And you really wouldn’t want to bet against any of these not to win, for the film is a technical delight. Right from the dreamlike opening titles (arguably, they missed a deserved nomination here for Visual Effects), the film is gorgeous to look at, with such brilliant detail in the production design that there is interesting stuff to look at in every frame. And the film editing is extraordinary: Elisa wobbles on the bucket she’s standing on, but it’s Strickland’s butt, perched on a table, that slips off. This is a film that deserves multiple repeat viewings.
The monster feeding the monster. Nick Searcy as General Hoyt with Strickland (Michael Shannon).
An the helm is the multi-talented Guillermo del Toro (“Pacific Rim”, “Crimson Peak”) who both directed and co-wrote the exceptionally smart screenplay (with Vanessa Taylor, “Divergent”) and is nominated for both. I actually found the story to be rather predictable, as regards Elisa’s story arc, but that in no way reduced my enjoyment of the film. For the “original screenplay” is nothing if not “original”…. it’s witty, intelligent and shocking at different turns.
The violence and sex won’t be for everyone… but this is a deep and rich movie experience that everyone who loves the movies should at least appreciate… hopefully in a dry cinema!
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Pan (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Where's the magic? Where's the sparkle?
The mesmerising story of Peter Pan has been told by numerous directors, playwrights and novelists over the years with Disney’s brilliant animation being one of the highlights in a series of standout moments.
Now, the story receives a very 21st-century makeover in Pan, but does director Joe Wright’s brooding reimagining sink or swim?
Unfortunately, this occasionally beautifully shot film ends up causing more of a headache than Michael Bay’s much-maligned Transformers series in a movie that lacks the magic and sparkle of the traditional tale, instead focusing too much on special effects and noise – my god this is a loud film.
Stars like Hugh Jackman, Rooney Mara, Garrett Hedlund and Amanda Seyfriend take their places amongst a cast of forgettable characters that never seem to make any sort of impression, despite Pan’s 111 minute running time.
Following the story of Peter, played by a particularly wooden Levi Miller, Pan takes place many years before the events of the famous story, following a similar path to the recent Alice in Wonderland remake and Oz the Great and the Powerful.
Unfortunately, including a previously unmentioned backstory to the character brings about the same problems as it did for the aforementioned films. Pan has no charm and is completely void of originality with the production team borrowing many elements from movies like Avatar, the Harry Potter series and even the Indiana Jones franchise.
Hugh Jackman’s Blackbeard is the only character to make any sort of impact and the Wolverine star is a delight to watch in a role that requires masses of cheese and just a little malice. The rest of the cast are as wooden as the galleons in which they are transported and this is a real shame, given the talent on offer.
Elsewhere, the cinematography is exceptional with some amazing sequences shot with flair and supreme confidence but the poor CGI detracts from the spectacle. For a film with a budget of $150million, it has some of the worst special effects I have ever come across.
Nevertheless, there is much for younger children to enjoy. The bright colours and constant shifts in tone ensure Pan never settles into a rut, despite its bland characters and lacklustre special effects.
Overall, Pan is a crushing disappointment. The special effects are poor, the promising cast never gels together and the story is a hybrid of other, better films that results in a movie that will leave you with a headache, rather than a sense of magic and sparkle.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/10/18/wheres-the-magic-wheres-the-sparkle-pan-review/
Now, the story receives a very 21st-century makeover in Pan, but does director Joe Wright’s brooding reimagining sink or swim?
Unfortunately, this occasionally beautifully shot film ends up causing more of a headache than Michael Bay’s much-maligned Transformers series in a movie that lacks the magic and sparkle of the traditional tale, instead focusing too much on special effects and noise – my god this is a loud film.
Stars like Hugh Jackman, Rooney Mara, Garrett Hedlund and Amanda Seyfriend take their places amongst a cast of forgettable characters that never seem to make any sort of impression, despite Pan’s 111 minute running time.
Following the story of Peter, played by a particularly wooden Levi Miller, Pan takes place many years before the events of the famous story, following a similar path to the recent Alice in Wonderland remake and Oz the Great and the Powerful.
Unfortunately, including a previously unmentioned backstory to the character brings about the same problems as it did for the aforementioned films. Pan has no charm and is completely void of originality with the production team borrowing many elements from movies like Avatar, the Harry Potter series and even the Indiana Jones franchise.
Hugh Jackman’s Blackbeard is the only character to make any sort of impact and the Wolverine star is a delight to watch in a role that requires masses of cheese and just a little malice. The rest of the cast are as wooden as the galleons in which they are transported and this is a real shame, given the talent on offer.
Elsewhere, the cinematography is exceptional with some amazing sequences shot with flair and supreme confidence but the poor CGI detracts from the spectacle. For a film with a budget of $150million, it has some of the worst special effects I have ever come across.
Nevertheless, there is much for younger children to enjoy. The bright colours and constant shifts in tone ensure Pan never settles into a rut, despite its bland characters and lacklustre special effects.
Overall, Pan is a crushing disappointment. The special effects are poor, the promising cast never gels together and the story is a hybrid of other, better films that results in a movie that will leave you with a headache, rather than a sense of magic and sparkle.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/10/18/wheres-the-magic-wheres-the-sparkle-pan-review/
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.