Search
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Snowpiercer (2013) in Movies
May 3, 2019
A bleak and violent sci-fi
I wanted to see this film when it first came out, and was so annoyed it didnt get a UK release. At the time I managed to find a copy to watch, but havent seen it again until now.
To start with this has a fantastic cast. Whilst I struggle to forget Captain America every time I see Chris Evans, I do think he's a good actor and he's brilliant supported by the likes of John Hurt and Octavia Spencer. Jamie Bell is a great actor too and I think he's rather underrated. And Tilda Swinton simply steals the show as Mason. You hate her yet love her at the same time as she's absolutely hilarious. In part due to the genius idea to give her a Yorkshire accent, as this makes it even more surreal and funny.
The story itself is an interesting one and I was intrigued by the whole thing, I felt invested in the characters as they traversed along the train. And this plot plays out in a very bleak and violent manner. The action scenes are great and wonderfully brutal, and there is some very bleak and dark outcomes and conversations towards the end of the film that make this not your typical run of the mill sci-fi.
I do think there are some parts of this film that aren't great, namely some strange seemingly plot holes to do with character backstories. They're not the end of the world, but still a tad annoying. Also I'm not sure if this is just the Netflix version, but when the Korean characters were speaking there were no subtitles. Fine for minor scenes, but there is a least one major scene where the lack of subtitles is a huge detriment. I'm assuming/hoping the film hasn't been made that way, so I'll blame Netflix!
This is not your average happy sci-fi. However if you dont mind watching something with dark and bleak overtones and a decent amount of violence, this is definitely worth a watch.
To start with this has a fantastic cast. Whilst I struggle to forget Captain America every time I see Chris Evans, I do think he's a good actor and he's brilliant supported by the likes of John Hurt and Octavia Spencer. Jamie Bell is a great actor too and I think he's rather underrated. And Tilda Swinton simply steals the show as Mason. You hate her yet love her at the same time as she's absolutely hilarious. In part due to the genius idea to give her a Yorkshire accent, as this makes it even more surreal and funny.
The story itself is an interesting one and I was intrigued by the whole thing, I felt invested in the characters as they traversed along the train. And this plot plays out in a very bleak and violent manner. The action scenes are great and wonderfully brutal, and there is some very bleak and dark outcomes and conversations towards the end of the film that make this not your typical run of the mill sci-fi.
I do think there are some parts of this film that aren't great, namely some strange seemingly plot holes to do with character backstories. They're not the end of the world, but still a tad annoying. Also I'm not sure if this is just the Netflix version, but when the Korean characters were speaking there were no subtitles. Fine for minor scenes, but there is a least one major scene where the lack of subtitles is a huge detriment. I'm assuming/hoping the film hasn't been made that way, so I'll blame Netflix!
This is not your average happy sci-fi. However if you dont mind watching something with dark and bleak overtones and a decent amount of violence, this is definitely worth a watch.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Hidden Figures (2016) in Movies
Jul 12, 2019
Teaching courses on history and the relevance of film capturing historical periods, people, and themes offers me a little greater perspective when watching historically based films. I think about how much I should criticize the film based on the ways that the truths are stretched in order to placate their audiences so that they don’t feel to uncomfortable with the subject matter. Hidden Figures offers up a chance to expose American audiences to a period and historical figures that helped impact American history and allow successful space flight.
Hidden Figures discusses the contributions of African-American women at NASA — Katherine Johnson (Taraji P. Henson), Dorothy Vaughan (Octavia Spencer) and Mary Jackson (Janelle Monáe). The film is enlightening and allows for audiences to gain a greater understanding of women and women of color in ensuring the success of the American Space program. The film does not exaggerate circumstances to a point where it is difficult to believe. What is difficult to believe for audiences in using this film to look at the past is that we have waited so long to recognize and honor these heroes. Without their contributions, the United States may have never made it to the moon.
The film offers adults and youth audiences an honest look into what these women faced in the forms of racism and sexism. There is no brutality of racism or violence demonstrated, but the spectre of it lingers over the film and reminds the viewer of the hardships that these women faced. They had the minds to carry out their tasks, but they did not have the right gender or color to be taken seriously, at first. The film is empowering and allows for young girls, despite race, to see that science and math are not fields that are not limited to men. Appropriate representation allows for more depth to history and the role that people of different walks, faiths, and nationalities have played in society. Hidden Figures is a timely film that allows for greater representation and may push filmmakers and audiences to discover more hidden figures in history.
Hidden Figures discusses the contributions of African-American women at NASA — Katherine Johnson (Taraji P. Henson), Dorothy Vaughan (Octavia Spencer) and Mary Jackson (Janelle Monáe). The film is enlightening and allows for audiences to gain a greater understanding of women and women of color in ensuring the success of the American Space program. The film does not exaggerate circumstances to a point where it is difficult to believe. What is difficult to believe for audiences in using this film to look at the past is that we have waited so long to recognize and honor these heroes. Without their contributions, the United States may have never made it to the moon.
The film offers adults and youth audiences an honest look into what these women faced in the forms of racism and sexism. There is no brutality of racism or violence demonstrated, but the spectre of it lingers over the film and reminds the viewer of the hardships that these women faced. They had the minds to carry out their tasks, but they did not have the right gender or color to be taken seriously, at first. The film is empowering and allows for young girls, despite race, to see that science and math are not fields that are not limited to men. Appropriate representation allows for more depth to history and the role that people of different walks, faiths, and nationalities have played in society. Hidden Figures is a timely film that allows for greater representation and may push filmmakers and audiences to discover more hidden figures in history.
A teen, her mum and dog are moving to a new neighbourhood, on her first day of school she is invited to a party but turns it down to hang with her mum, however, her mum is too busy with her new job so she decides to go to the party. The party ends up being cancelled and the teens decide to drink instead, but as they're underage they struggle to get anyone to buy them alcohol, until a seemingly nice woman agrees to buy it for them. It soon becomes apparent that this woman is dodgy as we see her stalking the teens on Facebook (how did she get their full names?) and phoning one of their dads to tell him of their drinking plan who then phones the police to stop them in their tracks. This doesn't stop them trying again the next day by asking the same woman to buy them alcohol. This time she invites them to drink in her basement which the teens quickly agree to.
The evening turns sour when sue Anne pulls a gun out, but she soon turns it around as a good prank and invites them to party again and again. Eventually the teens realise how obsessed sue Anne is when she's constantly messaging them and they all decide to block her. That's when things go from bad to worse with a few surprises on the way.
I wasn't sure what to expect from this movie, it was in the horror section of Netflix but for the first hour I didn't really get a horror vibe, I got the vibe of a lonely woman so desperate to be liked that it becomes obsessive and I did feel sorry for her........ At first.
I liked the inclusion of her back story as I felt for her even more, making the second half of the movie such a kick in the teeth. I mean this woman is proper psychotic and the things she does is messed up, but damn it's a good watch! Octavia Spencer plays Ma so incredibly well, I honestly couldn't have picked anyone else to play her.
The evening turns sour when sue Anne pulls a gun out, but she soon turns it around as a good prank and invites them to party again and again. Eventually the teens realise how obsessed sue Anne is when she's constantly messaging them and they all decide to block her. That's when things go from bad to worse with a few surprises on the way.
I wasn't sure what to expect from this movie, it was in the horror section of Netflix but for the first hour I didn't really get a horror vibe, I got the vibe of a lonely woman so desperate to be liked that it becomes obsessive and I did feel sorry for her........ At first.
I liked the inclusion of her back story as I felt for her even more, making the second half of the movie such a kick in the teeth. I mean this woman is proper psychotic and the things she does is messed up, but damn it's a good watch! Octavia Spencer plays Ma so incredibly well, I honestly couldn't have picked anyone else to play her.
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.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Thunder Force (2021) in Movies
May 23, 2021
I love Octavia Spencer's versatility, so a superhero type of film was intriguing, and the combination of her and Melissa McCarthy felt right. Then they throw in Bobby Cannavale and Jason Bateman too? There appears to be a lot to love about this film.
Lydia and Emily, once the best of friends, are brought back together by a school reunion. But things take a turn as the serum devised by Emily to help their city ends up accidentally changing their lives in a way they hadn't planned for.
We start with a wonderful comic book opening that give a very succinct review of how the whole has shaped the tale we're about to hear. That then drops us into Lydia and Emily's friendship. I really did enjoy this part, and the young Lydia's were particularly good. It gave a solid start to the film and I was feeling optimistic about what was to come after having enjoyed the trailer.
But at this point it starts to show a few issues.
Grown-up Emily (Spencer) feels a little inconsistent. She's reserved initially but it fluctuates a lot throughout, which doesn't feel right for a woman in her position.
Lydia seemed to be much more believable, and the outlandish behaviour was quite amusing while still cementing the caring person that she is, and what we can expect from her going forward.
Spencer and McCarthy do work well together, and the back and forth when it's there is really good, but Emily is never as strong in scenes that they share.
Bobby Cannavale as The King makes an excellent baddie, and Pom Klementieff as a henchwoman is too. They're backed by some wonderfully comedic "muscle", and as a team they work well together. But... while every character is a little quirky, The Crab is where my problems begin. Jason Bateman acts well during the "serious" scenes, but the humour that is attached to his character just didn't land. I was pleased they added in crab-like characteristics, but its amusement was short-lived.
The main problem with the humour in Thunder Force is something I see in other Melissa McCarthy films. It rushes up to the line of going too far, stops briefly, and the crab scuttles straight across it and far off into the distance. Why make one joke when you can make five in a row? This is particularly evident in Lydia and The Crab's interactions, and its repetition became a little tiresome.
The script didn't just mess with these characters, it also ruined a perfectly good (though mildly inexplicable) scene where The King and Laser come face to face with Lydia and Emily. It was going so well and then it jumped over that line. It does do some good things though. There's an ongoing joke with Lydia and her training that did land well every time, and it had some lovely moments of bonding with Tracy and Lydia. How all these things made it into the same film I don't know.
My time watching this didn't feel wasted, but I don't think I'd need to watch it again anytime soon. And that's a shame, because there's a really good film hiding in Thunder Force.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/05/thunder-force-movie-review.html
Lydia and Emily, once the best of friends, are brought back together by a school reunion. But things take a turn as the serum devised by Emily to help their city ends up accidentally changing their lives in a way they hadn't planned for.
We start with a wonderful comic book opening that give a very succinct review of how the whole has shaped the tale we're about to hear. That then drops us into Lydia and Emily's friendship. I really did enjoy this part, and the young Lydia's were particularly good. It gave a solid start to the film and I was feeling optimistic about what was to come after having enjoyed the trailer.
But at this point it starts to show a few issues.
Grown-up Emily (Spencer) feels a little inconsistent. She's reserved initially but it fluctuates a lot throughout, which doesn't feel right for a woman in her position.
Lydia seemed to be much more believable, and the outlandish behaviour was quite amusing while still cementing the caring person that she is, and what we can expect from her going forward.
Spencer and McCarthy do work well together, and the back and forth when it's there is really good, but Emily is never as strong in scenes that they share.
Bobby Cannavale as The King makes an excellent baddie, and Pom Klementieff as a henchwoman is too. They're backed by some wonderfully comedic "muscle", and as a team they work well together. But... while every character is a little quirky, The Crab is where my problems begin. Jason Bateman acts well during the "serious" scenes, but the humour that is attached to his character just didn't land. I was pleased they added in crab-like characteristics, but its amusement was short-lived.
The main problem with the humour in Thunder Force is something I see in other Melissa McCarthy films. It rushes up to the line of going too far, stops briefly, and the crab scuttles straight across it and far off into the distance. Why make one joke when you can make five in a row? This is particularly evident in Lydia and The Crab's interactions, and its repetition became a little tiresome.
The script didn't just mess with these characters, it also ruined a perfectly good (though mildly inexplicable) scene where The King and Laser come face to face with Lydia and Emily. It was going so well and then it jumped over that line. It does do some good things though. There's an ongoing joke with Lydia and her training that did land well every time, and it had some lovely moments of bonding with Tracy and Lydia. How all these things made it into the same film I don't know.
My time watching this didn't feel wasted, but I don't think I'd need to watch it again anytime soon. And that's a shame, because there's a really good film hiding in Thunder Force.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/05/thunder-force-movie-review.html
Lee (2222 KP) rated The Shape of Water (2017) in Movies
Feb 8, 2018
Sally Hawkins (1 more)
Michael Shannon
Beautiful and Enchanting
The Shape of Water really is one of those movies where I feel the trailer doesn't really do it justice. From seeing the trailer, I wasn't really sure how much I was going to enjoy the movie. Like I'm sure many others will be, I was persuaded that I might be wrong by the 13 Oscar nominations it recently received. I shouldn't have had any doubts to be honest. Pan's Labyrinth, also directed by Guillermo del Toro, is one of my favourite movies and The Shape of Water shares many similarities with that. A beautiful and enchanting mix of fairy tale, love story and monster movie.
Sally Hawkins plays Elisa Esposito, a mute woman who works nights as a janitor for Occam Aerospace Research Center along with friend Zelda Fuller (Octavia Spencer). At home she lives a simple life, watching musicals with her gay neighbour Giles (Richard Jenkins) and finding joy in the simple things in life. One day a strange creature is brought into the research center to be studied, surrounded by military and medical personnel. Colonel Richard Strickland has accompanied 'the asset' from it's previous location, and appears to have developed a serious dislike to it. He carries an electrified cattle prod, which he takes great delight in using on the creature. In return though, the creature does manage to remove two of Stricklands fingers, and also inflicts serious injuries on others.
But Elisa takes pity on the creature and over time tries to befriend it, bringing him hard-boiled eggs and teaching him sign language. When she learns that plans for the creature involve vivisection, she hatches a plan to help him escape, and from that point their feelings for each other develop into love. A true Beauty and the Beast style fairy tale.
I found myself absolutely captivated, swept along by the story, and everything about it is just beautiful. Sally Hawkins is incredible, portraying such varied emotions without speaking, she provides much of the films humour, and shines in the more serious scenes too. Doug Jones does what he does best as the creature, but the real monster of the movie is Michael Shannon as Colonel Strickland. Terrifyingly brilliant.
For me, I'm not sure if this beats Pan's Labyrinth, but The Shape of Water is certainly worthy of all the praise, and hopefully the awards, it receives.
Sally Hawkins plays Elisa Esposito, a mute woman who works nights as a janitor for Occam Aerospace Research Center along with friend Zelda Fuller (Octavia Spencer). At home she lives a simple life, watching musicals with her gay neighbour Giles (Richard Jenkins) and finding joy in the simple things in life. One day a strange creature is brought into the research center to be studied, surrounded by military and medical personnel. Colonel Richard Strickland has accompanied 'the asset' from it's previous location, and appears to have developed a serious dislike to it. He carries an electrified cattle prod, which he takes great delight in using on the creature. In return though, the creature does manage to remove two of Stricklands fingers, and also inflicts serious injuries on others.
But Elisa takes pity on the creature and over time tries to befriend it, bringing him hard-boiled eggs and teaching him sign language. When she learns that plans for the creature involve vivisection, she hatches a plan to help him escape, and from that point their feelings for each other develop into love. A true Beauty and the Beast style fairy tale.
I found myself absolutely captivated, swept along by the story, and everything about it is just beautiful. Sally Hawkins is incredible, portraying such varied emotions without speaking, she provides much of the films humour, and shines in the more serious scenes too. Doug Jones does what he does best as the creature, but the real monster of the movie is Michael Shannon as Colonel Strickland. Terrifyingly brilliant.
For me, I'm not sure if this beats Pan's Labyrinth, but The Shape of Water is certainly worthy of all the praise, and hopefully the awards, it receives.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Luce (2019) in Movies
Oct 26, 2019
Luce was an interesting film to watch, it shows a lot of different relationships and as such it's a very wordy sort of film. I'm not averse to wordy films but they can be a little dry to watch, luckily in this case the main cast are engaging and keep you interested.
Had we not been blessed with such a great performance from Kelvin Harrison Jr as Luce I think this would have failed to make it out of the blocks. Luce becomes something very serious in his hands and the swing in the character left me with an uneasy feeling as I watched. The one frustrating thing I found was that I could sense the insincerity in all of his responses so I was frustrated that it was only really Miss Wilson that picked up on it. I understand that it's a necessary part of the story... but still.
Octavia Spencer didn't disappoint as Harriet Wilson. She got to give a good range as she devolves after going head to head with Luce. I think she probably managed to cover every emotion and handles either end of the spectrum very well.
Tim Roth and Naomi Watts play Luce's adoptive parents. Roth is someone I love on screen but Watts is an unknown entity for me as I've only seen her in 2005's King Kong. There's obviously a certain amount of tension/conflict between the couple but even taking that into consideration I didn't feel there was much of a rapport between them. Even when you take into account the conflict in the film I couldn't quite find it in me to feel anything for the couple, good or bad. Roth as Peter was good and brought across the slightly bitter side of the character well but Watt's Amy didn't seem to have enough emotion behind her. I'd have said that Amy in particular could have stood to be a little grittier, at least a small part of her did need to be a bit of a pushover but combined with her activities in the film the character didn't feel entirely believable.
Luce was enjoyable to watch but looking back I'm less enthusiastic despite the good performances at the front of it. The good sadly didn't outway the average for me and at times it became a little confusing, but it's still a solid film.
From the full review previously posted on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/10/luce-movie-review.html
Had we not been blessed with such a great performance from Kelvin Harrison Jr as Luce I think this would have failed to make it out of the blocks. Luce becomes something very serious in his hands and the swing in the character left me with an uneasy feeling as I watched. The one frustrating thing I found was that I could sense the insincerity in all of his responses so I was frustrated that it was only really Miss Wilson that picked up on it. I understand that it's a necessary part of the story... but still.
Octavia Spencer didn't disappoint as Harriet Wilson. She got to give a good range as she devolves after going head to head with Luce. I think she probably managed to cover every emotion and handles either end of the spectrum very well.
Tim Roth and Naomi Watts play Luce's adoptive parents. Roth is someone I love on screen but Watts is an unknown entity for me as I've only seen her in 2005's King Kong. There's obviously a certain amount of tension/conflict between the couple but even taking that into consideration I didn't feel there was much of a rapport between them. Even when you take into account the conflict in the film I couldn't quite find it in me to feel anything for the couple, good or bad. Roth as Peter was good and brought across the slightly bitter side of the character well but Watt's Amy didn't seem to have enough emotion behind her. I'd have said that Amy in particular could have stood to be a little grittier, at least a small part of her did need to be a bit of a pushover but combined with her activities in the film the character didn't feel entirely believable.
Luce was enjoyable to watch but looking back I'm less enthusiastic despite the good performances at the front of it. The good sadly didn't outway the average for me and at times it became a little confusing, but it's still a solid film.
From the full review previously posted on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/10/luce-movie-review.html
Lee (2222 KP) rated Luce (2019) in Movies
Oct 30, 2019
Luce (Kelvin Harrison Jr) is the perfect student. Captain of the high school track team, a passionate member of the school debating society, a great writer and a polite, grown-up young man that just seems too good to be true. Luce was adopted at the age of 9 from war-torn Eritrea by white couple Amy (Naomi Watts) and Peter (Tim Roth, sporting a pretty dodgy American accent). Following years of therapy and the devoted efforts of Amy and Peter, he seems to have successfully put his horrific and traumatic childhood behind him, embracing his future in America.
But then one day, Luce's history teacher, Harriet Wilson (Octavia Spencer) becomes disturbed by a recent assignment that Luce has submitted. The purpose of the assignment was to write an essay in the style and thinking of a historical figure of their choosing - an idea which Luce seems to have embraced a little too passionately with his choice of Frantz Fanon, a black philosopher who was highly supportive of violent revolution. At the same time, a search of Luce's locker reveals some highly explosive fireworks, and Harriet is worried to the point where she calls Amy into the school in order to discuss her concerns.
The assignment, and the fireworks discovery, leads to a series of conflicts among all of the main characters. Luce remains polite and calm throughout, claiming that he was merely doing what was asked of him for the assignment. He states that his locker is shared with friends, so the fireworks must belong to one of them. Tensions are also high between Luce’s parents, seemingly regarding some lingering resentment they have about the fact that Luce is not their biological child. Meanwhile, Harriet is involved in a series of cool, calm stand offs with Luce, each of them believing that there is more to the other than meets the eye.
There are a lot of times during Luce where motivations and actions of characters aren’t very clear. A number of tense moments occur along the way too, in order to try and ramp up the tension, including the introduction of Harriet’s mentally ill sister, horrible racist graffiti on Harriet’s house and accusations of sexual assault. You never know who to trust or what to think, and it all feels as though it’s building towards something big.
Unfortunately though, that’s not the case, and it all just kind of fizzles out towards the end. It’s clear that the filmmakers are more interested in delivering undertones of privilege and prejudice throughout, promoting more questions than they provide answers, and that’s not for me. Overall a pretty solid movie, let down in its delivery towards the end.
But then one day, Luce's history teacher, Harriet Wilson (Octavia Spencer) becomes disturbed by a recent assignment that Luce has submitted. The purpose of the assignment was to write an essay in the style and thinking of a historical figure of their choosing - an idea which Luce seems to have embraced a little too passionately with his choice of Frantz Fanon, a black philosopher who was highly supportive of violent revolution. At the same time, a search of Luce's locker reveals some highly explosive fireworks, and Harriet is worried to the point where she calls Amy into the school in order to discuss her concerns.
The assignment, and the fireworks discovery, leads to a series of conflicts among all of the main characters. Luce remains polite and calm throughout, claiming that he was merely doing what was asked of him for the assignment. He states that his locker is shared with friends, so the fireworks must belong to one of them. Tensions are also high between Luce’s parents, seemingly regarding some lingering resentment they have about the fact that Luce is not their biological child. Meanwhile, Harriet is involved in a series of cool, calm stand offs with Luce, each of them believing that there is more to the other than meets the eye.
There are a lot of times during Luce where motivations and actions of characters aren’t very clear. A number of tense moments occur along the way too, in order to try and ramp up the tension, including the introduction of Harriet’s mentally ill sister, horrible racist graffiti on Harriet’s house and accusations of sexual assault. You never know who to trust or what to think, and it all feels as though it’s building towards something big.
Unfortunately though, that’s not the case, and it all just kind of fizzles out towards the end. It’s clear that the filmmakers are more interested in delivering undertones of privilege and prejudice throughout, promoting more questions than they provide answers, and that’s not for me. Overall a pretty solid movie, let down in its delivery towards the end.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Shape of Water (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A mystical tale of fish and fingers.
With perfect timing after scooping 13 Oscar nominations, “The Shape of Water” arrives for preview screenings in the UK. Is it worth all the hype?
Well, in a word, yes.
Not since Spielberg entranced the world in 1982 with a love story between an isolated and lonely child and an alien, stranded a million light-years from home, have we seen a magical fairy-tale so well told.
Cleaning up at the (box) office. Sally Hawkins and Doug Jones as the creature.
Here Lewisham’s own Sally Hawkins (“Paddington”, “Godzilla“) plays Elisa Esposito, an attractive but mousy mute living above a cinema and next door to her best friend: a struggling artist called Giles (Richard Jenkins). Sexually-frustrated, Elisa works out those tensions in the bath every morning before heading off to work as a cleaner at a government research institute. Together with partner Zelda Fuller (Octavia Spencer, “Hidden Figures“) she is asked to clean a highly secured room where a mysterious aquatic creature is being studied by the cruel and militaristic Strickland (Michael Shannon, “Midnight Special“, “Nocturnal Animals“) and the more compassionate scientist Hoffstetler. (The latter is played by Michael Stuhlbarg (“Miss Sloane“, “Steve Jobs“) in a performance that wasn’t recognised by the Academy, but for me really held the film’s story together). Elisa forms a relationship with the creature, and as the scientific investigations turn darker, she becomes determined to help him.
When you think about it, the similarities in the screenplay with E.T. are quite striking. But this is most definitely not a kid’s film, containing full frontal nudity, sex and some considerable violence, some of it “hands-over-the-eyes” worthy. Most of this violence comes courtesy of Shannon’s character, who is truly monstrous. He is uncontrollably vicious, single-minded and amoral: a hand over the mouth to silence his wife during vigourous sex cleverly belies where his true lust currently lies. (Shannon is just so convincing in all of his roles that, after “Nocturnal Animals“, it is a bit of a surprise to see that he is still alive and well!)
It’s worth pointing out for balance at this point that my wife thought this portrayal was over-egged for its villany, and she rated the film less highly than I did because of it.
Michael Shannon as evil incarnate.
So its no Oscar nomination this time for Shannon as a supporting actor. But that honour goes to Richard Jenkins, who is spectacularly good as the movie-musical-loving and pie-munching neighbour who is drawn unwillingly into Elisa’s plans. Giles is a richly fashioned character – also the film’s narrator – who struggles to fit in with the cruel and rascist 1962 world that he finds himself in. “Sometimes I think I was born too early or too late for my life” he bemoans to the creature whose loneliness he relates to. A scene in a cafe where he fastidiously wipes all traces of pie-filling from his tongue is masterfully done.
Richard Hawkins and Sally Hawkins, hatching a plan.
Octavia Spencer is also Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actress, and it’s a magical partnership she shares with Hawkins, with each bouncing off each other wonderfully.
This leads to a ‘no brainer’ Oscar nomination for Sally Hawkins who delivers a star turn. She has to go through such a huge range of emotions in this film, and she genuinely makes you really care about the outcome like few films this year. It’s a little tricky since I haven’t seen “I Tonya” or “Ladybird” yet, but I would have thought that Ms Hawkins is going to possibly give Frances McDormand the closest run for her money on March 4th. My money would still be on McDormand for “3 Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri“, but the Oscar voters are bound to love “The Shape of Water”. For like “La La Land” last year, the film is (rather surprisingly for me) another love letter to Hollywood’s golden years, with Elisa and Giles living out their lives with classic movie music and dance numbers: a medium that Elisa only ever truly finds here “voice” through.
Eliza and Zelda about to give two fingers to the establishment.
In the technical categories the Oscar nominations were for Cinematography (Dan Laustsen); Film Editing (Sidney Wolinsky); Sound Editing (Nathan Robitaille and Nelson Ferreira); Sound Mixing (Glen Gauthier, Christian Cooke and Brad Zoern); Production Design (Paul D. Austerberry, Jeffrey A. Melvin and Shane Vieau); Original Score (Alexandre Desplat) and Costume Design (Luis Sequeira). And you really wouldn’t want to bet against any of these not to win, for the film is a technical delight. Right from the dreamlike opening titles (arguably, they missed a deserved nomination here for Visual Effects), the film is gorgeous to look at, with such brilliant detail in the production design that there is interesting stuff to look at in every frame. And the film editing is extraordinary: Elisa wobbles on the bucket she’s standing on, but it’s Strickland’s butt, perched on a table, that slips off. This is a film that deserves multiple repeat viewings.
The monster feeding the monster. Nick Searcy as General Hoyt with Strickland (Michael Shannon).
An the helm is the multi-talented Guillermo del Toro (“Pacific Rim”, “Crimson Peak”) who both directed and co-wrote the exceptionally smart screenplay (with Vanessa Taylor, “Divergent”) and is nominated for both. I actually found the story to be rather predictable, as regards Elisa’s story arc, but that in no way reduced my enjoyment of the film. For the “original screenplay” is nothing if not “original”…. it’s witty, intelligent and shocking at different turns.
The violence and sex won’t be for everyone… but this is a deep and rich movie experience that everyone who loves the movies should at least appreciate… hopefully in a dry cinema!
Well, in a word, yes.
Not since Spielberg entranced the world in 1982 with a love story between an isolated and lonely child and an alien, stranded a million light-years from home, have we seen a magical fairy-tale so well told.
Cleaning up at the (box) office. Sally Hawkins and Doug Jones as the creature.
Here Lewisham’s own Sally Hawkins (“Paddington”, “Godzilla“) plays Elisa Esposito, an attractive but mousy mute living above a cinema and next door to her best friend: a struggling artist called Giles (Richard Jenkins). Sexually-frustrated, Elisa works out those tensions in the bath every morning before heading off to work as a cleaner at a government research institute. Together with partner Zelda Fuller (Octavia Spencer, “Hidden Figures“) she is asked to clean a highly secured room where a mysterious aquatic creature is being studied by the cruel and militaristic Strickland (Michael Shannon, “Midnight Special“, “Nocturnal Animals“) and the more compassionate scientist Hoffstetler. (The latter is played by Michael Stuhlbarg (“Miss Sloane“, “Steve Jobs“) in a performance that wasn’t recognised by the Academy, but for me really held the film’s story together). Elisa forms a relationship with the creature, and as the scientific investigations turn darker, she becomes determined to help him.
When you think about it, the similarities in the screenplay with E.T. are quite striking. But this is most definitely not a kid’s film, containing full frontal nudity, sex and some considerable violence, some of it “hands-over-the-eyes” worthy. Most of this violence comes courtesy of Shannon’s character, who is truly monstrous. He is uncontrollably vicious, single-minded and amoral: a hand over the mouth to silence his wife during vigourous sex cleverly belies where his true lust currently lies. (Shannon is just so convincing in all of his roles that, after “Nocturnal Animals“, it is a bit of a surprise to see that he is still alive and well!)
It’s worth pointing out for balance at this point that my wife thought this portrayal was over-egged for its villany, and she rated the film less highly than I did because of it.
Michael Shannon as evil incarnate.
So its no Oscar nomination this time for Shannon as a supporting actor. But that honour goes to Richard Jenkins, who is spectacularly good as the movie-musical-loving and pie-munching neighbour who is drawn unwillingly into Elisa’s plans. Giles is a richly fashioned character – also the film’s narrator – who struggles to fit in with the cruel and rascist 1962 world that he finds himself in. “Sometimes I think I was born too early or too late for my life” he bemoans to the creature whose loneliness he relates to. A scene in a cafe where he fastidiously wipes all traces of pie-filling from his tongue is masterfully done.
Richard Hawkins and Sally Hawkins, hatching a plan.
Octavia Spencer is also Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actress, and it’s a magical partnership she shares with Hawkins, with each bouncing off each other wonderfully.
This leads to a ‘no brainer’ Oscar nomination for Sally Hawkins who delivers a star turn. She has to go through such a huge range of emotions in this film, and she genuinely makes you really care about the outcome like few films this year. It’s a little tricky since I haven’t seen “I Tonya” or “Ladybird” yet, but I would have thought that Ms Hawkins is going to possibly give Frances McDormand the closest run for her money on March 4th. My money would still be on McDormand for “3 Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri“, but the Oscar voters are bound to love “The Shape of Water”. For like “La La Land” last year, the film is (rather surprisingly for me) another love letter to Hollywood’s golden years, with Elisa and Giles living out their lives with classic movie music and dance numbers: a medium that Elisa only ever truly finds here “voice” through.
Eliza and Zelda about to give two fingers to the establishment.
In the technical categories the Oscar nominations were for Cinematography (Dan Laustsen); Film Editing (Sidney Wolinsky); Sound Editing (Nathan Robitaille and Nelson Ferreira); Sound Mixing (Glen Gauthier, Christian Cooke and Brad Zoern); Production Design (Paul D. Austerberry, Jeffrey A. Melvin and Shane Vieau); Original Score (Alexandre Desplat) and Costume Design (Luis Sequeira). And you really wouldn’t want to bet against any of these not to win, for the film is a technical delight. Right from the dreamlike opening titles (arguably, they missed a deserved nomination here for Visual Effects), the film is gorgeous to look at, with such brilliant detail in the production design that there is interesting stuff to look at in every frame. And the film editing is extraordinary: Elisa wobbles on the bucket she’s standing on, but it’s Strickland’s butt, perched on a table, that slips off. This is a film that deserves multiple repeat viewings.
The monster feeding the monster. Nick Searcy as General Hoyt with Strickland (Michael Shannon).
An the helm is the multi-talented Guillermo del Toro (“Pacific Rim”, “Crimson Peak”) who both directed and co-wrote the exceptionally smart screenplay (with Vanessa Taylor, “Divergent”) and is nominated for both. I actually found the story to be rather predictable, as regards Elisa’s story arc, but that in no way reduced my enjoyment of the film. For the “original screenplay” is nothing if not “original”…. it’s witty, intelligent and shocking at different turns.
The violence and sex won’t be for everyone… but this is a deep and rich movie experience that everyone who loves the movies should at least appreciate… hopefully in a dry cinema!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Instant Family (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Enjoyable and harmless comedy laced with a degree of sentimentality.
The Plot
Pete (Mark Wahlberg) and Ellie (Rose Byrne) are focused and business-oriented home designers. They’ve talked about having kids “sometime in the future” but the years – as years are want to do – are motoring away from them. Pete is concerned that if they have their own kids now then he will end up being an “old dad” (cue very funny, black-comedy, flashback). This leads them into contact with the State’s fostering service – led by Karen (Octavia Spencer) and Sharon (Tig Notaro) – and they progress into foster training. This introduces into their ‘perfect adult lives’ 15-year old Lizzy (Isabela Moner) and her younger siblings Juan (Gustavo Quiroz) and Lita (Julianna Gamiz). As these guys come from a troubled background Pete and Ellie find they have their work cut out. Who will crack first?
The turns
You’ve got to admire Mark Wahlberg as an actor. In the same vein as Steve Carell, he seems to be able to flex from dramatic (in his case, tough-guy action roles) to comedy without a blink. He’s nowhere near the calibre of actor as Carell, but he brings to all his roles a sense of menace – derived no doubt from his torrid criminal background in younger days. (His wiki page makes your eyes water: there’s a great biopic screenplay waiting to be written there! ) It must have made the kid actor who plays Charlie (Carson Holmes) actually soil himself at a key point in the film!
Wahlberg and the excellent Rose Byrne make a believable driven-couple, and Byrne has such a range of expressive faces that she can’t help but make you laugh.
Of the child actors, Nickelodeon star Isabella Moner shines with genuine brilliance, both in terms of her acting as the fiercely loyal Lizzy but also in terms of her musical ability (she sings the impressive end-title song). With Hollywood in ‘post-La-La-Showman: Here we go again’ mode, this is a talented young lady I predict might be in big demand over the next few years.
Top of my list of the most stupid “where the hell have I seen her before bang-my-head-against-the-cinema-wall” moments is the actress playing Ellie’s mother Jan. She is OF COURSE Julie Hagerty, air-hostess supreme from “Airplane!”.
Also good value, and topping my list of “I know her from lots of films but don’t know her name” is Margo Martindale* as Pete’s exuberant and easily bought mother Sandy. (*Must write this out 100 times before her picture appears in the Picturehouse Harbour Lights film quiz!).
A well-crafty script with some wayward characters
The script by director Sean (“Daddy’s Home”) Anders and John Morris zips along at a fine pace, albeit in a wholly predictable direction. It helps that I struggle the think of many films about the adoption process itself. Sure there have been lots of movies about children that have been adopted – Manchester By The Sea and Lion being two recent examples – but the only film I can immediately think of (and not in a good way) with foster care at its heart was the Katherine Heigl comedy from a few years ago “Life as we know it”. So this is good movie territory to mine.
There are some fine running jokes, notably young Juan’s penchant for constantly getting injured. However, the script also lapses as did Anders’ “Daddy’s Home 2” from last year – into moments of slushy sentimentality. (My dear departed Dad always used to affect an exaggerated snore at such points, and I could hear him in my head at regular intervals during the film!). I would have preferred a harder and blacker edge to the comedy: something that last year’s excellent “Game Night” pulled off so well.
There are also a couple of characters in the film that were poorly scripted and which just didn’t work. While Octavia Spencer was fine (channelling an almost identical version of her wisecracking and sardonic character from “The Shape of Water“), I just had no idea what her colleague Sharon (Tig Notaro) was supposed to be. The tone was all over the place. Similarly, who should pop up on a balcony in an unexpected cameo but the great Joan Cusack. And very funny she is too for the 10 second interruption. But the writers having got her there just couldn’t leave alone and we get a plain embarrassing extended interruption that strikes a duff note in the flow of the film.
Summary
The film is amusing and harmless without taxing many brain cells. Most notably unlike many so-called American ‘comedies’ it did actually make me laugh at multiple points. I should also point out that my wife absolutely loved it, rating it a strong 4* going on 5*.
But the really cute thing is that…
…the film is “inspired by a true family”: namely Anders’ own. He and his wife fostered three kids out of the US foster service, so the script is undoubtedly loosely based on their own experiences, which give it an extra impact for some of Peter and Ellie’s lines. In an essay for TIME (source: bustle.com) Anders wrote:
My wife Beth and I had been talking for years about whether we should have kids,” he wrote. “For the longest time we just felt like we couldn’t afford it. Then I sold a couple of scripts and was feeling like I might have a career, but we were in our 40s and worried we had left it too long. We knew kids would make our life bigger, so one day I joked, ‘Why don’t we just adopt a five-year-old and it will be like we got started five years ago?'”
It gives you a completely different perspective on the film knowing this. My wife after the film was saying “I’m not sure how accurately it portrays the fostering process”. But it clearly does.
Pete (Mark Wahlberg) and Ellie (Rose Byrne) are focused and business-oriented home designers. They’ve talked about having kids “sometime in the future” but the years – as years are want to do – are motoring away from them. Pete is concerned that if they have their own kids now then he will end up being an “old dad” (cue very funny, black-comedy, flashback). This leads them into contact with the State’s fostering service – led by Karen (Octavia Spencer) and Sharon (Tig Notaro) – and they progress into foster training. This introduces into their ‘perfect adult lives’ 15-year old Lizzy (Isabela Moner) and her younger siblings Juan (Gustavo Quiroz) and Lita (Julianna Gamiz). As these guys come from a troubled background Pete and Ellie find they have their work cut out. Who will crack first?
The turns
You’ve got to admire Mark Wahlberg as an actor. In the same vein as Steve Carell, he seems to be able to flex from dramatic (in his case, tough-guy action roles) to comedy without a blink. He’s nowhere near the calibre of actor as Carell, but he brings to all his roles a sense of menace – derived no doubt from his torrid criminal background in younger days. (His wiki page makes your eyes water: there’s a great biopic screenplay waiting to be written there! ) It must have made the kid actor who plays Charlie (Carson Holmes) actually soil himself at a key point in the film!
Wahlberg and the excellent Rose Byrne make a believable driven-couple, and Byrne has such a range of expressive faces that she can’t help but make you laugh.
Of the child actors, Nickelodeon star Isabella Moner shines with genuine brilliance, both in terms of her acting as the fiercely loyal Lizzy but also in terms of her musical ability (she sings the impressive end-title song). With Hollywood in ‘post-La-La-Showman: Here we go again’ mode, this is a talented young lady I predict might be in big demand over the next few years.
Top of my list of the most stupid “where the hell have I seen her before bang-my-head-against-the-cinema-wall” moments is the actress playing Ellie’s mother Jan. She is OF COURSE Julie Hagerty, air-hostess supreme from “Airplane!”.
Also good value, and topping my list of “I know her from lots of films but don’t know her name” is Margo Martindale* as Pete’s exuberant and easily bought mother Sandy. (*Must write this out 100 times before her picture appears in the Picturehouse Harbour Lights film quiz!).
A well-crafty script with some wayward characters
The script by director Sean (“Daddy’s Home”) Anders and John Morris zips along at a fine pace, albeit in a wholly predictable direction. It helps that I struggle the think of many films about the adoption process itself. Sure there have been lots of movies about children that have been adopted – Manchester By The Sea and Lion being two recent examples – but the only film I can immediately think of (and not in a good way) with foster care at its heart was the Katherine Heigl comedy from a few years ago “Life as we know it”. So this is good movie territory to mine.
There are some fine running jokes, notably young Juan’s penchant for constantly getting injured. However, the script also lapses as did Anders’ “Daddy’s Home 2” from last year – into moments of slushy sentimentality. (My dear departed Dad always used to affect an exaggerated snore at such points, and I could hear him in my head at regular intervals during the film!). I would have preferred a harder and blacker edge to the comedy: something that last year’s excellent “Game Night” pulled off so well.
There are also a couple of characters in the film that were poorly scripted and which just didn’t work. While Octavia Spencer was fine (channelling an almost identical version of her wisecracking and sardonic character from “The Shape of Water“), I just had no idea what her colleague Sharon (Tig Notaro) was supposed to be. The tone was all over the place. Similarly, who should pop up on a balcony in an unexpected cameo but the great Joan Cusack. And very funny she is too for the 10 second interruption. But the writers having got her there just couldn’t leave alone and we get a plain embarrassing extended interruption that strikes a duff note in the flow of the film.
Summary
The film is amusing and harmless without taxing many brain cells. Most notably unlike many so-called American ‘comedies’ it did actually make me laugh at multiple points. I should also point out that my wife absolutely loved it, rating it a strong 4* going on 5*.
But the really cute thing is that…
…the film is “inspired by a true family”: namely Anders’ own. He and his wife fostered three kids out of the US foster service, so the script is undoubtedly loosely based on their own experiences, which give it an extra impact for some of Peter and Ellie’s lines. In an essay for TIME (source: bustle.com) Anders wrote:
My wife Beth and I had been talking for years about whether we should have kids,” he wrote. “For the longest time we just felt like we couldn’t afford it. Then I sold a couple of scripts and was feeling like I might have a career, but we were in our 40s and worried we had left it too long. We knew kids would make our life bigger, so one day I joked, ‘Why don’t we just adopt a five-year-old and it will be like we got started five years ago?'”
It gives you a completely different perspective on the film knowing this. My wife after the film was saying “I’m not sure how accurately it portrays the fostering process”. But it clearly does.
Andy K (10821 KP) May 3, 2019