Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Denial (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Jewry Trial.
It’s the mid-90’s and Deborah Lipstadt (Rachael Weisz, “The Lobster“), an American professor of Holocaust studies at a US university has written a book naming and shaming David Irving (Timothy Spall, “Mr Turner”) as a Nazi-apologist who denies that the Holocaust ever happened. Filing a law suit against Penguin Books and Lipstadt in the UK, Lipstadt chooses to fight rather than settle and takes the case to the High Courts in a much publicised trial.
Help is required and Lipstadt is assigned a hot-shot solicitor (if that’s not an oxymoron) in the form of Anthony Julius (Andrew Scott, “Sherlock”) and top barrister Richard Rampton (Tom Wilkinson, “Selma“). The stage is set for an epic legal battle that will establish not just legal precedent but also historical precedent affecting the entire Jewish people.
This film’s trailer really appealed to me, and I was looking forward to this film. And that view clearly also got through to people of my age bracket (and older) since the cinema was pretty full. But ultimately I was disappointed by the film.
But first the good points.
The cinematography by Haris Zambarloukos (“Thor”, “Mamma Mia”) is memorable, particularly for the Auschwitz tour which is done in an impressively bleak way on an astoundingly bleak winter’s day.
Andrew Scott, so woefully miscast as “C” in “Spectre“, here is a nice shoo-in for the cocksure but aloof expert. And Tom Wilkinson, who can seldom put a movie foot wrong, is also perfectly cast as the claret-swigging defence-lead: passionless and analytical even when facing the horrors of a trip to Auschwitz.
Timothy Spall’s Irving is well portrayed as the intelligent and articulate – albeit deluded – eccentric he no doubt is.
There are also some nice cameo performances, including John Sessions (“Florence Foster Jenkins“) as an Oxbridge history boffin and Mark Gatiss (“Sherlock”) as an Auschwitz expert.
However, these positives don’t outweigh the big negative that the broader ensemble cast never really gels together well. The first time this is evident is in an office meeting of the defence team where the interactions have a sheen of falseness about them that is barely hidden behind some weak script and forced nervous laughter. Tea can’t help.
In particular, attractive Kiwi actress Caren Pistorius (“The Light Between Oceans“) seems to have been given a poor hand to play with as the junior member of the team. A late night interaction with her boyfriend, who whinges at her for having to work late, seems to be taken from a more sexist age: “the 70’s called and they want their script back”.
None of this is helped by Rachel Weisz, who I’m normally a fan of, but here she is hindered by some rather dodgy lines by David Hare (“The Reader”) and an unconvincing (well, to me at least) New York accent. For me I’m afraid she just doesn’t seem to adequately convey her passion for the cause.
While the execution of the court scenes are well done, the film is hampered by its opening five words: “Based on a True Story”. This is something of a disease at the moment in the movies, and whilst in many films (the recent “Lion” for example) the story is in the journey rather than the result, with “Denial” the story is designed to build to a tense result that unfortunately lacks any sort of tension – since the result is pre-ordained.
This is all a great shame, since director Mick Jackson (“LA Story”, in his first feature for nearly 15 years) has the potential here for a great movie. Perhaps a more fictionalised version (“vaguely based on a true story”) might have provided more of a foundation for a better film?
Help is required and Lipstadt is assigned a hot-shot solicitor (if that’s not an oxymoron) in the form of Anthony Julius (Andrew Scott, “Sherlock”) and top barrister Richard Rampton (Tom Wilkinson, “Selma“). The stage is set for an epic legal battle that will establish not just legal precedent but also historical precedent affecting the entire Jewish people.
This film’s trailer really appealed to me, and I was looking forward to this film. And that view clearly also got through to people of my age bracket (and older) since the cinema was pretty full. But ultimately I was disappointed by the film.
But first the good points.
The cinematography by Haris Zambarloukos (“Thor”, “Mamma Mia”) is memorable, particularly for the Auschwitz tour which is done in an impressively bleak way on an astoundingly bleak winter’s day.
Andrew Scott, so woefully miscast as “C” in “Spectre“, here is a nice shoo-in for the cocksure but aloof expert. And Tom Wilkinson, who can seldom put a movie foot wrong, is also perfectly cast as the claret-swigging defence-lead: passionless and analytical even when facing the horrors of a trip to Auschwitz.
Timothy Spall’s Irving is well portrayed as the intelligent and articulate – albeit deluded – eccentric he no doubt is.
There are also some nice cameo performances, including John Sessions (“Florence Foster Jenkins“) as an Oxbridge history boffin and Mark Gatiss (“Sherlock”) as an Auschwitz expert.
However, these positives don’t outweigh the big negative that the broader ensemble cast never really gels together well. The first time this is evident is in an office meeting of the defence team where the interactions have a sheen of falseness about them that is barely hidden behind some weak script and forced nervous laughter. Tea can’t help.
In particular, attractive Kiwi actress Caren Pistorius (“The Light Between Oceans“) seems to have been given a poor hand to play with as the junior member of the team. A late night interaction with her boyfriend, who whinges at her for having to work late, seems to be taken from a more sexist age: “the 70’s called and they want their script back”.
None of this is helped by Rachel Weisz, who I’m normally a fan of, but here she is hindered by some rather dodgy lines by David Hare (“The Reader”) and an unconvincing (well, to me at least) New York accent. For me I’m afraid she just doesn’t seem to adequately convey her passion for the cause.
While the execution of the court scenes are well done, the film is hampered by its opening five words: “Based on a True Story”. This is something of a disease at the moment in the movies, and whilst in many films (the recent “Lion” for example) the story is in the journey rather than the result, with “Denial” the story is designed to build to a tense result that unfortunately lacks any sort of tension – since the result is pre-ordained.
This is all a great shame, since director Mick Jackson (“LA Story”, in his first feature for nearly 15 years) has the potential here for a great movie. Perhaps a more fictionalised version (“vaguely based on a true story”) might have provided more of a foundation for a better film?
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore (2022) in Movies
Apr 30, 2022
The Magic is Fading
Alas, the magic is fading in the Wizarding World
The 3rd installment of the Fantastic Beasts saga, THE SECRETS OF DUMBLEDORE is satisfying enough for fans of the ongoing Wizarding World of Harry Potter universe and will be time well spent for those of you that have watched all 8 Harry Potter films and the first 2 FANTASTIC BEASTS films, but it is nothing…magical.
Picking up where the 2nd film (THE CRIMES OF GRINDEWALD) left off, the arch-nemesis of Dumbledore (a game Jude Law) is in power and looking to start a war with the Muggles (non-magic folk). A ragtag group of heroes (are there any other kind) led by Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) are humanity’s only hope.
And…while this worked well in the first series of film…this setup falls rather flat as it has a “been there done that” feel to it that is not really elevated above the ordinary.
The reason are numerous:
First, Newt Scamander is no Harry Potter. While Eddie Redymayne plays an interesting, quirky, central character - a character who’s unique skills were needed to defeat the bad guy in the first film - he is, really, a secondary character, yet he is the one we follow throughout the film. Kind of like watching the Harry Potter films through the eyes of Neville Longbottom.
Secondly, Grindewald (this time played by Mads Mikkelsen, replacing Johnny Depp) is no Voldemort. Grindewald was an interesting character set up in the first film, but by this film, he is pretty bland (and pretty blandly played by Mikkeslen who is, frankly, miscast).
Thirdly, Dumbledore (Jude Law in a very good performance, one that needed to be larger and more central) is sidelined for most of this film - a film about the battle between Grindewald and Dumbledore, a stumble (plotwise) to be sure in an awkward attempt to keeping the Newt Scamander character front and center.
Fortunately, the supporting cast is strong from Dan Fogler’s muggle, Jacob Kowalski to his love, Queenie (Alison Sudol) to Newt’s brother, Theseus (Callum Turner) to Newt’s assistant Bunty (Victoria Yeates) to Dumbledore’s brother, Aberforth (Richard Coyle) - all have their moments and are interesting (enough) to watch.
Unfortunately, Ezra Miller’s conflicted villain, Credence is poorly written with a crescendo to his character that lands with a thud. And, the inexplicable reason that Katherine Waterston’s main character of Tina is sidelined (rumors are she conflicted with J.K. Rowling) just doesn’t land, so, consequently, 2 major pieces from the first 2 films just don’t work.
What does work in this film is the magical sequences, as handled by Harry Potter veteran David Yates (who has now helmed 6 films in the Wizarding World franchise), the magical scenes are truly…magical. They are fun to watch and the real reason to watch this film, but the story is weak with a misguided viewpoint character that diminishes the fantasy for all.
Rumors are that this was supposed to be a 5 film franchise, but with box office diminishing for each successive Fantastic Beasts films, the filmmakers wisely decided to wrap up most storylines in this film.
It’s time to say goodbye to FANTASTIC BEASTS, but it should be time for the Wizarding World to go the way of Star Wars, Marvel and Star Trek - streaming TV series that breathes new life - and new, interesting characters - to a sagging franchise.
In the meantime, FANTASTIC BEASTS: THE SECRETS OF DUMBLEDORE is “good enough” and since it is all we have at the moment, it will have to do.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The 3rd installment of the Fantastic Beasts saga, THE SECRETS OF DUMBLEDORE is satisfying enough for fans of the ongoing Wizarding World of Harry Potter universe and will be time well spent for those of you that have watched all 8 Harry Potter films and the first 2 FANTASTIC BEASTS films, but it is nothing…magical.
Picking up where the 2nd film (THE CRIMES OF GRINDEWALD) left off, the arch-nemesis of Dumbledore (a game Jude Law) is in power and looking to start a war with the Muggles (non-magic folk). A ragtag group of heroes (are there any other kind) led by Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) are humanity’s only hope.
And…while this worked well in the first series of film…this setup falls rather flat as it has a “been there done that” feel to it that is not really elevated above the ordinary.
The reason are numerous:
First, Newt Scamander is no Harry Potter. While Eddie Redymayne plays an interesting, quirky, central character - a character who’s unique skills were needed to defeat the bad guy in the first film - he is, really, a secondary character, yet he is the one we follow throughout the film. Kind of like watching the Harry Potter films through the eyes of Neville Longbottom.
Secondly, Grindewald (this time played by Mads Mikkelsen, replacing Johnny Depp) is no Voldemort. Grindewald was an interesting character set up in the first film, but by this film, he is pretty bland (and pretty blandly played by Mikkeslen who is, frankly, miscast).
Thirdly, Dumbledore (Jude Law in a very good performance, one that needed to be larger and more central) is sidelined for most of this film - a film about the battle between Grindewald and Dumbledore, a stumble (plotwise) to be sure in an awkward attempt to keeping the Newt Scamander character front and center.
Fortunately, the supporting cast is strong from Dan Fogler’s muggle, Jacob Kowalski to his love, Queenie (Alison Sudol) to Newt’s brother, Theseus (Callum Turner) to Newt’s assistant Bunty (Victoria Yeates) to Dumbledore’s brother, Aberforth (Richard Coyle) - all have their moments and are interesting (enough) to watch.
Unfortunately, Ezra Miller’s conflicted villain, Credence is poorly written with a crescendo to his character that lands with a thud. And, the inexplicable reason that Katherine Waterston’s main character of Tina is sidelined (rumors are she conflicted with J.K. Rowling) just doesn’t land, so, consequently, 2 major pieces from the first 2 films just don’t work.
What does work in this film is the magical sequences, as handled by Harry Potter veteran David Yates (who has now helmed 6 films in the Wizarding World franchise), the magical scenes are truly…magical. They are fun to watch and the real reason to watch this film, but the story is weak with a misguided viewpoint character that diminishes the fantasy for all.
Rumors are that this was supposed to be a 5 film franchise, but with box office diminishing for each successive Fantastic Beasts films, the filmmakers wisely decided to wrap up most storylines in this film.
It’s time to say goodbye to FANTASTIC BEASTS, but it should be time for the Wizarding World to go the way of Star Wars, Marvel and Star Trek - streaming TV series that breathes new life - and new, interesting characters - to a sagging franchise.
In the meantime, FANTASTIC BEASTS: THE SECRETS OF DUMBLEDORE is “good enough” and since it is all we have at the moment, it will have to do.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness (2022) in Movies
May 9, 2022
Fun...with heart
Doctor Strange is my favorite Marvel character. This comes from my college days when one of my roommates had a stack of Dr. Strange comics and I tore through them - one of the few Marvel comics that I have actually read. So I was thrilled to find out that Sam Raimi was coming back (was he ever gone?) to direct the 2nd solo Dr. Strange film, DOCTOR STRANGE IN THE MULTIVERSE OF MADNESS.
And it does not disappoint for while DOCTOR STRANGE IN THE MULTIVERSE OF MADNESS is not quite as “mad” as one would expect by the build up to this film, it delivers solid action by actors playing characters that are easy to root for (or root against) all done with a wink in the eye and a focus on Marvel’s secret weapon…relationships and heart.
You will find no brooding “dark knights” in this one.
Sprightly Directed by Sam Raimi (THE EVIL DEAD), Multiverse (as I will call it from here on out) finds our titular hero (Benedict Cumberbatch) connecting with - and working to save - a multiverse hopping heroine in the form of America Chavez (Xochitl Gomez) from an evil that wishes to drain her of her multiverse hopping powers.
What happens next is a multiverse hopping action/adventure/horror/chase film that really shows off the cinematic sensibilities of Director Raimi who’s mark is all over this film…for the better. Multiverse swerves really close to being a horror film, but, fortunately for it’s box office fortunes, remains firmly in the action/adventure/superhero genre. Only a director like Raimi can ride this fine line as well as he has and it works for this film.
Cumberbatch, of course, is terrific as Doctor Stephen Strange and he slides, comfortably, back into the cloak and sling-ring. Benedict Wong (Wong - The Sorcerer Supreme), Rachel McAdams (Dr. Christine Palmer) and Chiwetel Ejiofor (Baron Mordo) all reprise their characters from the first film and they all seem re-energized in their roles for this one while Xochitl Gomez makes a winning debut as America Chavez.
But, make no mistake, the personae that steals this film is Elizabeth Olson as the grieving Wanda Maximoff/Scarlett Witch who Dr. Strange reaches out to when America Chavez falls into his lap. She is outstanding and is really the driving force here. It would not be a misnomer to say that this film easily could have been titled THE SCARLET WITCH IN THE MULTIVERSE OF MADNESS.
My one quibble with this film is that it doesn’t go to enough Multiverses to suit my tastes and is not quite as “mad” as one would hope - our hero does spend a rather large amount of time in one multiverse - but that is a minor issue and this one multiverse does bring many fun cameos…cameos that will not be spoiled here.
Which brings up one last point. See this film, if you can, in a theater full of the aforementioned fanboys. The full house IMAX theater that I caught this film in went absolutely nuts when one specific person showed his/her face for their extended cameo and that was a very fun time.
As is DOCTOR STRANGE IN THE MULTIVERSE OF MADNESS - it works well as a stand alone film, but if you want to do “some homework”, check out the Disney+ TV Series WANDAVISION (essential), the first DOCTOR STRANGE movie (good background) and the animated Disney+ series MARVEL’S WHAT IF (some nice callbacks).
And, of course, stay for the end credits…it sets up DOCTOR STRANGE 3, a film that can’t get here soon enough.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And it does not disappoint for while DOCTOR STRANGE IN THE MULTIVERSE OF MADNESS is not quite as “mad” as one would expect by the build up to this film, it delivers solid action by actors playing characters that are easy to root for (or root against) all done with a wink in the eye and a focus on Marvel’s secret weapon…relationships and heart.
You will find no brooding “dark knights” in this one.
Sprightly Directed by Sam Raimi (THE EVIL DEAD), Multiverse (as I will call it from here on out) finds our titular hero (Benedict Cumberbatch) connecting with - and working to save - a multiverse hopping heroine in the form of America Chavez (Xochitl Gomez) from an evil that wishes to drain her of her multiverse hopping powers.
What happens next is a multiverse hopping action/adventure/horror/chase film that really shows off the cinematic sensibilities of Director Raimi who’s mark is all over this film…for the better. Multiverse swerves really close to being a horror film, but, fortunately for it’s box office fortunes, remains firmly in the action/adventure/superhero genre. Only a director like Raimi can ride this fine line as well as he has and it works for this film.
Cumberbatch, of course, is terrific as Doctor Stephen Strange and he slides, comfortably, back into the cloak and sling-ring. Benedict Wong (Wong - The Sorcerer Supreme), Rachel McAdams (Dr. Christine Palmer) and Chiwetel Ejiofor (Baron Mordo) all reprise their characters from the first film and they all seem re-energized in their roles for this one while Xochitl Gomez makes a winning debut as America Chavez.
But, make no mistake, the personae that steals this film is Elizabeth Olson as the grieving Wanda Maximoff/Scarlett Witch who Dr. Strange reaches out to when America Chavez falls into his lap. She is outstanding and is really the driving force here. It would not be a misnomer to say that this film easily could have been titled THE SCARLET WITCH IN THE MULTIVERSE OF MADNESS.
My one quibble with this film is that it doesn’t go to enough Multiverses to suit my tastes and is not quite as “mad” as one would hope - our hero does spend a rather large amount of time in one multiverse - but that is a minor issue and this one multiverse does bring many fun cameos…cameos that will not be spoiled here.
Which brings up one last point. See this film, if you can, in a theater full of the aforementioned fanboys. The full house IMAX theater that I caught this film in went absolutely nuts when one specific person showed his/her face for their extended cameo and that was a very fun time.
As is DOCTOR STRANGE IN THE MULTIVERSE OF MADNESS - it works well as a stand alone film, but if you want to do “some homework”, check out the Disney+ TV Series WANDAVISION (essential), the first DOCTOR STRANGE movie (good background) and the animated Disney+ series MARVEL’S WHAT IF (some nice callbacks).
And, of course, stay for the end credits…it sets up DOCTOR STRANGE 3, a film that can’t get here soon enough.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Blade Runner 2049 (2017) in Movies
Oct 9, 2017 (Updated Oct 13, 2017)
One of the most visually stunning movies I have ever seen. (8 more)
Awesome production design.
Brilliant direction.
Beautiful cinematography.
Solid performances.
Incredible SFX.
Great score.
Good use of lighting.
Well written script and dialogue.
Villeneuve Strikes Gold Yet Again
Wow, this movie is a feast for your eyeballs. I won't go on about the visuals too much, as I'm sure that you have already heard how good looking this movie is, all I'll say is this; the movie deserves to be seen in the biggest screen possible. What is even better though, is unlike a Zack Snyder film, Blade Runner 2049 has more to it than just surface level, pretty visuals.
Somehow, Denis Villeneuve has achieved the impossible. He has directed a movie every year for the last five years and they have all been absolutely incredible, also he has managed to pull off a fantastic sequel to a 35 year old classic.
I loved almost every part of this movie. The direction was masterful to watch, with the movie being moved along at a deliberate, purposeful pace, rather than rushing through from action scene to action scene. The sets in this were out of this world, some props were really cool to look at and the use of mostly practical backdrops made a huge difference as opposed to using an abundance of green screen. Rodger Deakins' cinematography was astonishing, you could honestly screen grab an image from any time stamp in this movie and it would work perfectly as a beautiful desktop background.
I also thought that the performances were fantastic and everyone did a great job. Although Ford doesn't appear until the movie's third act, when he does he is great. Gosling commands his leading man role as we've come to expect him to. Robin Wright and Dave Bautista were the other standouts for me in terms of their performances.
The more technical elements of the movie worked perfectly in tandem with the story being told as well. The special effects were beautifully implemented and the lighting in the movie added a whole other layer of visual depth as well. The score also worked for the tone that the movie was aiming to achieve. The script was also solid and tightly woven.
The only thing I will say is; if you are going into the film expecting a sci-fi action blockbuster, you will come out disappointed. This is a slow paced, sci-fi noir, detective story. There are a few sparse moments of action and it does feel impactful when it occurs, but it is not the focus of the movie at all.
The one small element that bothered me was Jared Leto's performance. He took me out of the movie and was the only cast member who didn't feel like a real character within this world. Maybe I'm just being biased, as Jared Leto has always annoyed me in general, but for me he was the one bad part of this near masterpiece. Thankfully he doesn't get that much screen time, so it could have been worse. Also, the fact that David Bowie was originally cast in that role adds an extra sprinkle of salt in the wound.
Unfortunately, much like the original movie, this hasn't done great at the box office on its opening weekend. If like me, you are sick of mindless sequel cash cows that are total garbage such as Jurassic World, go and see this movie and vote with your wallet. If you don't, we are telling Hollywood that as a collective, we don't want sequels with depth and integrity, we want dumb, rushed, forgettable nonsense and that is what we will end up getting. Support this movie for the betterment of filmmaking and cinema, even if you haven't seen the original.
Overall I loved the movie, but I can see why people are finding it divisive. For me though, the vast majority of this movie's parts were absolutely fantastic and come together to form a journey that you must experience for yourself.
Somehow, Denis Villeneuve has achieved the impossible. He has directed a movie every year for the last five years and they have all been absolutely incredible, also he has managed to pull off a fantastic sequel to a 35 year old classic.
I loved almost every part of this movie. The direction was masterful to watch, with the movie being moved along at a deliberate, purposeful pace, rather than rushing through from action scene to action scene. The sets in this were out of this world, some props were really cool to look at and the use of mostly practical backdrops made a huge difference as opposed to using an abundance of green screen. Rodger Deakins' cinematography was astonishing, you could honestly screen grab an image from any time stamp in this movie and it would work perfectly as a beautiful desktop background.
I also thought that the performances were fantastic and everyone did a great job. Although Ford doesn't appear until the movie's third act, when he does he is great. Gosling commands his leading man role as we've come to expect him to. Robin Wright and Dave Bautista were the other standouts for me in terms of their performances.
The more technical elements of the movie worked perfectly in tandem with the story being told as well. The special effects were beautifully implemented and the lighting in the movie added a whole other layer of visual depth as well. The score also worked for the tone that the movie was aiming to achieve. The script was also solid and tightly woven.
The only thing I will say is; if you are going into the film expecting a sci-fi action blockbuster, you will come out disappointed. This is a slow paced, sci-fi noir, detective story. There are a few sparse moments of action and it does feel impactful when it occurs, but it is not the focus of the movie at all.
The one small element that bothered me was Jared Leto's performance. He took me out of the movie and was the only cast member who didn't feel like a real character within this world. Maybe I'm just being biased, as Jared Leto has always annoyed me in general, but for me he was the one bad part of this near masterpiece. Thankfully he doesn't get that much screen time, so it could have been worse. Also, the fact that David Bowie was originally cast in that role adds an extra sprinkle of salt in the wound.
Unfortunately, much like the original movie, this hasn't done great at the box office on its opening weekend. If like me, you are sick of mindless sequel cash cows that are total garbage such as Jurassic World, go and see this movie and vote with your wallet. If you don't, we are telling Hollywood that as a collective, we don't want sequels with depth and integrity, we want dumb, rushed, forgettable nonsense and that is what we will end up getting. Support this movie for the betterment of filmmaking and cinema, even if you haven't seen the original.
Overall I loved the movie, but I can see why people are finding it divisive. For me though, the vast majority of this movie's parts were absolutely fantastic and come together to form a journey that you must experience for yourself.
DiscoStu (6 KP) rated Bright (2017) in Movies
Jan 8, 2018 (Updated Jan 8, 2018)
“A competent buddy cop movie that offers solid pacing and character portrayals at the expense of building up the films (admittedly) interesting universe”.
Contains spoilers, click to show
Netflix’s ‘Bright’, directed by David Ayer (Suicide Squad) and starring Will Smith and Joel Edgerton, brings the big budget box office trappings of a fully fledged cinema release to their home streaming subscription service and arguably the end result is a fun and enjoyable, if slightly flawed, buddy-cop-movie-with-a-twist that sets up a universe you’ll likely want to see more of.
Smith plays Daryl Ward, a weary veteran L.A. cop reluctantly partnered with orc partner Nick, the first and only orc to make the force in this alternate earth story. The film opens with Ward taking a round of buckshot from an orc thug whilst Nick looks on waiting for a burrito from a street vendor. The incident leaves a distrust between Ward and Nick, with Ward unsure whether his partner really has his back after Nick not only failed to step up and prevent the shooting but also failed to apprehend the orc perpetrator during the ensuing foot chase. Ward also finds himself at odds with other members of the force who don’t share the police’s ‘progressive’ attitudes of allowing orcs into the force.
The film briefly touches on a two thousand year old conflict between the nine armies and the Dark Lord who was defeated when various races allied to defeat him. In the established lore the orcs allied with the Dark Lord and have been subjugated ever since. The film attempts to portray the orcs through a social commentary that reflects the black community today and how heavy handed the film tackles the subject will probably depend on the viewer. For me it was handled sensitively enough without being too in your face.
The film sees the two protagonists dispatched to a disturbance that quickly escalates to a situation that goes from bad to worse. Finding themselves on the run with a Bright, the film’s titular white haired magic wielders, and a coveted magic wand Ward and Nick have to navigate hostile L.A. gang land environments whilst pursued by Inferni (the magic version of the Illuminati), the police and human and orc gangsters, all who have their own plans for the wand.
The film is shot well, with plenty of scenery that builds up the shared world of humans, orcs, elves , centaurs and the other races that we don’t get to spend any time with. A montage at the start of the film shows various L.A. scenery graffiti tagged with striking imagery depicting the struggle of orcs in an oppressed landscape. Evidently, orc lives matter. The film also doesn’t struggle for pacing. The two hour runtime services the story well enough, even if some of the world building and character exploration suffers as a result. I would have liked to have spent more time exploring the shared history of the various races and understanding the motivations of the stories’ villains but sadly these elements are undersold in favour of a shorter runtime that hurries the narrative along. To the credit of the writers and the director this world bares revisiting and at the time of writing it sounds like Netflix know this too with a sequel already greenlit.
Bright is a fun jaunt in a world I’d like to get to know better. Smith and Edgerton are strong leads who share a strong chemistry and make you care about their characters. The bad guys don’t fare as well here, especially disappointing given that Noomi Rapace is the lead antagonist but hopefully a sequel will correct some of these missteps. Bright feels like a £20 cinema ticket movie and gives enough to the viewer that you’ll want to discuss it with friends afterwards. As a film bundled with your Netflix subscription it’s hard to be too critical.
Smith plays Daryl Ward, a weary veteran L.A. cop reluctantly partnered with orc partner Nick, the first and only orc to make the force in this alternate earth story. The film opens with Ward taking a round of buckshot from an orc thug whilst Nick looks on waiting for a burrito from a street vendor. The incident leaves a distrust between Ward and Nick, with Ward unsure whether his partner really has his back after Nick not only failed to step up and prevent the shooting but also failed to apprehend the orc perpetrator during the ensuing foot chase. Ward also finds himself at odds with other members of the force who don’t share the police’s ‘progressive’ attitudes of allowing orcs into the force.
The film briefly touches on a two thousand year old conflict between the nine armies and the Dark Lord who was defeated when various races allied to defeat him. In the established lore the orcs allied with the Dark Lord and have been subjugated ever since. The film attempts to portray the orcs through a social commentary that reflects the black community today and how heavy handed the film tackles the subject will probably depend on the viewer. For me it was handled sensitively enough without being too in your face.
The film sees the two protagonists dispatched to a disturbance that quickly escalates to a situation that goes from bad to worse. Finding themselves on the run with a Bright, the film’s titular white haired magic wielders, and a coveted magic wand Ward and Nick have to navigate hostile L.A. gang land environments whilst pursued by Inferni (the magic version of the Illuminati), the police and human and orc gangsters, all who have their own plans for the wand.
The film is shot well, with plenty of scenery that builds up the shared world of humans, orcs, elves , centaurs and the other races that we don’t get to spend any time with. A montage at the start of the film shows various L.A. scenery graffiti tagged with striking imagery depicting the struggle of orcs in an oppressed landscape. Evidently, orc lives matter. The film also doesn’t struggle for pacing. The two hour runtime services the story well enough, even if some of the world building and character exploration suffers as a result. I would have liked to have spent more time exploring the shared history of the various races and understanding the motivations of the stories’ villains but sadly these elements are undersold in favour of a shorter runtime that hurries the narrative along. To the credit of the writers and the director this world bares revisiting and at the time of writing it sounds like Netflix know this too with a sequel already greenlit.
Bright is a fun jaunt in a world I’d like to get to know better. Smith and Edgerton are strong leads who share a strong chemistry and make you care about their characters. The bad guys don’t fare as well here, especially disappointing given that Noomi Rapace is the lead antagonist but hopefully a sequel will correct some of these missteps. Bright feels like a £20 cinema ticket movie and gives enough to the viewer that you’ll want to discuss it with friends afterwards. As a film bundled with your Netflix subscription it’s hard to be too critical.
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) rated Supernatural - Season 1 in TV
Apr 20, 2017
Great Character development (2 more)
Brilliant take on the myths/legends lore
Somewhat educational
Saving People, Hunting Things, The Family Business...
Supernatural Season One first aired in 2005, and I was only 10 years old when I first watched it with my Dad. I didn't sleep for right for ages and didn't look in a mirror for a long time. However, now when I watch it, this show still has the horror factor but my brain has grown accustomed to the genre so it doesn't necessarily frighten me these days but it is very creepy.
The first thing I loved about this show was that the lore's it followed were real from the legend of Bloody Mary, to the Woman in White and even a Wendigo. I knew about these legends but this show taught me more about what people believed about them and how they came to be, so this show is somewhat educational as well as being a great action horror drama show.
SPOILERS AHEAD!
So in Season One we are introduced to a family who witness the death of their mother/wife as she bursts into a fiery explosion on the ceiling of baby Sam's nursery room. Fast forward years later and Sam's in college/university and has left his past behind him until his brother Dean shows up to tell him their Dad has gone missing after a 'Hunting' trip.
This is where we learn that Sam, Dean and their Father, were actual in the life of Hunters who hunt down demons, ghosts/spirits, and monsters.
This show takes you one a journey with Sam and Dean saving lives from all sorts of strange and horrifying evil beings, who don't always turn out to be an evil being, just tortured or maybe even a being trying to warn them of a greater evil.
The effects are on par with a lot of big budget movies, even better than some of the most recent box office hits and in 2005, that says a lot about how the show can only get better with age. And it has!
Writer Eric Kripke truly did create something spectacular and to say that it's still running to this day, with a whole 12 seasons finished and a 13th season coming soon, it's hard to believe that it can still stay fresh and entertaining with this genre, but when you watch this show I guarantee you'll be entertained as there are dozens of pop culture references in every episode from X- Files to Lord of the Rings and many more, and with soundtracks that include rock and metal bands such as AC/DC it's hard to wrap your head around just how awesome this show is.
Many episodes are either named after movies ("Children Shouldn't Play with Dead Things", "The Usual Suspects", "I Know What You Did Last Summer") or classic rock songs ("In My Time of Dying", "Born Under a Bad Sign", "What is and What Should Never Be", "Sympathy For The Devil", "When The Levee Breaks"). - Copied from IMDB
The on screen chemistry between characters is brilliant and more often than not, even in serious situations, it can become hilarious with cheesy one liners or pop culture references used with perfect timing to lighten the mood of the show.
Sam and Dean (portrayed by Jared Padalecki and Jensen Ackles) have some of the best character development that I've seen in a show, and sometimes throughout the different series' the formula of arguing, falling out, and coming back to one another, can become somewhat tedious and repetitive making you scream at the TV saying "WHY!? YOU KNOW YOU'RE JUST GOING TO REALIZE YOU NEED EACH OTHER!" but if you think about it, that's how brothers would be in this situation. Having to spend every day with your brother on the road fighting the unthinkable, it would be stressful and tensions would run high, but you'd soon realize that after everything you've been through, who else could you feel comfortable around?
If you're into the paranormal or want to start learning more about different paranormal legends then this is the show for you.
TIP: For further entertainment, watch the bloopers. Some of the most hilarious clips I have ever seen from a show ;)
The first thing I loved about this show was that the lore's it followed were real from the legend of Bloody Mary, to the Woman in White and even a Wendigo. I knew about these legends but this show taught me more about what people believed about them and how they came to be, so this show is somewhat educational as well as being a great action horror drama show.
SPOILERS AHEAD!
So in Season One we are introduced to a family who witness the death of their mother/wife as she bursts into a fiery explosion on the ceiling of baby Sam's nursery room. Fast forward years later and Sam's in college/university and has left his past behind him until his brother Dean shows up to tell him their Dad has gone missing after a 'Hunting' trip.
This is where we learn that Sam, Dean and their Father, were actual in the life of Hunters who hunt down demons, ghosts/spirits, and monsters.
This show takes you one a journey with Sam and Dean saving lives from all sorts of strange and horrifying evil beings, who don't always turn out to be an evil being, just tortured or maybe even a being trying to warn them of a greater evil.
The effects are on par with a lot of big budget movies, even better than some of the most recent box office hits and in 2005, that says a lot about how the show can only get better with age. And it has!
Writer Eric Kripke truly did create something spectacular and to say that it's still running to this day, with a whole 12 seasons finished and a 13th season coming soon, it's hard to believe that it can still stay fresh and entertaining with this genre, but when you watch this show I guarantee you'll be entertained as there are dozens of pop culture references in every episode from X- Files to Lord of the Rings and many more, and with soundtracks that include rock and metal bands such as AC/DC it's hard to wrap your head around just how awesome this show is.
Many episodes are either named after movies ("Children Shouldn't Play with Dead Things", "The Usual Suspects", "I Know What You Did Last Summer") or classic rock songs ("In My Time of Dying", "Born Under a Bad Sign", "What is and What Should Never Be", "Sympathy For The Devil", "When The Levee Breaks"). - Copied from IMDB
The on screen chemistry between characters is brilliant and more often than not, even in serious situations, it can become hilarious with cheesy one liners or pop culture references used with perfect timing to lighten the mood of the show.
Sam and Dean (portrayed by Jared Padalecki and Jensen Ackles) have some of the best character development that I've seen in a show, and sometimes throughout the different series' the formula of arguing, falling out, and coming back to one another, can become somewhat tedious and repetitive making you scream at the TV saying "WHY!? YOU KNOW YOU'RE JUST GOING TO REALIZE YOU NEED EACH OTHER!" but if you think about it, that's how brothers would be in this situation. Having to spend every day with your brother on the road fighting the unthinkable, it would be stressful and tensions would run high, but you'd soon realize that after everything you've been through, who else could you feel comfortable around?
If you're into the paranormal or want to start learning more about different paranormal legends then this is the show for you.
TIP: For further entertainment, watch the bloopers. Some of the most hilarious clips I have ever seen from a show ;)
Midge (525 KP) rated Death In Provence in Books
Feb 2, 2019
Many twists and turns of the plot (1 more)
Great pacing
A Light And Relaxing Read
DEATH IN PROVENCE is a wonderful, light, and relaxed read with all of the matching vibes you get when on holiday. That’s exactly how I felt - this novel is almost as good being on a long vacation.
It is a refreshing, mystery fiction novel set in wonderfully scenic St Merlot, a sleepy, quiet village that has infrequent visitors at the unfashionable end of the Luberon Valley, France. St Merlot is unspoilt, with dry stone walls and wildflowers.
What’s really likeable about it straight-away are the opening chapters that draw you into the main character, Penelope Kite. Recently retired and divorced, she is an optimistic, happy, fifty-year-old with plenty of joie-de-vivre. Penelope, or Penny to her friends, has put her unfaithful ex-husband and her ungrateful stepchildren first, for a long time. Since she left her job in forensics at the Home Office in England, she’s been an unpaid babysitter and chauffeur for her grandchildren. Now, she’s going to start living for herself so she buys her dream house, Le Chant d’Eau, or The Song of Water. The stone farmhouse tucked high in the hills is in need of major restoration but is complete with a garden, swimming pool, and sweeping mountain vistas.
But not long after her arrival at Le Chant d’Eau, a corpse is found floating in her swimming pool. The local detective doesn’t seem particularly interested in finding out either the truth or the murderer, but Penny knows a thing or two about murder investigations herself so she starts an investigation of her own.
Enter Clemence Valencourt, the chic but supercilious estate agent, the disdainful chief of police, Inspector Paul Gamelin brought in from the headquarters of the Police Municipale in Cavaillon to investigate. He is 40-ish, has a tanned narrow face, greying hair and a grave demeanour. He also speaks excellent English. The devilishly handsome local mayor is called in to formally identify the corpse. He is the maire de St Merlot, and is gorgeous, with floppy sun-streaked hair, a caramel tan and chiselled cheekbones He also has stunning dark blue eyes...
All this and being tempted by the delightful food and drink delicacies that Provence has to offer. Luckily her kind and high-spirited, old friend, Frankie who is conveniently fluid in French is just a flight away.
One of the highlights of the book is following the many twists and turns of the plot. I liked the fact that Penny is a smart 50-year-old woman who has lots of life experience and is trying to come to terms with ageing and that she is not quite as naive as her new neighbours in St. Merlot seem to believe. Both the plot and the character development are excellent, and the story is captivating and engaging. It held my interest from start to finish.
DEATH IN PROVENCE was an interesting novel particularly for the interplay of the different secondary characters as well as the primary ones - a reticent and monosyllabic neighbour, an eccentric but honourable gardener, a jaunty and smiling electrician, and a close-knit village community, to name but a few. Plenty of ups and downs along the way and plenty of surprises. I loved Serena Kent’s writing style which I found to be so vivid and very easy to read. The descriptions of the places, people and food were very real and it was easy to imagine that you were actually there. She has reflected the spirit of the French villagers, their individuality brilliantly.
Although I did not figure out who was behind the murders, even though all the clues were there, I had a great time guessing and I loved it! I was very satisfied with the ending. I have been inspired to read more from Serena Kent and I highly recommend this book. I suggest wholeheartedly that you add it to your reading list.
Thank you to Edelweiss and the publisher for a free ARC of this book in exchange for an honest review.
It is a refreshing, mystery fiction novel set in wonderfully scenic St Merlot, a sleepy, quiet village that has infrequent visitors at the unfashionable end of the Luberon Valley, France. St Merlot is unspoilt, with dry stone walls and wildflowers.
What’s really likeable about it straight-away are the opening chapters that draw you into the main character, Penelope Kite. Recently retired and divorced, she is an optimistic, happy, fifty-year-old with plenty of joie-de-vivre. Penelope, or Penny to her friends, has put her unfaithful ex-husband and her ungrateful stepchildren first, for a long time. Since she left her job in forensics at the Home Office in England, she’s been an unpaid babysitter and chauffeur for her grandchildren. Now, she’s going to start living for herself so she buys her dream house, Le Chant d’Eau, or The Song of Water. The stone farmhouse tucked high in the hills is in need of major restoration but is complete with a garden, swimming pool, and sweeping mountain vistas.
But not long after her arrival at Le Chant d’Eau, a corpse is found floating in her swimming pool. The local detective doesn’t seem particularly interested in finding out either the truth or the murderer, but Penny knows a thing or two about murder investigations herself so she starts an investigation of her own.
Enter Clemence Valencourt, the chic but supercilious estate agent, the disdainful chief of police, Inspector Paul Gamelin brought in from the headquarters of the Police Municipale in Cavaillon to investigate. He is 40-ish, has a tanned narrow face, greying hair and a grave demeanour. He also speaks excellent English. The devilishly handsome local mayor is called in to formally identify the corpse. He is the maire de St Merlot, and is gorgeous, with floppy sun-streaked hair, a caramel tan and chiselled cheekbones He also has stunning dark blue eyes...
All this and being tempted by the delightful food and drink delicacies that Provence has to offer. Luckily her kind and high-spirited, old friend, Frankie who is conveniently fluid in French is just a flight away.
One of the highlights of the book is following the many twists and turns of the plot. I liked the fact that Penny is a smart 50-year-old woman who has lots of life experience and is trying to come to terms with ageing and that she is not quite as naive as her new neighbours in St. Merlot seem to believe. Both the plot and the character development are excellent, and the story is captivating and engaging. It held my interest from start to finish.
DEATH IN PROVENCE was an interesting novel particularly for the interplay of the different secondary characters as well as the primary ones - a reticent and monosyllabic neighbour, an eccentric but honourable gardener, a jaunty and smiling electrician, and a close-knit village community, to name but a few. Plenty of ups and downs along the way and plenty of surprises. I loved Serena Kent’s writing style which I found to be so vivid and very easy to read. The descriptions of the places, people and food were very real and it was easy to imagine that you were actually there. She has reflected the spirit of the French villagers, their individuality brilliantly.
Although I did not figure out who was behind the murders, even though all the clues were there, I had a great time guessing and I loved it! I was very satisfied with the ending. I have been inspired to read more from Serena Kent and I highly recommend this book. I suggest wholeheartedly that you add it to your reading list.
Thank you to Edelweiss and the publisher for a free ARC of this book in exchange for an honest review.
Sassy Brit (97 KP) rated Jefferson's Treasure: How Albert Gallatin Saved the New Nation from Debt in Books
Jun 5, 2019
Jefferson’s Treasure, by Gregory May, details, “how Albert Gallatin saved the new nation from debt.” Appointed by President Thomas Jefferson to be his Treasury Secretary, Gallatin continued under President Madison, maintaining that position for twelve years. During his tenure, he abolished internal revenue taxes in peacetime, slashed federal spending, and repaid half of the national debt.
So who was this man that undid Alexander Hamilton’s fiscal system, rejecting it along with Madison and Jefferson? Because both Presidents did not understand the financial system, they depended on Gallatin to reform it. Gallatin arrived in America in 1790 from Geneva and rose up to become a trusted advisor of the Republicans. Six years before Jefferson was elected President, Gallatin’s Pennsylvania neighbors rebelled against the tax on whiskey. He supported them in principle but opposed the violence that ensued, burning the local tax collector’s house, robbing the mail, and marching on Pittsburgh.
The play “Hamilton” uses revisionist history. The real Hamilton believed in big government and wanted to continue funding federal deficits. He based his theories on the British who used the money to fund their large military conflicts, believing that the ability to borrow endless amounts of money would allow the new United States to become a great nation. Jefferson and Madison thought Hamilton’s system, straight from the British way, was tainted with tyranny. As May noted, “It made the people pay obnoxious taxes in order to fund interest payments on a mounting federal debt and the costs of an expensive military establishment. It shifted money from ordinary taxpayers to the relatively few rich men who held the government’s bonds. That was just the sort of thing that had led Americans to revolt against Britain in the first place.”
May believes, “The hip-hop immigrant hero of the Broadway musical is a myth. The musical might be a great work of art, but is relies on misconceptions of Hamilton. He was not an immigrant, but a migrant within the British Empire. Also, he was not a man of the people, as Gallatin was, but an elitist.”
While Hamilton committed to paying only the interest on the government’s debt, Gallatin committed the government to repaying fixed amounts of the principal each year. He also insisted that the government should never spend more than it earned except in times of war. By slashing federal expenses, Gallatin was able to get rid of the tax on whiskey and abolish the entire internal revenue service.
The Republicans, an agrarian society, distrusted these elitists where two-thirds of the government debt belonged to a few hundred very wealthy men residing mainly in Philadelphia, New York, and other mercantile cities. They saw Hamilton’s plan of collecting taxes from ordinary citizens as a way for a few rich men to become even wealthier. Implementing these excise taxes required government officials to inspect, quantify, and mark the items subject to tax.
The Hamilton system benefited the wealthy debt holders and spectators at the expense of the average taxpayer who had to pay the interest. The government would borrow more than the people could pay. Hamilton tried to hide how much money the government was actually spending and spiraled the debt higher and higher.
This was an important part of the British tax base, and “I wanted to show how unpopular it was. Hamilton and company were resented because they created a tax collection network that affected the lives of ordinary citizens. The excise tax is a form of internal taxation, while tariffs are a form of external taxation that fell on the well to do. Remember mostly the well to do bought imports. The Republicans once they came to power relied on import duties rather than excise taxes.”
May further explained, “When Jefferson and his administration came to power it was Gallatin who got rid of Hamilton’s deficit finance system and cut taxes. By the time he has left office he has repaid half the federal debt and set up a program for repaying the rest.”
Anyone who wants to understand the early economic systems of the Founding Fathers will enjoy this book. It shows how Gallatin, by killing Hamilton’s financial system, abolished internal revenue taxes in peacetime, slashed federal spending, and repaid half of the national debt.
So who was this man that undid Alexander Hamilton’s fiscal system, rejecting it along with Madison and Jefferson? Because both Presidents did not understand the financial system, they depended on Gallatin to reform it. Gallatin arrived in America in 1790 from Geneva and rose up to become a trusted advisor of the Republicans. Six years before Jefferson was elected President, Gallatin’s Pennsylvania neighbors rebelled against the tax on whiskey. He supported them in principle but opposed the violence that ensued, burning the local tax collector’s house, robbing the mail, and marching on Pittsburgh.
The play “Hamilton” uses revisionist history. The real Hamilton believed in big government and wanted to continue funding federal deficits. He based his theories on the British who used the money to fund their large military conflicts, believing that the ability to borrow endless amounts of money would allow the new United States to become a great nation. Jefferson and Madison thought Hamilton’s system, straight from the British way, was tainted with tyranny. As May noted, “It made the people pay obnoxious taxes in order to fund interest payments on a mounting federal debt and the costs of an expensive military establishment. It shifted money from ordinary taxpayers to the relatively few rich men who held the government’s bonds. That was just the sort of thing that had led Americans to revolt against Britain in the first place.”
May believes, “The hip-hop immigrant hero of the Broadway musical is a myth. The musical might be a great work of art, but is relies on misconceptions of Hamilton. He was not an immigrant, but a migrant within the British Empire. Also, he was not a man of the people, as Gallatin was, but an elitist.”
While Hamilton committed to paying only the interest on the government’s debt, Gallatin committed the government to repaying fixed amounts of the principal each year. He also insisted that the government should never spend more than it earned except in times of war. By slashing federal expenses, Gallatin was able to get rid of the tax on whiskey and abolish the entire internal revenue service.
The Republicans, an agrarian society, distrusted these elitists where two-thirds of the government debt belonged to a few hundred very wealthy men residing mainly in Philadelphia, New York, and other mercantile cities. They saw Hamilton’s plan of collecting taxes from ordinary citizens as a way for a few rich men to become even wealthier. Implementing these excise taxes required government officials to inspect, quantify, and mark the items subject to tax.
The Hamilton system benefited the wealthy debt holders and spectators at the expense of the average taxpayer who had to pay the interest. The government would borrow more than the people could pay. Hamilton tried to hide how much money the government was actually spending and spiraled the debt higher and higher.
This was an important part of the British tax base, and “I wanted to show how unpopular it was. Hamilton and company were resented because they created a tax collection network that affected the lives of ordinary citizens. The excise tax is a form of internal taxation, while tariffs are a form of external taxation that fell on the well to do. Remember mostly the well to do bought imports. The Republicans once they came to power relied on import duties rather than excise taxes.”
May further explained, “When Jefferson and his administration came to power it was Gallatin who got rid of Hamilton’s deficit finance system and cut taxes. By the time he has left office he has repaid half the federal debt and set up a program for repaying the rest.”
Anyone who wants to understand the early economic systems of the Founding Fathers will enjoy this book. It shows how Gallatin, by killing Hamilton’s financial system, abolished internal revenue taxes in peacetime, slashed federal spending, and repaid half of the national debt.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Christopher Robin (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
A Future Classic
The characters of Pooh, Eeyore, Piglet and Tigger are synonymous with the childhood of millions of adults across the globe. A.A. Milne’s classic creatures are etched into the memories of many, passed down through generations with tatty old story books and stuffed animals.
Their film history is a little more chequered. True box-office domination has eluded the little critters, until now at least. Rolling off the success of Paddington and its arguably even better sequel, Disney gets in on the action, the live-action that is, and brings Pooh and co to life in Christopher Robin. But does it work?
Christopher Robin (Ewan McGregor) – now a family man living in London – receives a surprise visit from his old childhood pal, Winnie-the-Pooh. With Christopher’s help, Pooh embarks on a journey to find his friends — Tigger, Eeyore, Owl, Piglet, Rabbit, Kanga and Roo. Once reunited, the lovable bear and the gang travel to London to help Christopher rediscover the joy of life.
With Marc Forster’s name attached to directing duties, you’d be forgiven for thinking he’d been hired simply to get the job done. After all, this is the same Marc Forster that brought us the perfectly adequate Quantum of Solace and the enjoyable if undistinguished World War Z. These aren’t the directing credits you’d expect when looking at a film involving a honey-loving bear in a red jumper.
Nevertheless, Forster proves us wrong. Christopher Robin is a sumptuous tale, beautifully realised with a script that makes us stop and look at the little things in life. Much like the film itself as it happens. Ewan McGregor was the ideal choice to play a world-weary Robin. At the brink of exhaustion and close to losing the truly important things in life – his wife (Hayley Atwell) and daughter (Bronte Carmichael), McGregor plays the part beautifully. Watching his inner-child slowly but surely rise to the surface is wonderful to see.
Elsewhere, the entire cast of voices used to bring our cuddly cast to life are absolutely spot on. Jim Cummings’ return as Pooh and Tigger brings a warm familiarity to proceedings and this was a nice touch by Disney to have him back behind the microphone. Toby Jones and former Doctor Who Peter Capaldi are also great as Owl and Rabbit respectively. Brad Garrett’s turn as Eeyore really couldn’t be more perfect.
Christopher Robin…is sure to be a future classic that can be passed down for generations
To look at, Christopher Robin really is sublime. The spectacular Sussex countryside is brought to life in the Hundred Acre Wood and the post-war setting of London lives and breathes right before your eyes. This is a film that draws you in as the script moves our cast from 1940s London, rich with smoke and smog, to lush countryside, heavy with dew and dripping in colour.
The CGI to bring Pooh, Piglet, Eeyore, Tigger, Kanga, Roo, Owl and Rabbit to life is nothing short of astounding. The way their fur moves in the wind feels so real and it is this depth that proves to be the film’s strongest suit. Using Disney’s seemingly unending source of funds, Marc Foster and his team have managed to create something truly astonishing.
Above all though, this is a film about the importance of family, and on that level it succeeds, and then some. While brief, the moments in which we see McGregor and his family spending time together, with Pooh and company in tow, are Christopher Robin’s most poignant. In typical Disney fashion, the film tugs on the heartstrings on more than one occasion, just enough to wipe away a solitary tear, but not enough to dig out the Kleenex.
Christopher Robin is another success for Disney’s live-action arm. With understated performances, very much similar to 2016’s remake of Pete’s Dragon, the House of Mouse has achieved something rather extraordinary. Yes, they’ve brought these wonderful characters back to life, but in a way that honours the books and stuffed animals we will have all grown up with. Unlike this year’s Peter Rabbit that destroyed the legacy of a much-loved literary character, Christopher Robin builds on that and is sure to be a future classic that can be passed down for generations.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/08/18/christopher-robin-review-a-future-classic/
Their film history is a little more chequered. True box-office domination has eluded the little critters, until now at least. Rolling off the success of Paddington and its arguably even better sequel, Disney gets in on the action, the live-action that is, and brings Pooh and co to life in Christopher Robin. But does it work?
Christopher Robin (Ewan McGregor) – now a family man living in London – receives a surprise visit from his old childhood pal, Winnie-the-Pooh. With Christopher’s help, Pooh embarks on a journey to find his friends — Tigger, Eeyore, Owl, Piglet, Rabbit, Kanga and Roo. Once reunited, the lovable bear and the gang travel to London to help Christopher rediscover the joy of life.
With Marc Forster’s name attached to directing duties, you’d be forgiven for thinking he’d been hired simply to get the job done. After all, this is the same Marc Forster that brought us the perfectly adequate Quantum of Solace and the enjoyable if undistinguished World War Z. These aren’t the directing credits you’d expect when looking at a film involving a honey-loving bear in a red jumper.
Nevertheless, Forster proves us wrong. Christopher Robin is a sumptuous tale, beautifully realised with a script that makes us stop and look at the little things in life. Much like the film itself as it happens. Ewan McGregor was the ideal choice to play a world-weary Robin. At the brink of exhaustion and close to losing the truly important things in life – his wife (Hayley Atwell) and daughter (Bronte Carmichael), McGregor plays the part beautifully. Watching his inner-child slowly but surely rise to the surface is wonderful to see.
Elsewhere, the entire cast of voices used to bring our cuddly cast to life are absolutely spot on. Jim Cummings’ return as Pooh and Tigger brings a warm familiarity to proceedings and this was a nice touch by Disney to have him back behind the microphone. Toby Jones and former Doctor Who Peter Capaldi are also great as Owl and Rabbit respectively. Brad Garrett’s turn as Eeyore really couldn’t be more perfect.
Christopher Robin…is sure to be a future classic that can be passed down for generations
To look at, Christopher Robin really is sublime. The spectacular Sussex countryside is brought to life in the Hundred Acre Wood and the post-war setting of London lives and breathes right before your eyes. This is a film that draws you in as the script moves our cast from 1940s London, rich with smoke and smog, to lush countryside, heavy with dew and dripping in colour.
The CGI to bring Pooh, Piglet, Eeyore, Tigger, Kanga, Roo, Owl and Rabbit to life is nothing short of astounding. The way their fur moves in the wind feels so real and it is this depth that proves to be the film’s strongest suit. Using Disney’s seemingly unending source of funds, Marc Foster and his team have managed to create something truly astonishing.
Above all though, this is a film about the importance of family, and on that level it succeeds, and then some. While brief, the moments in which we see McGregor and his family spending time together, with Pooh and company in tow, are Christopher Robin’s most poignant. In typical Disney fashion, the film tugs on the heartstrings on more than one occasion, just enough to wipe away a solitary tear, but not enough to dig out the Kleenex.
Christopher Robin is another success for Disney’s live-action arm. With understated performances, very much similar to 2016’s remake of Pete’s Dragon, the House of Mouse has achieved something rather extraordinary. Yes, they’ve brought these wonderful characters back to life, but in a way that honours the books and stuffed animals we will have all grown up with. Unlike this year’s Peter Rabbit that destroyed the legacy of a much-loved literary character, Christopher Robin builds on that and is sure to be a future classic that can be passed down for generations.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/08/18/christopher-robin-review-a-future-classic/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Tomb Raider (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Contains little tomb raiding
Academy Award-winner Alicia Vikander is probably not the first choice for many to portray legendary video game character, Lara Croft. Perhaps Jennifer Lawrence, Natalie Portman or even Keira Knightley would have been above Vikander to be in with a shot of bagging the role?
That’s all conjecture anyway as Vikander is the leading lady we have ended up with, for better or for worse. But is this Tomb Raider reboot the film to end that dreaded video game to movie curse and can Vikander take on the role that Angelina Jolie made so famous back in the early 00s? Read on to find out.
Lara Croft (Vikander) is the fiercely independent daughter of an eccentric adventurer (Dominic West) who vanished years earlier. Hoping to solve the mystery of her father’s disappearance, Croft embarks on a perilous journey to his last-known destination – a fabled tomb on a mythical island that might be somewhere off the coast of Japan. The stakes couldn’t be higher as Lara must rely on her sharp mind, blind faith and stubborn spirit to venture into the unknown.
Director Roar Uthaug, who only has a few Swedish movies to his name, directs a decent, if not outstanding adaptation of the famous character’s origins story that features some nifty action set-pieces intertwined with a hectic and often nausea-inducing filming style. It doesn’t break the video game to movie curse, but it’s a good shot.
Unfortunately, the cast is one of the film’s weakest points. Vikander is a whiny, self-absorbed brat for the majority of the runtime, only letting this insipid persona go in the latter half of the movie. This is through no fault of her own as her performance is as solid as we’ve come to expect from the actress, but the script really lets her down. The film starts off poorly with a messily edited boxing match giving way to a rather implausible bike chase that ends with Vikander face planting the bonnet of a police car. Thankfully, this is as bad as it gets.
From then on, the audience is treated to a selection of thrilling set-pieces, populated by some very good CGI indeed. It’s just unfortunate the characters lack any sort of presence whatsoever. Outside of Vikander’s insipid Lara, the rest of the cast are merely there to offer expositional dialogue. Dominic West in particular, who plays Lara’s father, spouts nothing but exposition, even narrating certain parts of the movie.
Apart from a couple of scenes involving Nick Frost as a greedy pawnbroker, Tomb Raider is devoid of any sense of fun whatsoever
Elsewhere, for a film called Tomb Raider, there’s very little tomb raiding to be had. In fact, it feels like a hybrid of Kong: Skull Island,The Mummy, Indiana Jones and The Hunger Games and for this reason it lacks a sense of identity and any originality whatsoever.
Cinematography wise, Tomb Raider is competent but not exceptional. The shot choices are limited and the action is sometimes messily edited to the point where it’s difficult to tell exactly what it is that’s going on. It avoids unnecessary shaky cam, which is a miracle in itself but it’s not the best the genre has to offer.
Unfortunately, director Roar Uthaug’s idea to go the complete opposite of many blockbusters nowadays results in a film that really doesn’t have a sense of humour. Apart from a couple of scenes involving Nick Frost as a greedy pawnbroker, Tomb Raider is devoid of any sense of fun whatsoever. It seems the scriptwriters missed the memo about the premise being absolutely ridiculous – a dose of humour would have done this tale a world of good.
Overall, Tomb Raider is a decent stab at resurrecting a character that Angelina Jolie performed so well over the course of her two films in the early 00s. Alicia Vikander plays a very different Lara Croft to Jolie and whilst she may need a couple more films for us to get acquainted with her, she’s off to a reasonable if unoriginal start. Whether or not she gets the chance to tomb raid again remains to be seen, it all depends on those box-office numbers.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/03/16/tomb-raider-review-contains-little-tomb-raiding/
That’s all conjecture anyway as Vikander is the leading lady we have ended up with, for better or for worse. But is this Tomb Raider reboot the film to end that dreaded video game to movie curse and can Vikander take on the role that Angelina Jolie made so famous back in the early 00s? Read on to find out.
Lara Croft (Vikander) is the fiercely independent daughter of an eccentric adventurer (Dominic West) who vanished years earlier. Hoping to solve the mystery of her father’s disappearance, Croft embarks on a perilous journey to his last-known destination – a fabled tomb on a mythical island that might be somewhere off the coast of Japan. The stakes couldn’t be higher as Lara must rely on her sharp mind, blind faith and stubborn spirit to venture into the unknown.
Director Roar Uthaug, who only has a few Swedish movies to his name, directs a decent, if not outstanding adaptation of the famous character’s origins story that features some nifty action set-pieces intertwined with a hectic and often nausea-inducing filming style. It doesn’t break the video game to movie curse, but it’s a good shot.
Unfortunately, the cast is one of the film’s weakest points. Vikander is a whiny, self-absorbed brat for the majority of the runtime, only letting this insipid persona go in the latter half of the movie. This is through no fault of her own as her performance is as solid as we’ve come to expect from the actress, but the script really lets her down. The film starts off poorly with a messily edited boxing match giving way to a rather implausible bike chase that ends with Vikander face planting the bonnet of a police car. Thankfully, this is as bad as it gets.
From then on, the audience is treated to a selection of thrilling set-pieces, populated by some very good CGI indeed. It’s just unfortunate the characters lack any sort of presence whatsoever. Outside of Vikander’s insipid Lara, the rest of the cast are merely there to offer expositional dialogue. Dominic West in particular, who plays Lara’s father, spouts nothing but exposition, even narrating certain parts of the movie.
Apart from a couple of scenes involving Nick Frost as a greedy pawnbroker, Tomb Raider is devoid of any sense of fun whatsoever
Elsewhere, for a film called Tomb Raider, there’s very little tomb raiding to be had. In fact, it feels like a hybrid of Kong: Skull Island,The Mummy, Indiana Jones and The Hunger Games and for this reason it lacks a sense of identity and any originality whatsoever.
Cinematography wise, Tomb Raider is competent but not exceptional. The shot choices are limited and the action is sometimes messily edited to the point where it’s difficult to tell exactly what it is that’s going on. It avoids unnecessary shaky cam, which is a miracle in itself but it’s not the best the genre has to offer.
Unfortunately, director Roar Uthaug’s idea to go the complete opposite of many blockbusters nowadays results in a film that really doesn’t have a sense of humour. Apart from a couple of scenes involving Nick Frost as a greedy pawnbroker, Tomb Raider is devoid of any sense of fun whatsoever. It seems the scriptwriters missed the memo about the premise being absolutely ridiculous – a dose of humour would have done this tale a world of good.
Overall, Tomb Raider is a decent stab at resurrecting a character that Angelina Jolie performed so well over the course of her two films in the early 00s. Alicia Vikander plays a very different Lara Croft to Jolie and whilst she may need a couple more films for us to get acquainted with her, she’s off to a reasonable if unoriginal start. Whether or not she gets the chance to tomb raid again remains to be seen, it all depends on those box-office numbers.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/03/16/tomb-raider-review-contains-little-tomb-raiding/