Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated San Andreas (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
The new Warner Brothers movie San Andreas stars Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson as Chief Ray Gaines, Carla Gugino as Emma Gaines, Alexandra Daddario as their daughter Blake Gaines, Paul Giamatti as scientist Lawrence, Ioan Gruffudd as Daniel (Emma’s new love interest, as she & Chief Gaines are about to finalize their divorce), and Archie Panjabi as Serena, a reporter.
The movie opens with a gut-wrenching helicopter rescue lead by Chief Gaines where he rescues a girl from a car that has careened off the edge of a cliff and is hanging precariously over a river. He manages to sweep her out of the car just barely before the car crashes the rest of the way down the cliff which would have surely killed her.
In my opinion, the movie never stops delivering gut wrenching, edge of your set moments. I was holding my breath and on edge thru the entirety of the film.
This is definitely a movie that you absolutely do NOT want to wait and see at home, it NEEDS ‘the big screen’. I think it probably is also better in 3D as well, I think the 3D adds to the special effects and helps pull you into the movie.
I was able to connect to the characters and while some of the situations were really really far fetched (Gaines rescuing Emma off the top of a collapsing building in a rescue helicopter as it literally crumbled away beneath her), the dedication that his character showed in trying to get her to safety, really made the story work for me.
There were moments of cute comedy in the film, mostly in the interactions between Blake Gaines and the brothers Ben and Ollie (Hugo Johnstone-Burt and Art Parkinson) that helped break up some of the tension imposed by the continuous onslaught of the disasters caused by the biggest earthquakes ever recorded.
If you like action / disaster movies, and a decent story, you will like this film.
Rated PG-13, I wouldn’t bring young children, but I would bring older kids, aged 13 and up, as the rating suggests.
I would give this movie 4 out of 5 stars for a good story and edge of your seat action throughout.
The movie opens with a gut-wrenching helicopter rescue lead by Chief Gaines where he rescues a girl from a car that has careened off the edge of a cliff and is hanging precariously over a river. He manages to sweep her out of the car just barely before the car crashes the rest of the way down the cliff which would have surely killed her.
In my opinion, the movie never stops delivering gut wrenching, edge of your set moments. I was holding my breath and on edge thru the entirety of the film.
This is definitely a movie that you absolutely do NOT want to wait and see at home, it NEEDS ‘the big screen’. I think it probably is also better in 3D as well, I think the 3D adds to the special effects and helps pull you into the movie.
I was able to connect to the characters and while some of the situations were really really far fetched (Gaines rescuing Emma off the top of a collapsing building in a rescue helicopter as it literally crumbled away beneath her), the dedication that his character showed in trying to get her to safety, really made the story work for me.
There were moments of cute comedy in the film, mostly in the interactions between Blake Gaines and the brothers Ben and Ollie (Hugo Johnstone-Burt and Art Parkinson) that helped break up some of the tension imposed by the continuous onslaught of the disasters caused by the biggest earthquakes ever recorded.
If you like action / disaster movies, and a decent story, you will like this film.
Rated PG-13, I wouldn’t bring young children, but I would bring older kids, aged 13 and up, as the rating suggests.
I would give this movie 4 out of 5 stars for a good story and edge of your seat action throughout.
Debbiereadsbook (1107 KP) rated Sweet Haven in Books
Apr 1, 2021
what a DELICIOUS book it was! I swear I put on ten pounds reading this!
Independent reviewer for Archaeolibrarian, I was gifted my copy of this book.
And what a DELICIOUS book it was! I swear I put on ten pounds reading this!
Garrett is a grump and Lee is a clutz. Together they make beautiful chocolate desserts. But the past has a way of catching up with them, and they have to overcome that to be really happy.
Sometimes, my dear book people, your mind reads a blurb and makes a story and then you read the book, and BOOM! this is so NOT where your mind went. And you don't care! Cos what you DO read, where the book DOES go, is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much better than where your stoopid mind went!
And Ms Sayle has a particular knack of messing with MY brain! She does it all the bloody time, and I love it!
I mean, I have no idea where my mind went when I read the blurb, but all I know is, it was nowhere near as sweet and as sexy and as too-stinking-cute as this is!
I just wanna rant about how sweet and sexy this, but ranting does nota good review make. So lemme try, 'K?? And I apologise if all I do is rant :-)
Garrett is spilt from his ex husband, who by all accounts only used Garrett to get where he wanted to go. Lee is hiding from HIS ex, who by every account here, is a violent man and to be avoided at all costs. Garrett thinks no one will want him, and Lee wants Garrett. Garrett, bless his heart, tries HARD to deny himself the tasty morsel now prancing around his kitchen, but it's a matter of when, not if.
Supported by a huge cast of possible follow up stories: Ollie, Vic, Nese, and everyone else I can't remember, you fall in love with this little town, the people in it and the desserts that are made in these 150 odd pages, and your teeth rot and jeans don't fit anymore, and you really don't care!
Ok, I've written and deleted about 10 versions of this review, and this is the one you're gonna get.
READ
THE
DAMN
BOOK
5 sweet and sexy stars
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
And what a DELICIOUS book it was! I swear I put on ten pounds reading this!
Garrett is a grump and Lee is a clutz. Together they make beautiful chocolate desserts. But the past has a way of catching up with them, and they have to overcome that to be really happy.
Sometimes, my dear book people, your mind reads a blurb and makes a story and then you read the book, and BOOM! this is so NOT where your mind went. And you don't care! Cos what you DO read, where the book DOES go, is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much better than where your stoopid mind went!
And Ms Sayle has a particular knack of messing with MY brain! She does it all the bloody time, and I love it!
I mean, I have no idea where my mind went when I read the blurb, but all I know is, it was nowhere near as sweet and as sexy and as too-stinking-cute as this is!
I just wanna rant about how sweet and sexy this, but ranting does nota good review make. So lemme try, 'K?? And I apologise if all I do is rant :-)
Garrett is spilt from his ex husband, who by all accounts only used Garrett to get where he wanted to go. Lee is hiding from HIS ex, who by every account here, is a violent man and to be avoided at all costs. Garrett thinks no one will want him, and Lee wants Garrett. Garrett, bless his heart, tries HARD to deny himself the tasty morsel now prancing around his kitchen, but it's a matter of when, not if.
Supported by a huge cast of possible follow up stories: Ollie, Vic, Nese, and everyone else I can't remember, you fall in love with this little town, the people in it and the desserts that are made in these 150 odd pages, and your teeth rot and jeans don't fit anymore, and you really don't care!
Ok, I've written and deleted about 10 versions of this review, and this is the one you're gonna get.
READ
THE
DAMN
BOOK
5 sweet and sexy stars
**same worded review will appear elsewhere**
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated The Kitchen (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020
A Very Messy Kitchen: Good Ingredients But No Flavor
The Kitchen is a 2019 action crime movie written and directed by Andrea Berloff and producers Michael Dell Luca and Marcus Viscidi. It's based on the Vertigo comic created by Ollie Masters and Ming Doyle and produced by New Line Cinema, Bron Creative, D.C. Vertigo and Michael Dell Luca Productions with distribution by Warner Bros. Pictures. The film stars Melissa McCarthy, Tiffany Haddish, Elisabeth Moss and Common.
In 1978 Hell's Kitchen, 3 women married to husbands in the Irish mob face hardship as all 3 of their husbands are arrested and sentenced to 3 years in prison. The new head of the mob ensures that they will be taken care of financially but gives them each a tiny pittance. When they go to ask him for more they are aggressively refused. At a loss for what to do next the women seize an opportunity when they are told that despite local businesses paying protection fees, the mob has done little to help them. They themselves begin collecting protection fees and helping the neighborhood becoming beloved and making a huge profit as well as lots of enemies.
This movie was not what I expected. I was really let down, especially for it having a great cast of actors. I don't think it was over hyped either, I felt like it was false advertising. From the trailer it looked like it was supposed to be a gritty female led mob movie but didn't deliver. From the beginning and throughout the movie it felt really lackluster and didn't have enough going for it to remain interesting. I honestly don't know how I made it through the movie, I guess I just kept waiting for it to get better and it never really did. I did like certain things, Melissa McCarthy's acting was good for being a drama and Tiffany Haddish did a decent job, also Elisabeth Moss's character was probably the one that had the most character development, but even then, you'll see what I'm talking about if you ever decide to watch this movie. It also didn't have a very compelling plot, and with the girl's situation and what they were dealing with, you would think it would be more gripping but there was not enough tension for a movie dealing with the mob and the dangers of being killed. I would have to give this movie a 4/10 because I felt it was really below average.
In 1978 Hell's Kitchen, 3 women married to husbands in the Irish mob face hardship as all 3 of their husbands are arrested and sentenced to 3 years in prison. The new head of the mob ensures that they will be taken care of financially but gives them each a tiny pittance. When they go to ask him for more they are aggressively refused. At a loss for what to do next the women seize an opportunity when they are told that despite local businesses paying protection fees, the mob has done little to help them. They themselves begin collecting protection fees and helping the neighborhood becoming beloved and making a huge profit as well as lots of enemies.
This movie was not what I expected. I was really let down, especially for it having a great cast of actors. I don't think it was over hyped either, I felt like it was false advertising. From the trailer it looked like it was supposed to be a gritty female led mob movie but didn't deliver. From the beginning and throughout the movie it felt really lackluster and didn't have enough going for it to remain interesting. I honestly don't know how I made it through the movie, I guess I just kept waiting for it to get better and it never really did. I did like certain things, Melissa McCarthy's acting was good for being a drama and Tiffany Haddish did a decent job, also Elisabeth Moss's character was probably the one that had the most character development, but even then, you'll see what I'm talking about if you ever decide to watch this movie. It also didn't have a very compelling plot, and with the girl's situation and what they were dealing with, you would think it would be more gripping but there was not enough tension for a movie dealing with the mob and the dangers of being killed. I would have to give this movie a 4/10 because I felt it was really below average.
Cassie Osbourne (6 KP) rated The Secret Countess in Books
Nov 9, 2018
Countess Anna Grazinsky had it all: riches, jewels, palaces, English nannies, everything. And then the Russian revolution came along. Now in 1919, Anna and her family are penniless in London so she decides to get a job as a housemaid to the newly engaged Earl of Mersham.
This is the third Eva Ibbotson book that IÕve read this year and, whilst I have enjoyed them all, I canÕt help noticing that the characters are basically all the same. Heroine who seems completely perfect and has no flaws, love interest who is complex and often broody (also the most well rounded character in the book) and the obvious villain who spends the whole book being obviously villainous. All that being said, I do really like these characters. I could relate to Anna despite her perfectness, I understood RupertÕs problems regardless of how blind he was being at times and I enjoyed just how horrible and ruthless Muriel could be. I also loved the side characters. Ollie was adorable, Lavinia was hilarious and Baskerville was strangely well fleshed out for a dog (seriously, Ibbotson gives him a whole personality where most authors wouldnÕt have bothered). Yes most of the characters were simple without huge character arcs but I liked them all the same.
IbbotsonÕs writing style is easy to slip into and nice to read, if a little over fond of commas. However it is the atmosphere that really lets this book down Ñ there isnÕt really too much of it. There are a moments where a small amount is created, and those passages are certainly the most memorable, but there are unfortunately few and far between. ThatÕs not to say that the general feeling is bad or uncomfortable to read when it shouldnÕt be, but I would liked to have seen more of...well, something.
In a similar vein to what I said about the characters earlier, most of IbbotsonÕs young adult literature seems to follow a similar structure. Girl leaves family to do something or be someone that they often donÕt approve of, meets a misunderstood man, they fall in love but he is unavailable (or she thinks he is) and she leaves him without a word but donÕt worry, they are reunited and they all live happily ever after. However, if it ainÕt broke, donÕt fix it. While the main skeleton structure is used for most of her work, each of IbbotsonÕs books have a difference and a charm that stays with you and is memorable. There are plenty of little surprises and some twists and turns.
While this review may seem mixed and sound negative, I did really enjoy this book. I have kept it on my shelves with my other Eva Ibbotson novels for a reason and IÕm sure I will return to it.
Character: 7.5
Atmosphere: 5.5
Writing Style: 9
Plot: 8
Intrigue: 8
Logic: 8
Enjoyment: 8
This is the third Eva Ibbotson book that IÕve read this year and, whilst I have enjoyed them all, I canÕt help noticing that the characters are basically all the same. Heroine who seems completely perfect and has no flaws, love interest who is complex and often broody (also the most well rounded character in the book) and the obvious villain who spends the whole book being obviously villainous. All that being said, I do really like these characters. I could relate to Anna despite her perfectness, I understood RupertÕs problems regardless of how blind he was being at times and I enjoyed just how horrible and ruthless Muriel could be. I also loved the side characters. Ollie was adorable, Lavinia was hilarious and Baskerville was strangely well fleshed out for a dog (seriously, Ibbotson gives him a whole personality where most authors wouldnÕt have bothered). Yes most of the characters were simple without huge character arcs but I liked them all the same.
IbbotsonÕs writing style is easy to slip into and nice to read, if a little over fond of commas. However it is the atmosphere that really lets this book down Ñ there isnÕt really too much of it. There are a moments where a small amount is created, and those passages are certainly the most memorable, but there are unfortunately few and far between. ThatÕs not to say that the general feeling is bad or uncomfortable to read when it shouldnÕt be, but I would liked to have seen more of...well, something.
In a similar vein to what I said about the characters earlier, most of IbbotsonÕs young adult literature seems to follow a similar structure. Girl leaves family to do something or be someone that they often donÕt approve of, meets a misunderstood man, they fall in love but he is unavailable (or she thinks he is) and she leaves him without a word but donÕt worry, they are reunited and they all live happily ever after. However, if it ainÕt broke, donÕt fix it. While the main skeleton structure is used for most of her work, each of IbbotsonÕs books have a difference and a charm that stays with you and is memorable. There are plenty of little surprises and some twists and turns.
While this review may seem mixed and sound negative, I did really enjoy this book. I have kept it on my shelves with my other Eva Ibbotson novels for a reason and IÕm sure I will return to it.
Character: 7.5
Atmosphere: 5.5
Writing Style: 9
Plot: 8
Intrigue: 8
Logic: 8
Enjoyment: 8
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Judy (2019) in Movies
Dec 8, 2019
There's a definite fatigue now with films based on music stars and their works, I was already feeling it earlier in the year with Yesterday and Blinded By The Light. While I wasn't particularly enthusiastic about seeing Judy the trailer had me as soon as I heard "Somewhere over the rainbow".
Judy, once a household name, is short on money and her reputation is making it hard to get the work she needs. As her welcome at hotels is no longer guaranteed and her ex-husband's concern for what sort of life she's giving their children grows she realises she needs to find a way to make enough money to get them a proper home.
Her answer lies in England with nightly sellout performances to the crowds. But as the loneliness and isolation set in it might be that her not so glamorous lifestyle has caught up with her.
As with many real life depictions I came out wanting to know what was true to Garland's actual life and what was added with artistic license. Perhaps the worst thing about this film is just how accurate it is, the bullying, the abuse, the drugs, it shows a shocking side of Hollywood as it brought up its young stars. It was a little sad to find out that my two favourite bits of the film were probably the only bits in the whole thing that weren't based on actual events, but when you think about it that's not a bad statistic.
Renée Zellweger is outstanding. A year of vocal training before even getting to the set and being able to deliver such a stellar singing performance while simultaneously having to act like you're high on pills, exhaustion and drink... I'm genuinely amazed when I think back to some moments in the film.
I didn't get that same rush from listening to her singing in the film as I did in the trailer. She's wonderful performing the songs but I just felt that everything around the songs was too much of a distraction from it.
Yes, there are other people in Judy beyond Renée Zellweger but I'm not sure that there was anything to them that could shine as much as she did. Jessie Buckley felt underused, and after seeing Wild Rose earlier this year it was sad to see her so close to a stage without her getting to sing. I thought Andy Nyman made a good show as Dan, one half of the gay couple Judy befriends, the emotion that ran through his scenes with her had me wrecked.
I felt a little thrown by the flashbacks initially, but the drip feeding of scenes from her life as we progressed through the modern part of the story worked well. Each reveal would make you a little more heartbroken and concerned for adult Judy, the balance was perfect.
From the glamorous hotels to the dark night streets of London I thought all the settings were chosen well. The design overall with the costumes and sets felt spot on too. Seeing images of the cast against their real life counterparts really gives you pause to think about how hard everyone on that film worked to make the perfect shot.
There aren't all that many drawbacks here, apart from the fatigue for this sort of film that I mentioned earlier it felt very much like I've seen this film before. The recent biopic Stan & Ollie has so many similar features and scenarios that Judy ended up feeling like it wasn't such a new release. Despite that I did enjoy it, I just wish there had been more songs in it, I'm a sucker for a good tune.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/11/judy-movie-review.html
Judy, once a household name, is short on money and her reputation is making it hard to get the work she needs. As her welcome at hotels is no longer guaranteed and her ex-husband's concern for what sort of life she's giving their children grows she realises she needs to find a way to make enough money to get them a proper home.
Her answer lies in England with nightly sellout performances to the crowds. But as the loneliness and isolation set in it might be that her not so glamorous lifestyle has caught up with her.
As with many real life depictions I came out wanting to know what was true to Garland's actual life and what was added with artistic license. Perhaps the worst thing about this film is just how accurate it is, the bullying, the abuse, the drugs, it shows a shocking side of Hollywood as it brought up its young stars. It was a little sad to find out that my two favourite bits of the film were probably the only bits in the whole thing that weren't based on actual events, but when you think about it that's not a bad statistic.
Renée Zellweger is outstanding. A year of vocal training before even getting to the set and being able to deliver such a stellar singing performance while simultaneously having to act like you're high on pills, exhaustion and drink... I'm genuinely amazed when I think back to some moments in the film.
I didn't get that same rush from listening to her singing in the film as I did in the trailer. She's wonderful performing the songs but I just felt that everything around the songs was too much of a distraction from it.
Yes, there are other people in Judy beyond Renée Zellweger but I'm not sure that there was anything to them that could shine as much as she did. Jessie Buckley felt underused, and after seeing Wild Rose earlier this year it was sad to see her so close to a stage without her getting to sing. I thought Andy Nyman made a good show as Dan, one half of the gay couple Judy befriends, the emotion that ran through his scenes with her had me wrecked.
I felt a little thrown by the flashbacks initially, but the drip feeding of scenes from her life as we progressed through the modern part of the story worked well. Each reveal would make you a little more heartbroken and concerned for adult Judy, the balance was perfect.
From the glamorous hotels to the dark night streets of London I thought all the settings were chosen well. The design overall with the costumes and sets felt spot on too. Seeing images of the cast against their real life counterparts really gives you pause to think about how hard everyone on that film worked to make the perfect shot.
There aren't all that many drawbacks here, apart from the fatigue for this sort of film that I mentioned earlier it felt very much like I've seen this film before. The recent biopic Stan & Ollie has so many similar features and scenarios that Judy ended up feeling like it wasn't such a new release. Despite that I did enjoy it, I just wish there had been more songs in it, I'm a sucker for a good tune.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/11/judy-movie-review.html
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Judy (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Neither a true biopic nor a musical, a very sad and sombre film worth seeing for a sure-fire nominee for Zellweger for the Oscars.
Decline and Fall (Part 1).
This is an extremely sombre film. I will go as far as saying that it is well-and-truly a “Father Ted” film (see glossary).
The Story.
Young Judy Garland is a starlet in the MGM studio system run by Louis B. Mayer (a villainous Richard Cordery). She doesn’t have a life outside of the movies; is fed diet pills and “pep-pills” that destroy her sleep; and she is starting to get fed up with it all. No wonder then that she grows up to be an alcoholic insomniac with a trail of failed marriages and a temperamental nature.
Thus, through flash-backs to the young Judy (the English Darci Shaw, in her movie debut) we track the older Judy (Renée Zellweger) through the last tragic years of her life. Unable to work, due to a reputation that proceeds her, she is forced to take up the offer from Bernard Delfont (Michael Gambon) of a residency at London’s “Talk of the Town”. This separates her from her older daughter (Liza Minnelli played by Gemma-Leah Devereux) and, crucially, her younger children Lorna (Bella Ramsey) and Joey (Lewin Lloyd). (Their Dad is Sidney Luft (“Victoria’s” Rufus Sewell): hence Lorna being Lorna Luft). This separation increases Judy’s mental decline.
Also in a constant state of stress is Rosalyn Wilder (Jessie Buckley) who has the unenviable job of trying to keep Garland on the straight and narrow to perform every night.
A Towering Performance.
Whatever I think about the film overall (and we’ll come to that), this is 100% the “Renée Zellweger show”. It’s an extraordinary performance, and is pitch perfect, both in terms of capturing Garland’s mannerisms and vocal style. If Zellweger doesn’t get an Oscar nomination for this then I’ll eat my favourite orange baseball hat! I’ll have to review the final short-list, but I would not be remotely surprised if she won for this.
Elsewhere is the cast, Michael Gambon gives a reliable performance as Delfont (his second depiction this year after the turn by Rufus Jones in “Stan and Ollie“!) and the rising star that is Jessie Buckley is also effective as Wilder in a much quieter role than we’re used to seeing her in.
Musical? Or biopic?
Is this a musical? Or a biopic? Or neither? Actually, I would suggest it’s neither. There’s been a curious split in the last year between films like “Bohemian Rhapsody“, which were biopics with music, to “Rocketman” which was very much a musical based around a biopic.
“Judy” can’t be classed as a musical since (and I checked my watch) the first musical number doesn’t come until FORTY MINUTES into the picture. Neither is it a true biopic, focusing only on a few short months of Garland’s extensive career, the ‘young Judy’ scenes being nothing but short flashbacks to set the scene. This probably makes sense, else a true biopic of the wonder that was Judy Garland would have turned into a 4 hour plus epic!
A rough ride, but could I care?
Above all, it’s a depressing watch, like seeing a sick animal in distress. But I never felt the film got to the heart of the matter to really make me CARE enough. The nearest it gets is with a moving portion where Judy makes the evening (if not the lifetime) of some super-fans – Dan (Andy Nyman) and Stan (Daniel Cerqueira). She goes home with them for omelettes and a sing-song: a strong nod towards Garland’s extensive following, even today, among the gay community. The finale, where the couple try to salvage an on-stage psychiatric session by Judy is touching but, for me, not tear-inducing.
The screenplay is by Tom Edge, from the stage play by Peter Quilter. The director is relative movie-newcomer Rupert Goold.
I liked this movie, but did I like it enough to rush and see it again? No, not really. Worth seeing though to appreciate the odds-on favourite (surely!) for the Best Actress Oscar of this year.
This is an extremely sombre film. I will go as far as saying that it is well-and-truly a “Father Ted” film (see glossary).
The Story.
Young Judy Garland is a starlet in the MGM studio system run by Louis B. Mayer (a villainous Richard Cordery). She doesn’t have a life outside of the movies; is fed diet pills and “pep-pills” that destroy her sleep; and she is starting to get fed up with it all. No wonder then that she grows up to be an alcoholic insomniac with a trail of failed marriages and a temperamental nature.
Thus, through flash-backs to the young Judy (the English Darci Shaw, in her movie debut) we track the older Judy (Renée Zellweger) through the last tragic years of her life. Unable to work, due to a reputation that proceeds her, she is forced to take up the offer from Bernard Delfont (Michael Gambon) of a residency at London’s “Talk of the Town”. This separates her from her older daughter (Liza Minnelli played by Gemma-Leah Devereux) and, crucially, her younger children Lorna (Bella Ramsey) and Joey (Lewin Lloyd). (Their Dad is Sidney Luft (“Victoria’s” Rufus Sewell): hence Lorna being Lorna Luft). This separation increases Judy’s mental decline.
Also in a constant state of stress is Rosalyn Wilder (Jessie Buckley) who has the unenviable job of trying to keep Garland on the straight and narrow to perform every night.
A Towering Performance.
Whatever I think about the film overall (and we’ll come to that), this is 100% the “Renée Zellweger show”. It’s an extraordinary performance, and is pitch perfect, both in terms of capturing Garland’s mannerisms and vocal style. If Zellweger doesn’t get an Oscar nomination for this then I’ll eat my favourite orange baseball hat! I’ll have to review the final short-list, but I would not be remotely surprised if she won for this.
Elsewhere is the cast, Michael Gambon gives a reliable performance as Delfont (his second depiction this year after the turn by Rufus Jones in “Stan and Ollie“!) and the rising star that is Jessie Buckley is also effective as Wilder in a much quieter role than we’re used to seeing her in.
Musical? Or biopic?
Is this a musical? Or a biopic? Or neither? Actually, I would suggest it’s neither. There’s been a curious split in the last year between films like “Bohemian Rhapsody“, which were biopics with music, to “Rocketman” which was very much a musical based around a biopic.
“Judy” can’t be classed as a musical since (and I checked my watch) the first musical number doesn’t come until FORTY MINUTES into the picture. Neither is it a true biopic, focusing only on a few short months of Garland’s extensive career, the ‘young Judy’ scenes being nothing but short flashbacks to set the scene. This probably makes sense, else a true biopic of the wonder that was Judy Garland would have turned into a 4 hour plus epic!
A rough ride, but could I care?
Above all, it’s a depressing watch, like seeing a sick animal in distress. But I never felt the film got to the heart of the matter to really make me CARE enough. The nearest it gets is with a moving portion where Judy makes the evening (if not the lifetime) of some super-fans – Dan (Andy Nyman) and Stan (Daniel Cerqueira). She goes home with them for omelettes and a sing-song: a strong nod towards Garland’s extensive following, even today, among the gay community. The finale, where the couple try to salvage an on-stage psychiatric session by Judy is touching but, for me, not tear-inducing.
The screenplay is by Tom Edge, from the stage play by Peter Quilter. The director is relative movie-newcomer Rupert Goold.
I liked this movie, but did I like it enough to rush and see it again? No, not really. Worth seeing though to appreciate the odds-on favourite (surely!) for the Best Actress Oscar of this year.