Search
Embark: User friendly personalised nautical charts
Navigation and Travel
App
Embark gives you FREE and updated charts, crafted on data from the Hydrographic Offices. A smooth...
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.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Captain Marvel (2019) in Movies
Apr 2, 2019 (Updated Apr 2, 2019)
Blockbuster Fun (1 more)
SFX
Marvellous
I am usually there to see a Marvel movie on day 1, unfortunately though with this film there was a load of bias and negative mentality surrounding it's release. To be honest discussing this movie seemed like a volatile minefield immediately after it's release and it put me off going to see it for a while. Instead I decided to wait a couple of weeks for the dust to settle before going into it. The main reason for this was that I didn't want my experience of the movie to be tarnished by some bitter neckbeard's opinion on the other side of the planet. It is unfortunate that I felt repelled from the movie because of a loud angry minority, but in hindsight I am glad that I waited to see Captain Marvel, because I got to see it in with an untainted mind-set as the filmmakers most likely intended.
I had a lot of fun with this movie, far more than I expected to based on the trailers. Captain Marvel is a great space hopping romp that will put a smile on your face in spite of a few minor shortcomings. The action is great throughout and every fight sequence is exciting and impressive to watch unfold. The CGI is also incredible too, from the vast space shots to the impeccable de-aging on Sam Jackson throughout the movie, to allow him to portray a younger Nick Fury.
The characters are all great as well, I loved that Sam Jackson put a different more playful tone behind his younger, fresher Nick Fury performance as opposed to his stern colder portrayal as the older more battle hardened Fury in the Avengers movies. In the trailers it seemed out of place, but in the context of the movie, it worked really well. I also enjoyed seeing a younger, rookie Coulson and Ben Mendelsohn was great as the movies villain (?)
I was looking forward to seeing what Jude Law would bring to the MCU, but unfortunately he just played Jude Law, as in the same character type that we have already seen him play in a ton of other movies. His performance was perfectly serviceable, but nothing to write home about. Then there is arguably the most important performance of all, Brie Larson as the lead character, Captain Marvel. I thought for the most part she did a pretty great job. I will admit that there were a few lines, (mostly from flashback scenes before she left Earth for the first time,) that felt a bit forced and took me out of the movie slightly. As much as I wanted to buy everything in her performance, there was maybe 10% of the lines that she delivered that were just a bit too cheesy and somewhat wooden. However the other 90% was great and I am very much looking forward to her joining the larger Marvel universe.
The plot was given to us in drips and drabs due to the flashback filled nature of the way that the filmmakers chose to tell this story, but overall I enjoyed the ride. There were a few twists and turns along the way, - some painfully obvious and some not so much, - but most of them were enjoyable and some even felt refreshing, which isn't often said about the 21st movie in a franchise.
The last major thing to address is the female empowerment element that lies under the film's plot and is the thing that a bunch of bigots on Reddit seemed to assume would become the focus of the movie and take away from their beloved superhero fantasy. I am glad to report that no, although it is present, it in no way takes away from the scale or plot of the film. Some moments, (again moments predominately from the flashbacks before Carol leaves Earth for the first time,) were a bit on the nose and felt somewhat forced, such as the 'cockpit,' comment. However, later on in the movie there is an incredibly powerful, more subtle scene that shows different stages of Carol's life where she has been pushed to the ground and has had to get back on her own two feet and carry on. This sequence which showed a bunch of different young girls, ending with Brie Larson herself, standing up to face adversity with bravery and it was it moving and empowering and very well done.
Overall, I had way more fun with this film than I expected to. Try and ignore the negative comments coming from a loud minority of angry people when you see this one and enjoy what is actually happening onscreen.
I had a lot of fun with this movie, far more than I expected to based on the trailers. Captain Marvel is a great space hopping romp that will put a smile on your face in spite of a few minor shortcomings. The action is great throughout and every fight sequence is exciting and impressive to watch unfold. The CGI is also incredible too, from the vast space shots to the impeccable de-aging on Sam Jackson throughout the movie, to allow him to portray a younger Nick Fury.
The characters are all great as well, I loved that Sam Jackson put a different more playful tone behind his younger, fresher Nick Fury performance as opposed to his stern colder portrayal as the older more battle hardened Fury in the Avengers movies. In the trailers it seemed out of place, but in the context of the movie, it worked really well. I also enjoyed seeing a younger, rookie Coulson and Ben Mendelsohn was great as the movies villain (?)
I was looking forward to seeing what Jude Law would bring to the MCU, but unfortunately he just played Jude Law, as in the same character type that we have already seen him play in a ton of other movies. His performance was perfectly serviceable, but nothing to write home about. Then there is arguably the most important performance of all, Brie Larson as the lead character, Captain Marvel. I thought for the most part she did a pretty great job. I will admit that there were a few lines, (mostly from flashback scenes before she left Earth for the first time,) that felt a bit forced and took me out of the movie slightly. As much as I wanted to buy everything in her performance, there was maybe 10% of the lines that she delivered that were just a bit too cheesy and somewhat wooden. However the other 90% was great and I am very much looking forward to her joining the larger Marvel universe.
The plot was given to us in drips and drabs due to the flashback filled nature of the way that the filmmakers chose to tell this story, but overall I enjoyed the ride. There were a few twists and turns along the way, - some painfully obvious and some not so much, - but most of them were enjoyable and some even felt refreshing, which isn't often said about the 21st movie in a franchise.
The last major thing to address is the female empowerment element that lies under the film's plot and is the thing that a bunch of bigots on Reddit seemed to assume would become the focus of the movie and take away from their beloved superhero fantasy. I am glad to report that no, although it is present, it in no way takes away from the scale or plot of the film. Some moments, (again moments predominately from the flashbacks before Carol leaves Earth for the first time,) were a bit on the nose and felt somewhat forced, such as the 'cockpit,' comment. However, later on in the movie there is an incredibly powerful, more subtle scene that shows different stages of Carol's life where she has been pushed to the ground and has had to get back on her own two feet and carry on. This sequence which showed a bunch of different young girls, ending with Brie Larson herself, standing up to face adversity with bravery and it was it moving and empowering and very well done.
Overall, I had way more fun with this film than I expected to. Try and ignore the negative comments coming from a loud minority of angry people when you see this one and enjoy what is actually happening onscreen.
KittyMiku (138 KP) rated Expiation - The Whisper of Death in Books
May 23, 2019
I loved this series and this book more than I thought I would in the beginning. I thought I had cried a lot in the previous books, but this is the book that I cried a ton in. Between the birth of their son, their promise and all the attacks and unbelievable allies during the pregnancy, there was constantly something going on to keep you interested in and in the thought of what might happen. I hadn't known what to expect when Gemma became a Witch but I can tell you, what happened was not on my list of what I thought would happen. I really liked how Amore even included herself at the end. I have to say this book definitely wrapped up the story in such a beautiful way that it is hard to believe it is finally finished.
I would first like to say seeing the Witch's align with their enemies to help protect Gemma was amazing. It left a lot of suspense in the air. I had waited for them to battle constantly but the fact they worked together to protect Gemma was truly amazing and in some moments quite amusing. As we saw in Brokenhearted, Devina had some strong feelings toward Evan and she kept making it clear as she helped protect Gemma. She did everything to cause Gemma and Evan to gain doubt in their relationship and everything else. The Witches even went to school and caused some trouble while protect Gemma. I have to say those antics around Gemma's mortal friends were my favorite. It was fun and quite amusing. The Witches over all were amusing to see do things outside of their home world, Hell.
But it wasn't just the unlikely alliance but the touching moments with everyone involved. To see the baby be born and to witness how happy they were to receive the child was truly touching. I was very upset that she had to become a witch and in the worst way possible. She was killed before Evan could put his plan into action and to see him suffer and become willing to allow Sophia's poison causing everything she knew and love to be lost to her forever. I hated seeing that. I was heart broken for Evan and their baby. Gemma took her place in Hell and proceeded to be a fairly ruthless Witch. She enjoyed the tempting and harvesting of Souls. I found myself holding my breath, hoping it wasn't true and that it was just an act. To find out that her past was erased from her kept me holding on to hope that Evan would free her.
I quite enjoyed learning more about how the Witches worked and learning about Sophia. Though previous books gave us some insight to how Sophia is and about her past, it isn't until this final extension that you learn how truly dark Sophia is and how completely selfish she is. I mean, you can expect that from the devil and with her being the devil, I don't know why I would have imagined her being sweet or even someone I could love. I was not disappointed in how truly evil she was. Though, some of her actions still surprised me. Especially where Gemma and Evan were concerned. However, her getting what she wants didn't surprise me much. But how she went along with obtaining what she wanted was truly mystifying. I loved how Amore detailed and described her and how Gemma and Evan felt towards her. It kept the story moving forwarded and full of suspense.
However, it was the ending seeing Gemma, Evan and their son reunited, even though is was in Heaven. I found myself crying for the last forty pages or so. I was just truly amazed with the story and even though it left you in awestruck and happy, you can't help but wish things had been different. To have the three of them find another way to be together. I have to say overall this was just a truly amazing experience. I would rate this book five stars out of five stars. I would rate the series the same way. I was able to experience all kinds of emotions. I found this book to be exhilarating and truly touching. I did think this book was the most depressing of them all, but watching Evan struggle through so much could have that affect on anyone.
I would first like to say seeing the Witch's align with their enemies to help protect Gemma was amazing. It left a lot of suspense in the air. I had waited for them to battle constantly but the fact they worked together to protect Gemma was truly amazing and in some moments quite amusing. As we saw in Brokenhearted, Devina had some strong feelings toward Evan and she kept making it clear as she helped protect Gemma. She did everything to cause Gemma and Evan to gain doubt in their relationship and everything else. The Witches even went to school and caused some trouble while protect Gemma. I have to say those antics around Gemma's mortal friends were my favorite. It was fun and quite amusing. The Witches over all were amusing to see do things outside of their home world, Hell.
But it wasn't just the unlikely alliance but the touching moments with everyone involved. To see the baby be born and to witness how happy they were to receive the child was truly touching. I was very upset that she had to become a witch and in the worst way possible. She was killed before Evan could put his plan into action and to see him suffer and become willing to allow Sophia's poison causing everything she knew and love to be lost to her forever. I hated seeing that. I was heart broken for Evan and their baby. Gemma took her place in Hell and proceeded to be a fairly ruthless Witch. She enjoyed the tempting and harvesting of Souls. I found myself holding my breath, hoping it wasn't true and that it was just an act. To find out that her past was erased from her kept me holding on to hope that Evan would free her.
I quite enjoyed learning more about how the Witches worked and learning about Sophia. Though previous books gave us some insight to how Sophia is and about her past, it isn't until this final extension that you learn how truly dark Sophia is and how completely selfish she is. I mean, you can expect that from the devil and with her being the devil, I don't know why I would have imagined her being sweet or even someone I could love. I was not disappointed in how truly evil she was. Though, some of her actions still surprised me. Especially where Gemma and Evan were concerned. However, her getting what she wants didn't surprise me much. But how she went along with obtaining what she wanted was truly mystifying. I loved how Amore detailed and described her and how Gemma and Evan felt towards her. It kept the story moving forwarded and full of suspense.
However, it was the ending seeing Gemma, Evan and their son reunited, even though is was in Heaven. I found myself crying for the last forty pages or so. I was just truly amazed with the story and even though it left you in awestruck and happy, you can't help but wish things had been different. To have the three of them find another way to be together. I have to say overall this was just a truly amazing experience. I would rate this book five stars out of five stars. I would rate the series the same way. I was able to experience all kinds of emotions. I found this book to be exhilarating and truly touching. I did think this book was the most depressing of them all, but watching Evan struggle through so much could have that affect on anyone.
Purple Phoenix Games (2266 KP) rated Five Tribes in Tabletop Games
Jun 21, 2019 (Updated Dec 17, 2019)
The Sultan of Naqala has ruled for many years, keeping the city prosperous and living in peace. Comprised of five different tribes, all inhabitants work and live together in harmony. But now the Sultan has died, and word of his passing has traveled far and wide – a magnificent city without a ruler? Who could pass that up? You make your way to Naqala to put in a bid for the throne, but others have heard the news and shown up with your same idea! Can you use your wit and devise a strategy to manipulate the tribes to your benefit? Or will a competitor undermine your attempts and win the tribes over to their side? Only one can be victorious – to whom will the tribes show preference? Play Five Tribes to find out!
DISCLAIMER: There are several expansions for this game. Though we have them in our collection, for this review we are only using the base game. Should we decide to review the expansions in the future we will add that information here or link to the full review. -T
Five Tribes is a game of area control, auction/bidding, card drafting, and set collection with a modular board. At the beginning of each round, players bid coins to determine turn order – the higher you bid, the earlier you get to go in the round. On your turn, you will select a tile, pick up all the meeples on it, and move them around the board – dropping only one on each subsequent tile, a la Mancala mechanic. There are strict rules regarding meeple movement and placement, so strategy is key in deciding the best path to VPs each turn. When you place your final meeple on a tile, take all meeples of that same color from the tile into your hand. If that completely clears the tile, place one of your camels on it to indicate that it is under your control. Each meeple color represents a different tribe, and each tribe grants the player certain powers when collected – i.e. gathering resources, gaining gold, or invoking Djinn powers. After you use your meeple power, you also have the opportunity to use the power of your ending tile, whether it is under your control or not. The game ends when a player has placed their final camel, or if there are no more legal moves to be made. VPs are tallied, and the player with the highest score wins!
As a kid, I played Mancala A LOT. I’m not entirely sure why. I learned it at school, caught the bug, and started playing it a ton at home too. Five Tribes takes Mancala and makes it 1000x better. The pick-up-and-drop mechanic is integral to the game, but there is so much strategy required that you will never be bored playing Five Tribes. You have to follow movement/placement rules, you have to figure out what meeple power you’d like to use on a given turn, you also have to decide if there’s a certain tile power you need – all while the board is constantly changing between each player’s turn. That’s why bidding for turn order can be so important! If you see a move that will earn you tons of VP, are you willing to spend your hard-earned gold (VP) to ensure that you can make that move? Or are you content with saving your gold and capitalizing on opportunities that may be presented later in the round? The board is constantly changing, and your strategy must follow suit if you are to have any hope of winning! There is no single strategy for a guaranteed win every game, and that keeps Five Tribes refreshingly fun and engaging.
The one negative I have about Five Tribes is that there is kind of a learning curve to this game. There are so many moving elements, different iconography, and special powers that it can be overwhelming for a new player. After a couple of plays, it is easier to remember the intricacies of the game, but at first it can be kind of daunting. Not a huge negative, just something to keep in mind when pulling it out for newer players!
Overall, I love Five Tribes. The gameplay is engaging, the strategic options are diverse and seemingly limitless, and the components are awesome quality. I only just got this game for Christmas last year, but it’s making its way up the ranks in my list of favorite games! If you haven’t already, give this game a try – there’s more to it than meets the eye! Purple Phoenix Games gives Five Tribes a fantastic 21 / 24.
DISCLAIMER: There are several expansions for this game. Though we have them in our collection, for this review we are only using the base game. Should we decide to review the expansions in the future we will add that information here or link to the full review. -T
Five Tribes is a game of area control, auction/bidding, card drafting, and set collection with a modular board. At the beginning of each round, players bid coins to determine turn order – the higher you bid, the earlier you get to go in the round. On your turn, you will select a tile, pick up all the meeples on it, and move them around the board – dropping only one on each subsequent tile, a la Mancala mechanic. There are strict rules regarding meeple movement and placement, so strategy is key in deciding the best path to VPs each turn. When you place your final meeple on a tile, take all meeples of that same color from the tile into your hand. If that completely clears the tile, place one of your camels on it to indicate that it is under your control. Each meeple color represents a different tribe, and each tribe grants the player certain powers when collected – i.e. gathering resources, gaining gold, or invoking Djinn powers. After you use your meeple power, you also have the opportunity to use the power of your ending tile, whether it is under your control or not. The game ends when a player has placed their final camel, or if there are no more legal moves to be made. VPs are tallied, and the player with the highest score wins!
As a kid, I played Mancala A LOT. I’m not entirely sure why. I learned it at school, caught the bug, and started playing it a ton at home too. Five Tribes takes Mancala and makes it 1000x better. The pick-up-and-drop mechanic is integral to the game, but there is so much strategy required that you will never be bored playing Five Tribes. You have to follow movement/placement rules, you have to figure out what meeple power you’d like to use on a given turn, you also have to decide if there’s a certain tile power you need – all while the board is constantly changing between each player’s turn. That’s why bidding for turn order can be so important! If you see a move that will earn you tons of VP, are you willing to spend your hard-earned gold (VP) to ensure that you can make that move? Or are you content with saving your gold and capitalizing on opportunities that may be presented later in the round? The board is constantly changing, and your strategy must follow suit if you are to have any hope of winning! There is no single strategy for a guaranteed win every game, and that keeps Five Tribes refreshingly fun and engaging.
The one negative I have about Five Tribes is that there is kind of a learning curve to this game. There are so many moving elements, different iconography, and special powers that it can be overwhelming for a new player. After a couple of plays, it is easier to remember the intricacies of the game, but at first it can be kind of daunting. Not a huge negative, just something to keep in mind when pulling it out for newer players!
Overall, I love Five Tribes. The gameplay is engaging, the strategic options are diverse and seemingly limitless, and the components are awesome quality. I only just got this game for Christmas last year, but it’s making its way up the ranks in my list of favorite games! If you haven’t already, give this game a try – there’s more to it than meets the eye! Purple Phoenix Games gives Five Tribes a fantastic 21 / 24.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood (2019) in Movies
Dec 13, 2019
"Anything mentionable is manageable"
Tom Hanks' new movie is a film I personally struggled to fully engage with. But some I suspect will truly LOVE it's gentle and feel-good nature.
Who WAS Fred Rogers? Based on a true story this movie very quickly makes you realise that Fred Rogers, who died in 2003, was an American legend. This is supported by the GLOWING reviews here on IMDB by US viewers. Rogers was a children's TV presenter that used puppets and song to help children work through their fears and psychological issues. I suspect, like me, most Brits would say "WHO?" (Just as if a 60's born Brit like me saying "Let's look through the arched window" will similarly get a "WHAT?" from nearly all Americans!)
Here the story revolves not around Fred (Tom Hanks) helping a child with issues, but with Fred's fixation with 'Esquire' journo Lloyd Vogel (Matthew Rhys), who is fighting his own demons of anger, resentment and pain. For Lloyd is struggling not only with his feelings about fatherhood, with the normal strains that is placing on the relationship with wife and mother Andrea (Susan Kelechi Watson), but also with the reemergence on the scene of his estranged and hard-drinking father Jerry (Chris Cooper).
The movie starts (and continues) with model sets reminiscent of the brilliantly barmy "Welcome to Marwen" and (the rather more subtle) "Game Night". Fun is had with matchbox-car freeways and planes flying off and clunking down on model runways.
We join Mr Rogers on set filming his series: and the movie sloooooows to match Rogers' leisurely pace. This was a movie I went into completely blind (which is unusual for me): I knew precisely zip about it. No knowledge of Rogers. No knowledge of the story. No sight of the trailer. Nothing. So these opening scenes were a real "WTF" moment as my brain struggled to work out what the story was all about.
There was undeniably something creepy about seeing the saintly Fred Rogers engaging with sick and vulnerable children. And I realised just what damage the likes of the convicted-paedophiles Jimmy Saville, Stuart Hall and Rolf Harris have done to my suspicions against all such entertainers. I feared - without any background knowledge on Rogers - that the story would take a darker turn. But no! That's not the story....
For as mentioned earlier, this is the story of Lloyd. And it's a relatively simple and linear story of familial stress that we've seen in movies throughout the decades. Whether you will buy into this story-within-the-story, or not, will flavour your overall enjoyment of the film.
Many who are into analysis and 'talking treatments' will - I think - appreciate the script. But I personally didn't really warm to any of the players - other than Rogers - so this was a negative for me. And I found the pace so slow that I ended up a bit fidgety and bored moving into the second reel of the film. Two women got up and walked out at that point - - it was clearly not for them (this was a Cineworld "Unlimited" pre-release screening).
The third reel rather pulled it together again, and established an "It's a Wonderful Life" style of feelgood that I warmed to much more.
This is a movie I predict the Academy will love. And everyone loves Hanks already. Read the tea-leaves. It's a brilliant performance from Hanks in its stillness and quietness.
No more so than in one particular scene....
This is the follow up movie from Marielle Heller to the impressive "Can You Ever Forgive Me?". And this particular scene - let's call it the "Anti-When-Harry-Met-Sally" moment - is a massively brave and striking piece of cinema.
It's truly extraordinary and worth the price of a ticket alone.
In summary, I enjoyed this movie, primarily for watching the master Hanks at work. The pacing for me was somewhat off though. But I can't be overly critical of such a warm-hearted movie. I predict you will see this and go home with a big dose of the warm-fuzzies.
See here for the full graphical review - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/12/12/one-manns-movies-film-review-a-beautiful-day-in-the-neighborhood-2019/
Who WAS Fred Rogers? Based on a true story this movie very quickly makes you realise that Fred Rogers, who died in 2003, was an American legend. This is supported by the GLOWING reviews here on IMDB by US viewers. Rogers was a children's TV presenter that used puppets and song to help children work through their fears and psychological issues. I suspect, like me, most Brits would say "WHO?" (Just as if a 60's born Brit like me saying "Let's look through the arched window" will similarly get a "WHAT?" from nearly all Americans!)
Here the story revolves not around Fred (Tom Hanks) helping a child with issues, but with Fred's fixation with 'Esquire' journo Lloyd Vogel (Matthew Rhys), who is fighting his own demons of anger, resentment and pain. For Lloyd is struggling not only with his feelings about fatherhood, with the normal strains that is placing on the relationship with wife and mother Andrea (Susan Kelechi Watson), but also with the reemergence on the scene of his estranged and hard-drinking father Jerry (Chris Cooper).
The movie starts (and continues) with model sets reminiscent of the brilliantly barmy "Welcome to Marwen" and (the rather more subtle) "Game Night". Fun is had with matchbox-car freeways and planes flying off and clunking down on model runways.
We join Mr Rogers on set filming his series: and the movie sloooooows to match Rogers' leisurely pace. This was a movie I went into completely blind (which is unusual for me): I knew precisely zip about it. No knowledge of Rogers. No knowledge of the story. No sight of the trailer. Nothing. So these opening scenes were a real "WTF" moment as my brain struggled to work out what the story was all about.
There was undeniably something creepy about seeing the saintly Fred Rogers engaging with sick and vulnerable children. And I realised just what damage the likes of the convicted-paedophiles Jimmy Saville, Stuart Hall and Rolf Harris have done to my suspicions against all such entertainers. I feared - without any background knowledge on Rogers - that the story would take a darker turn. But no! That's not the story....
For as mentioned earlier, this is the story of Lloyd. And it's a relatively simple and linear story of familial stress that we've seen in movies throughout the decades. Whether you will buy into this story-within-the-story, or not, will flavour your overall enjoyment of the film.
Many who are into analysis and 'talking treatments' will - I think - appreciate the script. But I personally didn't really warm to any of the players - other than Rogers - so this was a negative for me. And I found the pace so slow that I ended up a bit fidgety and bored moving into the second reel of the film. Two women got up and walked out at that point - - it was clearly not for them (this was a Cineworld "Unlimited" pre-release screening).
The third reel rather pulled it together again, and established an "It's a Wonderful Life" style of feelgood that I warmed to much more.
This is a movie I predict the Academy will love. And everyone loves Hanks already. Read the tea-leaves. It's a brilliant performance from Hanks in its stillness and quietness.
No more so than in one particular scene....
This is the follow up movie from Marielle Heller to the impressive "Can You Ever Forgive Me?". And this particular scene - let's call it the "Anti-When-Harry-Met-Sally" moment - is a massively brave and striking piece of cinema.
It's truly extraordinary and worth the price of a ticket alone.
In summary, I enjoyed this movie, primarily for watching the master Hanks at work. The pacing for me was somewhat off though. But I can't be overly critical of such a warm-hearted movie. I predict you will see this and go home with a big dose of the warm-fuzzies.
See here for the full graphical review - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/12/12/one-manns-movies-film-review-a-beautiful-day-in-the-neighborhood-2019/
Sarah (7798 KP) rated The Witches (2020) in Movies
Mar 6, 2021
Not a patch on the original
The Witches is a 2020 retelling of the Roald Dahl children’s story, from director Robert Zemeckis. Remakes and reboots have been commonplace in the movies for quite some time, so it’s no surprise that The Witches has been given a Hollywood makeover, especially as it has been 30 years since the original film adaptation was released in 1990. I will readily admit that the original film is a childhood favourite, so this remake has very big shows to fill.
This time round, the story has been transported to late 1960s Alabama. It follows a unnamed boy (named in the credits as simply ‘Hero Boy’), played by Jahzir Bruno, and his grandma (Octavia Spencer) as they encounter a witch in their home town, prompting her to whisk him away to a seaside resort. Unbeknownst to them, this seaside resort is also where the Grand High Witch (Anne Hathaway) is due to unveil her dastardly plans to transform the world’s children. In his bids to thwart the witches plans, Hero Boy bumps into some familiar names, greedy English boy Bruno Jenkins (Codie-Lei Eastick) and put-upon hotel manager Mr Stringer (Stanley Tucci).
I was very sceptical about this in general, and while I think my scepticism was most definitely warranted, I was at least pleasantly surprised that moving the action from England to 60s America worked. It gives the film a different vibe with a new setting (with some very good costume and set design too), yet still keeping the same base story. However I’m afraid that’s the only good change that they’ve made in this entire remake. The 60s setting works, but the hotel itself lacks the beauty and grandeur of the hotel in the original. Gone are the imposing shots of a beautiful old hotel set on top of a cliff with its gorgeous landscapes (which incidentally is a real life hotel called The Headland which is on my travel wish list), and instead replaced with something that looks good on the surface, but is sadly lacking in realism and has obviously been entirely computer generated.
And this is the major problem with The Witches (2020), it’s over reliance and overuse of CGI. Everything in this, from the mice to the hotel exteriors to the witches true appearance, are all computer generated, and not particularly well at that. The mice look pretty bad and unrealistic, but the worst of all is what they’ve done to the witches. The changes themselves may have worked had this used practical effects, but sadly the CGI only serves to highlight how ridiculous the changes are. From the missing two fingers on each hand to the elongated mouths with demon like tongues, the witches to begin with seem creepy but after this initial shock, you see how absurd and laughable they really are.
Unfortunately even the performances can’t save this adaptation. Octavia Spencer is as reliable as always and Jazhir Bruno and Codie-Lei Eastick are quite adorable, but the rest of the fairly decent cast are sadly misplaced. The usually loveable Stanley Tucci is given absolutely nothing to work with, not even giving him a chance to try and match up to Rowan Atkinson’s original Mr Stringer, and Chris Rock is sadly out of place as the voice of older Hero Mouse. However the worst offender here is Anne Hathaway. Admittedly she isn’t helped much by the poor transformations to the witches appearance, but all the CGI in the world couldn’t fix her questionable Eastern European accent and hammy performance. The fact that Angelica Huston put in a more sinister and believable performance with 90s facial prosthetics and practical effects is a credit to her and only highlights how bad a choice Hathaway was for this role.
While parts of this remake aren’t entirely condemnable, as some aspects do stick closer to Dahl’s original source material, overall it is a far inferior adaptation that loses everything that made the 1990 film such a classic. Gone are the sinister witches and the dark stories of missing children (the girl stuck in the picture is an image that has always stuck with me), instead replaced with a far too lighthearted story with an over reliance on CGI. The most worrying thing of all is that even Robert Zemeckis and Guillermo Del Toro being involved couldn’t save this.
This time round, the story has been transported to late 1960s Alabama. It follows a unnamed boy (named in the credits as simply ‘Hero Boy’), played by Jahzir Bruno, and his grandma (Octavia Spencer) as they encounter a witch in their home town, prompting her to whisk him away to a seaside resort. Unbeknownst to them, this seaside resort is also where the Grand High Witch (Anne Hathaway) is due to unveil her dastardly plans to transform the world’s children. In his bids to thwart the witches plans, Hero Boy bumps into some familiar names, greedy English boy Bruno Jenkins (Codie-Lei Eastick) and put-upon hotel manager Mr Stringer (Stanley Tucci).
I was very sceptical about this in general, and while I think my scepticism was most definitely warranted, I was at least pleasantly surprised that moving the action from England to 60s America worked. It gives the film a different vibe with a new setting (with some very good costume and set design too), yet still keeping the same base story. However I’m afraid that’s the only good change that they’ve made in this entire remake. The 60s setting works, but the hotel itself lacks the beauty and grandeur of the hotel in the original. Gone are the imposing shots of a beautiful old hotel set on top of a cliff with its gorgeous landscapes (which incidentally is a real life hotel called The Headland which is on my travel wish list), and instead replaced with something that looks good on the surface, but is sadly lacking in realism and has obviously been entirely computer generated.
And this is the major problem with The Witches (2020), it’s over reliance and overuse of CGI. Everything in this, from the mice to the hotel exteriors to the witches true appearance, are all computer generated, and not particularly well at that. The mice look pretty bad and unrealistic, but the worst of all is what they’ve done to the witches. The changes themselves may have worked had this used practical effects, but sadly the CGI only serves to highlight how ridiculous the changes are. From the missing two fingers on each hand to the elongated mouths with demon like tongues, the witches to begin with seem creepy but after this initial shock, you see how absurd and laughable they really are.
Unfortunately even the performances can’t save this adaptation. Octavia Spencer is as reliable as always and Jazhir Bruno and Codie-Lei Eastick are quite adorable, but the rest of the fairly decent cast are sadly misplaced. The usually loveable Stanley Tucci is given absolutely nothing to work with, not even giving him a chance to try and match up to Rowan Atkinson’s original Mr Stringer, and Chris Rock is sadly out of place as the voice of older Hero Mouse. However the worst offender here is Anne Hathaway. Admittedly she isn’t helped much by the poor transformations to the witches appearance, but all the CGI in the world couldn’t fix her questionable Eastern European accent and hammy performance. The fact that Angelica Huston put in a more sinister and believable performance with 90s facial prosthetics and practical effects is a credit to her and only highlights how bad a choice Hathaway was for this role.
While parts of this remake aren’t entirely condemnable, as some aspects do stick closer to Dahl’s original source material, overall it is a far inferior adaptation that loses everything that made the 1990 film such a classic. Gone are the sinister witches and the dark stories of missing children (the girl stuck in the picture is an image that has always stuck with me), instead replaced with a far too lighthearted story with an over reliance on CGI. The most worrying thing of all is that even Robert Zemeckis and Guillermo Del Toro being involved couldn’t save this.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Ghostbusters (1984) in Movies
Oct 30, 2020
A Comedy Classic
My daughter was flipping channels the other day and ran across the great 1984 Supernatural comedy GHOSTBUSTERS and stopped to watch for awhile. As happens with her generation, she eventually got more interested in her phone and friends and wandered away. Me? I was drawn back into this film so much so that I went downstairs, grabbed the DVD (yes, kids, I still own DVDs) and popped the film into my Home Theater System to give it a proper viewing.
I gotta say...I was so inspired by how terrific this film is that I changed course and devoted the 23rd BankofMarquis Movies podcast to this film.
Starring the comedic trio of Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis and featuring Sigourney Weaver, Ernie Hudson and the great Rick Moranis, GHOSTBUSTERS tells the tale of supernatural exterminators called to save NYC when paranormal experiences start escalating in the Big Apple.
But it's not the destination, it's the journey that makes this film so much fun. Told in a standard 2 Act arc - Origin Story followed by a 2nd Act of battling the "Big Bad" - it is the comedic timing and chemistry of the 3 leads that makes this film work (aided by a wonderful "straight man" turn by Sigourney Weaver and a brilliant "side-kick" comedic turn by Rick Moranis).
Credit for keeping this film together, moving and more than just a "series of jokes" is Director Ivan Reitman (STRIPES, MEATBALLS), he had the comedic "cred" to appeal to these 3 big time comedians, but has a Producers sense of efficiency and a Director's command of subject and tone.
This film was Aykroyd's idea and he shines as, Ray Stantz, the heart of the Ghostbusters. He truly believes in what he is doing and has a child-like sense of wonder in his actions. Harold Ramis (more noted as a Writer and a Director) was brought in to co-write Aykroyd's idea, steering it more towards Reitman's idea of humor and writing in a way that would make Murray shine - but he is also wonderfully deadpan as techno-geek Egon Spengler. The serious nerd who never smiles.
But...make no mistake...this film revolves around the antics of con-man Dr. Peter Venkman, a scientist who doesn't believe any of this, but is willing to go along as long as it achieves his goals. And...what are his goals? Well...womanizing and getting through life with as little work as possible. Murray is at the top of his comedic game in this film and most of his scenes are improvised - but, to be fair to the writers, Murrya's riffs are what Ramos and Aykroyd put down on paper. He is the mouth of this film and his energy drives this movie throughout.
Sigourney Weaver proved that she could do more than Sci-Fi action (like ALIEN) when she plays the straightman to these 3 wild-men. She stated that she was channeling her inner Margaret Dumont (straightman to the Marx Brothers) and she does an admirable, charming job in a role that could have easily come off as annoying.
Rick Moranis, of course, almost steals the film as the nerdy accountant neighbor of Weaver's. His improvised riff as he goes around the room at his own party is the stuff of comedic gold.
Ernie Hudson comes along as the 4th Ghostbuster. Many folks thinks that he is the "unnecessary" GhostBuster, but I would argue that he comes along at a time (right after the origin story is complete) to be the audience surrogate - to ask the questions that need to be asked and to get necessary expository passages out.
And...finallly...there is William Atherton as EPA Agent Walter Peck. I kind of feel sorry for this actor, for he had a decent career going up to Ghostbusters, but he was so good as the annoying, buzzkill "anti-Ghostbuster" that serves as the foil for their antics, that he wasn't really accepted in any other kind of role the rest of his career (he would play a version of this character in the first 2 DIE HARD films).
The special effects hold up, just enough to make them passable. Keep in mind that this film was made over 35 years ago and the effects were state of the art back in the day, so I would recommend you cut that some slack.
And...if you do...you'll be rewarded with a rollicking fun time at the movies.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
I gotta say...I was so inspired by how terrific this film is that I changed course and devoted the 23rd BankofMarquis Movies podcast to this film.
Starring the comedic trio of Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis and featuring Sigourney Weaver, Ernie Hudson and the great Rick Moranis, GHOSTBUSTERS tells the tale of supernatural exterminators called to save NYC when paranormal experiences start escalating in the Big Apple.
But it's not the destination, it's the journey that makes this film so much fun. Told in a standard 2 Act arc - Origin Story followed by a 2nd Act of battling the "Big Bad" - it is the comedic timing and chemistry of the 3 leads that makes this film work (aided by a wonderful "straight man" turn by Sigourney Weaver and a brilliant "side-kick" comedic turn by Rick Moranis).
Credit for keeping this film together, moving and more than just a "series of jokes" is Director Ivan Reitman (STRIPES, MEATBALLS), he had the comedic "cred" to appeal to these 3 big time comedians, but has a Producers sense of efficiency and a Director's command of subject and tone.
This film was Aykroyd's idea and he shines as, Ray Stantz, the heart of the Ghostbusters. He truly believes in what he is doing and has a child-like sense of wonder in his actions. Harold Ramis (more noted as a Writer and a Director) was brought in to co-write Aykroyd's idea, steering it more towards Reitman's idea of humor and writing in a way that would make Murray shine - but he is also wonderfully deadpan as techno-geek Egon Spengler. The serious nerd who never smiles.
But...make no mistake...this film revolves around the antics of con-man Dr. Peter Venkman, a scientist who doesn't believe any of this, but is willing to go along as long as it achieves his goals. And...what are his goals? Well...womanizing and getting through life with as little work as possible. Murray is at the top of his comedic game in this film and most of his scenes are improvised - but, to be fair to the writers, Murrya's riffs are what Ramos and Aykroyd put down on paper. He is the mouth of this film and his energy drives this movie throughout.
Sigourney Weaver proved that she could do more than Sci-Fi action (like ALIEN) when she plays the straightman to these 3 wild-men. She stated that she was channeling her inner Margaret Dumont (straightman to the Marx Brothers) and she does an admirable, charming job in a role that could have easily come off as annoying.
Rick Moranis, of course, almost steals the film as the nerdy accountant neighbor of Weaver's. His improvised riff as he goes around the room at his own party is the stuff of comedic gold.
Ernie Hudson comes along as the 4th Ghostbuster. Many folks thinks that he is the "unnecessary" GhostBuster, but I would argue that he comes along at a time (right after the origin story is complete) to be the audience surrogate - to ask the questions that need to be asked and to get necessary expository passages out.
And...finallly...there is William Atherton as EPA Agent Walter Peck. I kind of feel sorry for this actor, for he had a decent career going up to Ghostbusters, but he was so good as the annoying, buzzkill "anti-Ghostbuster" that serves as the foil for their antics, that he wasn't really accepted in any other kind of role the rest of his career (he would play a version of this character in the first 2 DIE HARD films).
The special effects hold up, just enough to make them passable. Keep in mind that this film was made over 35 years ago and the effects were state of the art back in the day, so I would recommend you cut that some slack.
And...if you do...you'll be rewarded with a rollicking fun time at the movies.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Gareth von Kallenbach (974 KP) rated Wonder Woman 1984 (2020) in Movies
Dec 23, 2020
Gal Gadot returns as Diana Prince in “Wonder Woman 1984” which has seen its release date shift a few times due to the Covid-19 pandemic. The film has started to open overseas and will arrive in the U.S. on Christmas day with a limited debut on HBO Max as well.
The story sees Diana now living in Washington D.C. in 1984. Diana is popular but has refused male companionship as she still longs for her late love Steve Trevor (Chris Pine).
Diana works in the Smithsonian Institute in antiquities and keeps her secret identity under wraps even when a daring mall heist forces her to leap into action.
A shy and passive employee named Barbara (Kirsten Wiig); who is afraid of her own shadow and largely ignored by her peers is befriended by Diana and they discover one item from the heist is inscribed with the ability to grant a wish. Unknowingly Diana wishes for Steve to return and Barbara wishes to be more like Diana which sets a chain of events into motion.
A shady business man named Maxwell Lord (Perdro Pascal) has his site on obtaining the relic as he believes having the ability to grant wishes will allow him to save his failing business and give him the power he craves.
With such a promising setup; the film ultimately does not deliver on its premise and becomes bogged down in drawn out sequences with surprisingly little action and gaps in logic that defy even standards for a comic book film.
The first 90 minutes of the film has roughly 10-15 minutes of action tops and we are instead given lengthy scenes of Steve trying to find an 80s fashion look; flying over fireworks, and Maxwell trashing from one locale to another without much needed continuity.
An action scene involving a convoy chase through the desert seems very inspired by “Raiders of the Lost Ark” and ultimately does not deliver especially with such a long gape between the action sequences.
The final act does attempt to redeem the film as seeing Barbara transform into her new persona is interesting and Wiig does a very solid job with the role. This sadly is undermined with a single line of dialogue which takes away a big part of the transformation that audiences deserved to see.
There was also a sequence where Diana races down the streets and takes to flight with her Lasso and then discovers she can fly like Superman. Not only is this not in keeping with the character; but we see this extended fast moving sequence where she is clearly heading away from D.C. at great speed only to arrive at a destination with an item which had been established to be back at her home in D.C. It is this sort of sloppiness that really detracts from the film. There is also the fact that Steve has to fly her around on a jet that even as a pilot he should not know how to fly as he has never flown a jet aircraft in his life.
When the big confrontation comes it is a letdown as it is not overly epic and the CGI really does not seem to mesh. What is an even bigger disappointment is that a certain character stands emoting for several minutes while Diana gives such a bland and extended speech that even my wife had to ask “who wrote these lines”.
The film was not a total disaster as the characters were interesting and worked well with one another making the film entertaining in parts despite being really disappointed with it.
The film strikes me as a product of the talented Patty Jenkins being able to do whatever she wanted after the success of the first film. Jenkins not only Directed but did the screenplay for it. Considering the amazing job she did writing “Monster” I had high expectations for the film but to me it seemed like it could have used a bit more attention to several aspects.
My summary would be the following… good cast, entertaining in parts, not much action over two hours, takes huge liberties with Diana and her abilities, massive gaps in logic even for a comic movie. It aims to be epic and comes up lacking. At least the mid. credit scene was worth it.
3 stars out of 5
The story sees Diana now living in Washington D.C. in 1984. Diana is popular but has refused male companionship as she still longs for her late love Steve Trevor (Chris Pine).
Diana works in the Smithsonian Institute in antiquities and keeps her secret identity under wraps even when a daring mall heist forces her to leap into action.
A shy and passive employee named Barbara (Kirsten Wiig); who is afraid of her own shadow and largely ignored by her peers is befriended by Diana and they discover one item from the heist is inscribed with the ability to grant a wish. Unknowingly Diana wishes for Steve to return and Barbara wishes to be more like Diana which sets a chain of events into motion.
A shady business man named Maxwell Lord (Perdro Pascal) has his site on obtaining the relic as he believes having the ability to grant wishes will allow him to save his failing business and give him the power he craves.
With such a promising setup; the film ultimately does not deliver on its premise and becomes bogged down in drawn out sequences with surprisingly little action and gaps in logic that defy even standards for a comic book film.
The first 90 minutes of the film has roughly 10-15 minutes of action tops and we are instead given lengthy scenes of Steve trying to find an 80s fashion look; flying over fireworks, and Maxwell trashing from one locale to another without much needed continuity.
An action scene involving a convoy chase through the desert seems very inspired by “Raiders of the Lost Ark” and ultimately does not deliver especially with such a long gape between the action sequences.
The final act does attempt to redeem the film as seeing Barbara transform into her new persona is interesting and Wiig does a very solid job with the role. This sadly is undermined with a single line of dialogue which takes away a big part of the transformation that audiences deserved to see.
There was also a sequence where Diana races down the streets and takes to flight with her Lasso and then discovers she can fly like Superman. Not only is this not in keeping with the character; but we see this extended fast moving sequence where she is clearly heading away from D.C. at great speed only to arrive at a destination with an item which had been established to be back at her home in D.C. It is this sort of sloppiness that really detracts from the film. There is also the fact that Steve has to fly her around on a jet that even as a pilot he should not know how to fly as he has never flown a jet aircraft in his life.
When the big confrontation comes it is a letdown as it is not overly epic and the CGI really does not seem to mesh. What is an even bigger disappointment is that a certain character stands emoting for several minutes while Diana gives such a bland and extended speech that even my wife had to ask “who wrote these lines”.
The film was not a total disaster as the characters were interesting and worked well with one another making the film entertaining in parts despite being really disappointed with it.
The film strikes me as a product of the talented Patty Jenkins being able to do whatever she wanted after the success of the first film. Jenkins not only Directed but did the screenplay for it. Considering the amazing job she did writing “Monster” I had high expectations for the film but to me it seemed like it could have used a bit more attention to several aspects.
My summary would be the following… good cast, entertaining in parts, not much action over two hours, takes huge liberties with Diana and her abilities, massive gaps in logic even for a comic movie. It aims to be epic and comes up lacking. At least the mid. credit scene was worth it.
3 stars out of 5
Gareth von Kallenbach (974 KP) rated Suburbicon (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
Suburbicon is a picturesque community built to free families from all the hustle and bustle of the big city but with all the amenities a community will need. For all intents in purposes Suburbicon is the ideal place to raise a family in the 1950s. That is exactly what the Lodge family is doing. That is until the night Nicky (Noah Jupe) is awoken by his father, Gardner (Matt Damon), and told that there are two men in the house. The two criminals, Sloan and Louis (Glenn Fleshler and Alex Hassell), move the family to the kitchen and tie Nicky, Gardner, Nicky’s mother Rose (Julianne Moore) and Rose’s sister Margaret (also Julianne Moore) to chairs and put them to sleep using chloroform. When Nicky awakens in the hospital his father and aunt are waiting for him but sadly his mother was overdosed with chloroform and died. After the funeral it is decided by Gardner that Aunt Margaret should come stay with them. When officer Hightower (Jack Conley) calls to let them know they have found two possible suspects Gardner rushes to the police station to look at a lineup. Gardner arrives and is surprised to find Margaret and Nicky there. He asks that Nicky be left outside to save him from the trauma. After a line of potential criminals are paraded in front of Gardner and Margaret both agree that the perpetrators are not there. When they turn around they are surprised to see Nicky with a shocked look on his face as he is staring directly at Sloan and Louis. Nicky now knows that something is going on with his mother’s death and he may be trapped in a house with the two people who are responsible. He is not the only one that thinks something is amiss an insurance investigator, Bud Cooper (Oscar Isaac), shows up with questions about the policy. Is the Suburbicon truly the sanctuary that it looks like from the outside or is there something sinister happening behind closed doors?
This dark comedy, thriller, and mystery is directed by George Clooney (The Monuments Men, Leatherheads) and written by Joel and Ethan Coen (Fargo, The Big Lebowski). The film has some fun moments and interesting twists. I enjoyed how they made the film authentic to the 1950s era. The scenery and sets all give you the feel of the time period. The performances were are mostly well done. Julianne Moore’s performance was really good in both roles but especially as the out there Margaret. She was at times very innocent and loving and the next moment really scary in a deranged kind of way. The supporting cast was large and all were fun, especially the dry Hightower (Conley) and the lovable Uncle Mitch (Gary Basaraba). Matt Damon is part scary and funny but sometimes over the top.
Where this film lost me was on parts of the story really that felt disjointed from other parts of the film. For instance another story line that is playing out during the film is that the Mayers’ family moves to Suburbicon on the same day that the break in at the Lodge’s. The Mayers are the first African American family to move into the area and they are instantly judged and discriminated against. As the movie continues and more craziness is happing at the Lodge home, which shares a back yard with the Mayers, there is an escalation in the persecution of the Mayers. I totally understand what point the film was attempting to make about how people were up in arms about a single family that just moving the town and ignoring, or rather too busy to even notice, the evil deeds being committed so close. I just believe that two stories never felt like they were truly tied together and in some points even part of the same film. I really believe an opportunity was missed. Also the comedy was at times really good but also times where it felt forced. When Matt Damon is riding a child bike with a blood soaked shirt down suburban streets you would think that would be funny, and it looked funny in the trailer, but it felt forced when put into the context of the scene.
Overall this is a film was good but really left me feeling like I just didn’t get it. It was definitely original and I would encourage people to watch it and come to their own conclusions.
This dark comedy, thriller, and mystery is directed by George Clooney (The Monuments Men, Leatherheads) and written by Joel and Ethan Coen (Fargo, The Big Lebowski). The film has some fun moments and interesting twists. I enjoyed how they made the film authentic to the 1950s era. The scenery and sets all give you the feel of the time period. The performances were are mostly well done. Julianne Moore’s performance was really good in both roles but especially as the out there Margaret. She was at times very innocent and loving and the next moment really scary in a deranged kind of way. The supporting cast was large and all were fun, especially the dry Hightower (Conley) and the lovable Uncle Mitch (Gary Basaraba). Matt Damon is part scary and funny but sometimes over the top.
Where this film lost me was on parts of the story really that felt disjointed from other parts of the film. For instance another story line that is playing out during the film is that the Mayers’ family moves to Suburbicon on the same day that the break in at the Lodge’s. The Mayers are the first African American family to move into the area and they are instantly judged and discriminated against. As the movie continues and more craziness is happing at the Lodge home, which shares a back yard with the Mayers, there is an escalation in the persecution of the Mayers. I totally understand what point the film was attempting to make about how people were up in arms about a single family that just moving the town and ignoring, or rather too busy to even notice, the evil deeds being committed so close. I just believe that two stories never felt like they were truly tied together and in some points even part of the same film. I really believe an opportunity was missed. Also the comedy was at times really good but also times where it felt forced. When Matt Damon is riding a child bike with a blood soaked shirt down suburban streets you would think that would be funny, and it looked funny in the trailer, but it felt forced when put into the context of the scene.
Overall this is a film was good but really left me feeling like I just didn’t get it. It was definitely original and I would encourage people to watch it and come to their own conclusions.