Search
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated BlacKkKlansman (2018) in Movies
Oct 1, 2018 (Updated Oct 2, 2018)
Brilliant performances by the entire cast (1 more)
Funny, while still being relevant and sending a serious message
Spike Lee's Best In Years
BlackkKlansman released while I was on holiday, so after playing a bit of catchup at my local cinema, I eventually got around to seeing this film that I was looking forward to ever since seeing the first trailer for it. It lived up to my expectations and I really enjoyed it. Also, just a heads up; I usually don't like to get political in movie reviews, but I feel that with a film as politically charged as this one, it makes it inevitable to get around, so there may be some stuff in here that you disagree with.
The movie worked in several different ways, it definitely worked as a comedy and had me laughing raucously at certain points and then it would drop an important and relevant point on you and suddenly things wouldn't seem so funny any more. All of a sudden, these laughably ignorant racists suddenly became a very real threat, which I don't think was an accident in paralleling how Lee feels about a good amount of modern day Americans like Donald Trump. Remember when he first announced that he was running for office and everybody, (including the current president at that time,) laughed at him? Now he is the most powerful man in the world and poses a very real threat to minorities in the US. I thought that this was a very clever, subtle way to take a shot without being too blatant.
Then there was a slightly more obvious shot at him when characters are discussing a man filled with hate potentially working his way into power and getting the majority of the American public on his side and how awful that would be. Although this particular dig is way more obvious, it still didn't bother me too much and I accepted it as a filmmaker using his platform to send a message to someone that he morally disagrees with.
The final dig was a step too far for me. During a phone conversation between David Duke and Ron Stallworth, Duke says something about getting rid of non-whites to "make America great again." It was so heavy handed that the characters onscreen might as well have turned around and winked at the camera. Please don't get me wrong, I think that Donald Trump is a scumbag and am totally fine with Lee taking a couple of shots at him, but I much preferred the more subtle undertones that he sent his way earlier in the film to this blatantly obvious, slightly cringey callout.
I did enjoy Lee's references to Blaxploitation films of the 70's and I liked the whole aesthetic that this movie had. The score was brilliant and the cast did a great job, the performance that stayed with me the most after the film, was Corey Hawkins monologue as Kwame Ture. He only appears in one scene in the film, but his speech, (in which I felt he strongly channelled Denzel,) was mesmerising and electrifying to watch.
The way that Spike Lee chose to end this movie has stirred some controversy, but I found it to be incredibly powerful and moving. It really sent home the message that this kind of intense, despicable hatred isn't just something that was around in the 70's and 80's, it is something that is still sadly prevalent and happening in today's society and we have people in power, like Trump, who is willing to defend and stand by these people and their violent, hateful behaviour. It was also a fitting tribute to Heather Heyer who was killed when a car crashed into a crowd of people who had been peacefully protesting the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia one-year prior to this film's release.
Overall, this is a funny, entertaining, uncomfortable and anger-inducing film and all of these emotion are equally relevant. I also feel that this movie does exactly what it intends to on a moral level, whether you agree with the ideals portrayed or not, Lee does a terrific job in turning a period piece movie into a painfully relevant message for modern audiences.
The movie worked in several different ways, it definitely worked as a comedy and had me laughing raucously at certain points and then it would drop an important and relevant point on you and suddenly things wouldn't seem so funny any more. All of a sudden, these laughably ignorant racists suddenly became a very real threat, which I don't think was an accident in paralleling how Lee feels about a good amount of modern day Americans like Donald Trump. Remember when he first announced that he was running for office and everybody, (including the current president at that time,) laughed at him? Now he is the most powerful man in the world and poses a very real threat to minorities in the US. I thought that this was a very clever, subtle way to take a shot without being too blatant.
Then there was a slightly more obvious shot at him when characters are discussing a man filled with hate potentially working his way into power and getting the majority of the American public on his side and how awful that would be. Although this particular dig is way more obvious, it still didn't bother me too much and I accepted it as a filmmaker using his platform to send a message to someone that he morally disagrees with.
The final dig was a step too far for me. During a phone conversation between David Duke and Ron Stallworth, Duke says something about getting rid of non-whites to "make America great again." It was so heavy handed that the characters onscreen might as well have turned around and winked at the camera. Please don't get me wrong, I think that Donald Trump is a scumbag and am totally fine with Lee taking a couple of shots at him, but I much preferred the more subtle undertones that he sent his way earlier in the film to this blatantly obvious, slightly cringey callout.
I did enjoy Lee's references to Blaxploitation films of the 70's and I liked the whole aesthetic that this movie had. The score was brilliant and the cast did a great job, the performance that stayed with me the most after the film, was Corey Hawkins monologue as Kwame Ture. He only appears in one scene in the film, but his speech, (in which I felt he strongly channelled Denzel,) was mesmerising and electrifying to watch.
The way that Spike Lee chose to end this movie has stirred some controversy, but I found it to be incredibly powerful and moving. It really sent home the message that this kind of intense, despicable hatred isn't just something that was around in the 70's and 80's, it is something that is still sadly prevalent and happening in today's society and we have people in power, like Trump, who is willing to defend and stand by these people and their violent, hateful behaviour. It was also a fitting tribute to Heather Heyer who was killed when a car crashed into a crowd of people who had been peacefully protesting the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia one-year prior to this film's release.
Overall, this is a funny, entertaining, uncomfortable and anger-inducing film and all of these emotion are equally relevant. I also feel that this movie does exactly what it intends to on a moral level, whether you agree with the ideals portrayed or not, Lee does a terrific job in turning a period piece movie into a painfully relevant message for modern audiences.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) in Movies
Aug 16, 2019
Quentin Tarantino is known for his lengthy, self-indulgent movies - some of which I've loved, some not so much. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is a nostalgic homage to 1960s Hollywood and, at 2 hours 41 minutes, it is certainly lengthy and self-indulgent. But, despite some outstanding performances, it's probably at least an hour too long, and proved to be a real test of my patience and endurance.
Leonardo DiCaprio is Rick Dalton, a TV and movie star best known for repeatedly saving the day in the now cancelled TV show 'Bounty Law', where he played a classic screen cowboy. Rick is struggling to come to terms with his fading career, and the feeling that Hollywood is moving on without him. His best, and only friend, is Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt), who has been Rick's stunt double over the years. Work for Cliff has dried up following rumours that he murdered his wife and Cliff now spends his days as Rick's driver, odd-job man and general shoulder to cry on. He seems fairly relaxed about his simple lifestyle though - returning each evening to his trailer, and faithful canine companion Brandy, before picking Rick up bright and early the next day in order to drive him to whatever production set he's currently working at.
Meanwhile, successful young actor Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie) has moved in next door to Rick along with her husband, director Roman Polanski. This is the area where Tarantino weaves fact with fiction and if you're not familiar with the Manson murders of 1969, it's probably worth reading up on a little bit before heading into the movie. On the night of 9 August 1969, three followers of cult leader Charles Manson entered the home of a heavily pregnant Sharon Tate and brutally murdered her and the friends who were with her at the time. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood begins a few months before those events, and then takes its sweet time in slowly building towards it.
If it weren't for the performances of everyone involved, this would have been a much harder watch for me. Brad Pitt is the best I've seen him for a long time here, all smiles and laid-back charm, a real interesting and enjoyable character. Leonardo DiCaprio is also on fine form as the broken man struggling to cling to fame and when the two are together, they're a lot of fun. Margot Robbie, has far less to do in her parallel story-line, but still manages to shine in her charismatic portrayal of Tate.
What does make the movie harder to watch is the run-time and, as I said right at the start, I feel this definitely could have benefited from at least an hour being chopped. Sunny LA during the 1960s is beautiful to look at, and when we're following Rick and Cliff as they cruise around town in their car it's nostalgic, vibrant and wonderful to watch. But, we get to follow the characters around town in their cars quite a lot in this movie. And, on top of that, literally every scene, no matter how significant, irrelevant or weak it may be, is dragged out far longer than it needs to be. The great scenes become diluted, and the scenes where nothing much was happening anyway, just become frustrating and hard work to hold your attention.
Along the way, our characters occasionally and unknowingly cross paths with the hippies who form Charles Manson's cult at Spahn Ranch. Cliff even has a uneasy standoff with a group of them at the ranch itself in one of the better scenes of the movie. It's these suspenseful moments that increase the tension perfectly, stoking the sense of foreboding and providing a constant reminder of the death and destruction set to come. The final 15 minutes or so do provide us with some intense, violent madness - a real wake up call after the meandering, often floundering, plot-lines of the movie up until that point. As always with Tarantino movies, there's plenty to digest, dissect and discuss but I certainly won't be revisiting this one any time soon.
Leonardo DiCaprio is Rick Dalton, a TV and movie star best known for repeatedly saving the day in the now cancelled TV show 'Bounty Law', where he played a classic screen cowboy. Rick is struggling to come to terms with his fading career, and the feeling that Hollywood is moving on without him. His best, and only friend, is Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt), who has been Rick's stunt double over the years. Work for Cliff has dried up following rumours that he murdered his wife and Cliff now spends his days as Rick's driver, odd-job man and general shoulder to cry on. He seems fairly relaxed about his simple lifestyle though - returning each evening to his trailer, and faithful canine companion Brandy, before picking Rick up bright and early the next day in order to drive him to whatever production set he's currently working at.
Meanwhile, successful young actor Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie) has moved in next door to Rick along with her husband, director Roman Polanski. This is the area where Tarantino weaves fact with fiction and if you're not familiar with the Manson murders of 1969, it's probably worth reading up on a little bit before heading into the movie. On the night of 9 August 1969, three followers of cult leader Charles Manson entered the home of a heavily pregnant Sharon Tate and brutally murdered her and the friends who were with her at the time. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood begins a few months before those events, and then takes its sweet time in slowly building towards it.
If it weren't for the performances of everyone involved, this would have been a much harder watch for me. Brad Pitt is the best I've seen him for a long time here, all smiles and laid-back charm, a real interesting and enjoyable character. Leonardo DiCaprio is also on fine form as the broken man struggling to cling to fame and when the two are together, they're a lot of fun. Margot Robbie, has far less to do in her parallel story-line, but still manages to shine in her charismatic portrayal of Tate.
What does make the movie harder to watch is the run-time and, as I said right at the start, I feel this definitely could have benefited from at least an hour being chopped. Sunny LA during the 1960s is beautiful to look at, and when we're following Rick and Cliff as they cruise around town in their car it's nostalgic, vibrant and wonderful to watch. But, we get to follow the characters around town in their cars quite a lot in this movie. And, on top of that, literally every scene, no matter how significant, irrelevant or weak it may be, is dragged out far longer than it needs to be. The great scenes become diluted, and the scenes where nothing much was happening anyway, just become frustrating and hard work to hold your attention.
Along the way, our characters occasionally and unknowingly cross paths with the hippies who form Charles Manson's cult at Spahn Ranch. Cliff even has a uneasy standoff with a group of them at the ranch itself in one of the better scenes of the movie. It's these suspenseful moments that increase the tension perfectly, stoking the sense of foreboding and providing a constant reminder of the death and destruction set to come. The final 15 minutes or so do provide us with some intense, violent madness - a real wake up call after the meandering, often floundering, plot-lines of the movie up until that point. As always with Tarantino movies, there's plenty to digest, dissect and discuss but I certainly won't be revisiting this one any time soon.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Underwater (2020) in Movies
Feb 16, 2020 (Updated Feb 16, 2020)
Frenetic action in murky water - baffling (2 more)
Scientific inconsistencies
Waterlogged Alien wannabe
Soggy and forgettable
I had a sinking feeling (excuse the pun) about this movie from the word go. It's a lazy approach to 'mansplain' the whole set up for the movie through digital news posts during the main titles. It feels more patronising to the audience than having main titles and then a 'Star Wars-style' synopsis.
Once into the movie, director William Eubank gives us the bare minimum of character set-up for our heroine while she brushes her teeth*. (And no way did she even follow the British Dental Association recommendation of two minutes brushing!) (* Interestingly, the trailer seems to show some above water scenes/dialogue and introductions to the rest of the crew that never made the final cut.)
And then....
BAM!!!
I was thinking that the manic action that follows was some sort of dream or flashback. But no. We are pitched headlong into the story without pause as disaster strikes. It all feels positively indecent.
For we are seven miles down in the Mariana trench, when a drilling station springs a leak.
Now call me a cynic, but I would have *thought* that, at that depth, a single leak would implode the whole station in about 10 seconds flat. But then that wouldn't be cinematic enough, and would be a much shorter movie!
And there are numerous other scientific implausibilities. For example, diving helmets that appear to be able to withstand 15,750 psi of pressure (I Googled it) can be smashed-in by a woman by just bashing it.
Sigh.
We are in 'Alien-lite' territory again. Just as in last year's "The Meg", those pesky humans have disturbed something in its home territory.... and it's suitably pissed-off. The action centres on hippy-chick engineer Norah (Kristen Stewart). The script neatly describes her as a "flat-chested elfin creature"... a fact which every male in the audience has thought (come on guys, admit it , you did!) from the immediately preceding scene.
It was never entirely clear to me what skills Norah was supposed to have.... it seemed to flex from diving to electrical engineering to computer engineering.
Stewart is a handy actress to have in a movie, but here she is mostly relegated to lots of shots of her athletic body running through corridors in her skimpy crop-top and knickers.
Supporting Stewart are veteran French actor Vincent Cassel as the mission captain; "the funny one" Paul (T.J. Miller); the trusty male action figure Smith (John Gallagher Jr.); and Emily - the 'less-flat chested but screamy one' (Jessica Henwick). Emily also gets to run around in a T-shirt and knickers: you kind of quickly get to know the audience the film is trying to appeal to.
As will be obvious if you've seen any of these types of film before, not all of these folks are going to make it.
As this movie is presumably filmed in a small water tank in a Louisiana studio. Clearly the memo said "fill it with murky water so the audience can't see the sides". "And just for good measure, let's film it with hand-help rapidly moving cameras". The result is that a lot of the time, when there was a burst of frenetic underwater action, I had NO IDEA what was actually going on.
In this way, the movie reminded me of the shark B-movie "47 Metres Down" from a few years ago.
This is certainly not "Alien". Although similarly set, this is not "The Abyss" either. It's most similar perhaps to "Life", but without the clever twist ending.
It's also not a truly TERRIBLE movie either. But unfortunately this is one of the most "meh" action movies I've seen in the past year. It's just brain-crushingly forgettable.
There was only one vaguely memorable shot in the whole movie: a final shot of Kristen Stewart. But that just serves to make me think.... 'Stewart deserves much better than this'.
For a movie concerning itself with a lack of oxygen, watching this felt like a waste of it.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/15/one-manns-movies-film-review-underwater-2020/ ).
Once into the movie, director William Eubank gives us the bare minimum of character set-up for our heroine while she brushes her teeth*. (And no way did she even follow the British Dental Association recommendation of two minutes brushing!) (* Interestingly, the trailer seems to show some above water scenes/dialogue and introductions to the rest of the crew that never made the final cut.)
And then....
BAM!!!
I was thinking that the manic action that follows was some sort of dream or flashback. But no. We are pitched headlong into the story without pause as disaster strikes. It all feels positively indecent.
For we are seven miles down in the Mariana trench, when a drilling station springs a leak.
Now call me a cynic, but I would have *thought* that, at that depth, a single leak would implode the whole station in about 10 seconds flat. But then that wouldn't be cinematic enough, and would be a much shorter movie!
And there are numerous other scientific implausibilities. For example, diving helmets that appear to be able to withstand 15,750 psi of pressure (I Googled it) can be smashed-in by a woman by just bashing it.
Sigh.
We are in 'Alien-lite' territory again. Just as in last year's "The Meg", those pesky humans have disturbed something in its home territory.... and it's suitably pissed-off. The action centres on hippy-chick engineer Norah (Kristen Stewart). The script neatly describes her as a "flat-chested elfin creature"... a fact which every male in the audience has thought (come on guys, admit it , you did!) from the immediately preceding scene.
It was never entirely clear to me what skills Norah was supposed to have.... it seemed to flex from diving to electrical engineering to computer engineering.
Stewart is a handy actress to have in a movie, but here she is mostly relegated to lots of shots of her athletic body running through corridors in her skimpy crop-top and knickers.
Supporting Stewart are veteran French actor Vincent Cassel as the mission captain; "the funny one" Paul (T.J. Miller); the trusty male action figure Smith (John Gallagher Jr.); and Emily - the 'less-flat chested but screamy one' (Jessica Henwick). Emily also gets to run around in a T-shirt and knickers: you kind of quickly get to know the audience the film is trying to appeal to.
As will be obvious if you've seen any of these types of film before, not all of these folks are going to make it.
As this movie is presumably filmed in a small water tank in a Louisiana studio. Clearly the memo said "fill it with murky water so the audience can't see the sides". "And just for good measure, let's film it with hand-help rapidly moving cameras". The result is that a lot of the time, when there was a burst of frenetic underwater action, I had NO IDEA what was actually going on.
In this way, the movie reminded me of the shark B-movie "47 Metres Down" from a few years ago.
This is certainly not "Alien". Although similarly set, this is not "The Abyss" either. It's most similar perhaps to "Life", but without the clever twist ending.
It's also not a truly TERRIBLE movie either. But unfortunately this is one of the most "meh" action movies I've seen in the past year. It's just brain-crushingly forgettable.
There was only one vaguely memorable shot in the whole movie: a final shot of Kristen Stewart. But that just serves to make me think.... 'Stewart deserves much better than this'.
For a movie concerning itself with a lack of oxygen, watching this felt like a waste of it.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/15/one-manns-movies-film-review-underwater-2020/ ).
Hey Duggee: The Big Outdoor App
Games and Education
App
**** As seen on Nick Jr. **** Welcome to the Big Outdoors, Squirrels! Introducing the latest app...
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/
