Search
Search results
Amy Louise Davison (118 KP) rated The Perks of Being a Wallflower (2012) in Movies
Mar 9, 2019
Logan Lerman, Ezra Miller and Emma Watson (1 more)
Paul Rudd
Stephen Chbosky is a Genius.
A very sweet, coming of age film with a bitter twist at the end.
Logan Lerman is a very believable actor and from the beginning I am on his side, to do well, to succeed in love and life. I would have loved to be Charlie's friend.
Emma Watson in my opinion, is perfection personified. She plays Sam very well.
Paul Rudd plays Mr Anderson - and he is a shining star in this already amazing cast, downplayed and lovable.
Logan Lerman is a very believable actor and from the beginning I am on his side, to do well, to succeed in love and life. I would have loved to be Charlie's friend.
Emma Watson in my opinion, is perfection personified. She plays Sam very well.
Paul Rudd plays Mr Anderson - and he is a shining star in this already amazing cast, downplayed and lovable.
Veronica Pena (690 KP) rated The Perks of Being a Wallflower (2012) in Movies
Feb 10, 2020
I firmly believe that this is one of the best movies on the face of the planet. Anyone who knows me and knows my reviews knows how much it bothers me when film adaptations are so bad or so off or they just lose everything the book had. The exact opposite happens here. I think what makes this movie so good and so well put together is that it's still Stephen's story. He wrote the book, then the screenplay, then he directed it so it was his entire vision coming to life on screen and it worked. I think if anyone else would've directed or wrote the script, it wouldn't have translated so well.
Additionally, this cast is phenomenal. Logan Lerman, Emma Watson, Ezra Miller, Nina Dobrev, Mae Whitman, Kate Walsh, Paul Rudd, it just works. There are some parts from the book that didn't make it to the screen and that definitely bummed me out - I wish we could've seen Bill and Charlie's relationship more because it was really important in the book and it provided a lot for Charlie in terms of safety and comfort. I also wish some of the lines were verbatim. When Sam gets mad at Charlie after truth or dare, in the book she says, "what the fuck is wrong with you?" while in the movie she says, "what the hell is wrong with you?" I know that it's not a huge difference but I think that would've landed so much better. Also when Charlie defends Patrick. In the book, he says, "If you ever do this again, I'll tell everyone and I'll tell everyone for real. If you come after him again, I'll blind you." or something along those lines and I think that would've been great, especially with how low and solid Logan gave the line in the film. Just small things like that, I wish would've made it to screen.
Regardless, this film and this story are incredible and worth watching at least once for everyone. The same goes for the book. A must-read.
Additionally, this cast is phenomenal. Logan Lerman, Emma Watson, Ezra Miller, Nina Dobrev, Mae Whitman, Kate Walsh, Paul Rudd, it just works. There are some parts from the book that didn't make it to the screen and that definitely bummed me out - I wish we could've seen Bill and Charlie's relationship more because it was really important in the book and it provided a lot for Charlie in terms of safety and comfort. I also wish some of the lines were verbatim. When Sam gets mad at Charlie after truth or dare, in the book she says, "what the fuck is wrong with you?" while in the movie she says, "what the hell is wrong with you?" I know that it's not a huge difference but I think that would've landed so much better. Also when Charlie defends Patrick. In the book, he says, "If you ever do this again, I'll tell everyone and I'll tell everyone for real. If you come after him again, I'll blind you." or something along those lines and I think that would've been great, especially with how low and solid Logan gave the line in the film. Just small things like that, I wish would've made it to screen.
Regardless, this film and this story are incredible and worth watching at least once for everyone. The same goes for the book. A must-read.
Gareth von Kallenbach (962 KP) rated The Perks of Being a Wallflower (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
The Perks of Being a Wallflower is based upon the best selling novel written by Stephen Chbosky and published in 1999. The film is directed by the author himself who makes the entire film follow the epistolary style novel very well. The film brings to light the struggles of an awkward adolescent boy named Charlie (Logan Lerman, Percy Jackson & the Olympians) and his struggles with trying to cope with the recent death of his best friend who has committed suicide and the not so recent death of his beloved aunt. While coping with both deaths Charlie also has to try his hardest to get through his first day of high school.
Charlie has a tough time making friends being shy and introverted. This definitely doesn’t help on his first day when the only friend he makes is his English teacher Mr. Anderson (Paul Rudd, I Love You Man). Though in his shop class he notices one very outgoing yet somewhat flamboyant senior Patrick (Ezra Miller) who ends up taking Charlie under his wing and inducts him into “the island of misfit toys”. Charlie becomes enamored with a pixie haired beauty named Sam (Emma Watson, Harry Potter) who is Patrick’s step-sister. She is involved with a college boy but soon finds that the path she is on will soon lead down a different direction, possibly with Charlie. Though Charlie is a freshman and has never been able to feel close to anybody, his new group of friends become somewhat of a family and together they are able to overcome the struggles that adolescents are faced with today.
This film is full of great actors with appearances by Joan Cusack, Tom Savini and Nina Dobrev (The Vampire Diaries) and many others. The film hit kind of close to home as I, and many others, I’m sure, can relate to some of the same issues that had to be faced. That is why this is such a great film. I suppose that is why the story was so moving to me. I almost had a small case of anxiety remembering my high school days as a “wallflower” or a “misfit”. While the story is a roller coaster of emotions it is very well paced and has an amazing soundtrack that follows the story. The film will bring a lot of different emotions to the surface and will tug at the heartstrings which all great films must do. I usually take notes during a film that I am reviewing and at certain times I noticed myself not writing anything as I was entirely enthralled with the film. The acting is great and portrays all the characters of the story very well. This was a great film for Emma Watson to grow as more of a dramatic actress as apposed to her role as Hermione Granger though at times you could hear her British accent come through. This film is a must see! PG-13,103mins long.
Charlie has a tough time making friends being shy and introverted. This definitely doesn’t help on his first day when the only friend he makes is his English teacher Mr. Anderson (Paul Rudd, I Love You Man). Though in his shop class he notices one very outgoing yet somewhat flamboyant senior Patrick (Ezra Miller) who ends up taking Charlie under his wing and inducts him into “the island of misfit toys”. Charlie becomes enamored with a pixie haired beauty named Sam (Emma Watson, Harry Potter) who is Patrick’s step-sister. She is involved with a college boy but soon finds that the path she is on will soon lead down a different direction, possibly with Charlie. Though Charlie is a freshman and has never been able to feel close to anybody, his new group of friends become somewhat of a family and together they are able to overcome the struggles that adolescents are faced with today.
This film is full of great actors with appearances by Joan Cusack, Tom Savini and Nina Dobrev (The Vampire Diaries) and many others. The film hit kind of close to home as I, and many others, I’m sure, can relate to some of the same issues that had to be faced. That is why this is such a great film. I suppose that is why the story was so moving to me. I almost had a small case of anxiety remembering my high school days as a “wallflower” or a “misfit”. While the story is a roller coaster of emotions it is very well paced and has an amazing soundtrack that follows the story. The film will bring a lot of different emotions to the surface and will tug at the heartstrings which all great films must do. I usually take notes during a film that I am reviewing and at certain times I noticed myself not writing anything as I was entirely enthralled with the film. The acting is great and portrays all the characters of the story very well. This was a great film for Emma Watson to grow as more of a dramatic actress as apposed to her role as Hermione Granger though at times you could hear her British accent come through. This film is a must see! PG-13,103mins long.
Gareth von Kallenbach (962 KP) rated Ghostbusters: Afterlife (2021) in Movies
Nov 16, 2021
Back in 1984 when big hair and neon were the norms; a movie appeared that soon became a cultural phenomenon. The movie involved a team of unlikely Paranormal Investigators and the mix of comedy, FX, and Ghosts turned the movie into a smash hit and a Pop Culture mainstay. The abundance of products that followed and the inescapable theme song and tagline soon gave rise to a sequel which while a success; did not resonate the way the original film had and thus the “Ghostbusters” film franchise became dormant.
While a successful video game and merchandise line kept the franchise alive; the 2016 reboot with an all-female team failed to capture the magic at the box office and again put the franchise’s cinematic future in question.
Thankfully after several delays due to the Covid 19 Pandemic; “Ghostbusters Afterlife” has arrived and is the worthy sequel that does justice to the original film and sets the stage well for future cinematic exploits.
The film follows a down on her luck mother named Callie )Carrie Coon) and her children Trevor (Finn Wolfhard); and Phoebe (Mckenna Grace), as they are forced to move to a dilapidated farm in rural Oklahoma following the passing of Callie’s estranged father and her subsequent eviction.
A series of unexplained earthquakes clues the smart and precocious Phoebe that something is up and with her new friend Podcast (Logan Kim), and teacher Mr. Grooberson (Paul Rudd); help her uncover her connection to the original Ghostbusters and the abundance and significance of the gear that her Grandfather has left on the farm.
Things soon take a turn for the worse and despite skeptical locals and the emerging danger, Phoebe, Trevor, and their friends have to battle the forces of evil to save the world.
The movie takes its time getting to the action and spends plenty of time establishing the characters, their motivations, and their relationships with one another. There are abundant homages to the original film; some of which are very subtle and clever but never seem gratuitous or tacked on.
The film also does not rely on the FX to tell the tale as while there are some solid effects in the film; this is a character-driven tale and the new cast works well with some surprise guests who pop up throughout the film.
Director Jason Reitman; son of the Director of the original film; clearly knows and loves the material as he not only helped craft the story but deftly weaves a new tale into the franchise which also fits well with the first film and does not attempt to reboot but rather continue the franchise.
There are two extra scenes in the credits that you will not want to miss as not only are they great fun; but also tease of future adventures to come.
The film also has a few touching moments that caused some unexpected emotion from the audience at our Press Screening and helped establish “Ghostbusters Afterlife” as not only a winning entry into the series but also one of the most enjoyable films of the year.
4.5 stars out of 5.
While a successful video game and merchandise line kept the franchise alive; the 2016 reboot with an all-female team failed to capture the magic at the box office and again put the franchise’s cinematic future in question.
Thankfully after several delays due to the Covid 19 Pandemic; “Ghostbusters Afterlife” has arrived and is the worthy sequel that does justice to the original film and sets the stage well for future cinematic exploits.
The film follows a down on her luck mother named Callie )Carrie Coon) and her children Trevor (Finn Wolfhard); and Phoebe (Mckenna Grace), as they are forced to move to a dilapidated farm in rural Oklahoma following the passing of Callie’s estranged father and her subsequent eviction.
A series of unexplained earthquakes clues the smart and precocious Phoebe that something is up and with her new friend Podcast (Logan Kim), and teacher Mr. Grooberson (Paul Rudd); help her uncover her connection to the original Ghostbusters and the abundance and significance of the gear that her Grandfather has left on the farm.
Things soon take a turn for the worse and despite skeptical locals and the emerging danger, Phoebe, Trevor, and their friends have to battle the forces of evil to save the world.
The movie takes its time getting to the action and spends plenty of time establishing the characters, their motivations, and their relationships with one another. There are abundant homages to the original film; some of which are very subtle and clever but never seem gratuitous or tacked on.
The film also does not rely on the FX to tell the tale as while there are some solid effects in the film; this is a character-driven tale and the new cast works well with some surprise guests who pop up throughout the film.
Director Jason Reitman; son of the Director of the original film; clearly knows and loves the material as he not only helped craft the story but deftly weaves a new tale into the franchise which also fits well with the first film and does not attempt to reboot but rather continue the franchise.
There are two extra scenes in the credits that you will not want to miss as not only are they great fun; but also tease of future adventures to come.
The film also has a few touching moments that caused some unexpected emotion from the audience at our Press Screening and helped establish “Ghostbusters Afterlife” as not only a winning entry into the series but also one of the most enjoyable films of the year.
4.5 stars out of 5.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Ghostbusters: Afterlife (2021) in Movies
Nov 24, 2021
The True Successor to the Original Film
I am a huge fan of the original, 1984 Bill Murray/Dan Ackroyd/Harold Ramis GHOSTBUSTERS - so much a fan, in fact, that I devoted an entire hour of my podcast, the BANKOFMARQUIS MOVIES PODCAST (which can be found in your favorite Podcast app) last Halloween to this film (Episode #23 to be precise). I found that the next 2 follow-up films - GHOSTBUSTERS 2 and the all-female GHOSTBUSTERS from a few years ago - did not even come close to recapturing the magic of that first film.
GHOSTBUSTERS:AFTERLIFE does and is, in my opinion, the true successor to this all-time great film. This is because Afterlife is nothing more than what it pretends to be - a 2 hour homage to the first film and, most importantly, a wonderful tribute and send off to the late Harold Ramis while creating a whole new “Ghostbusters” Universe and characters along the way.
The plot is fairly simple, the daughter and 2 grandchildren of Original Ghostbuster Egon Spengler (Ramis) arrive at his remote farm after his passing, They start discovering old Ghostbusters equipment (including the Ecto-1) and strange Supernatural events begin to occur.
So…who ya’ gonna call?
This film is lovingly created and produced by Writer/Director Jason Reitman (son of original Ghostbuster Director Ivan Reitman) and it succeeds not because it reveres the first film, but because it loves and respects it and leans into whenever it needs to while also becoming its’ own animal.
Nothing shows this more than the performances in this film. Previous attempts at revising this series tried to hard to regenerate the unique chemistry of the original Ghostbusters. This film realizes that was a mistake and lets these characters do their own things in their own way.
Paul Rudd and Carrie Coon are very good - if somewhat restrained - as the “adults” in this film, but it is the kids - that shine. Finn Wolfhard (STRANGER THINGS, IT) is rock solid as Trevor - one of Spengler’s Grandkids while Logan Kim as “Podcast” one of their friends is also fun and interesting.
But, it is the performance of McKenna Grace (THE HANDMAID’S TALE) as Phoebe, the Granddaughter most like the Grandfather, that really catches your attention and holds this film together in a way that is remarkable for one so young. She really is the secret weapon in this film.
And, of course, there are some fun cameos - cameos that would be spoilery if mentioned, but you can probably guess.
Reitman keeps the action moving along at a fine clip - though the first hour does drag out a bit - and the CGI is much improved since 1984, so that helps things out here as well.
More than a nostalgia play, GHOSTBUSTERS:AFTERLIFE is a fun romp that will be enjoyed by those who know (and love) the original as well as those who are coming to it for the first time.
Oh…and make sure you stay for the 2 End Credits scene - one comes about 2 minutes in and the other is right at the end, they are both worth staying for.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
GHOSTBUSTERS:AFTERLIFE does and is, in my opinion, the true successor to this all-time great film. This is because Afterlife is nothing more than what it pretends to be - a 2 hour homage to the first film and, most importantly, a wonderful tribute and send off to the late Harold Ramis while creating a whole new “Ghostbusters” Universe and characters along the way.
The plot is fairly simple, the daughter and 2 grandchildren of Original Ghostbuster Egon Spengler (Ramis) arrive at his remote farm after his passing, They start discovering old Ghostbusters equipment (including the Ecto-1) and strange Supernatural events begin to occur.
So…who ya’ gonna call?
This film is lovingly created and produced by Writer/Director Jason Reitman (son of original Ghostbuster Director Ivan Reitman) and it succeeds not because it reveres the first film, but because it loves and respects it and leans into whenever it needs to while also becoming its’ own animal.
Nothing shows this more than the performances in this film. Previous attempts at revising this series tried to hard to regenerate the unique chemistry of the original Ghostbusters. This film realizes that was a mistake and lets these characters do their own things in their own way.
Paul Rudd and Carrie Coon are very good - if somewhat restrained - as the “adults” in this film, but it is the kids - that shine. Finn Wolfhard (STRANGER THINGS, IT) is rock solid as Trevor - one of Spengler’s Grandkids while Logan Kim as “Podcast” one of their friends is also fun and interesting.
But, it is the performance of McKenna Grace (THE HANDMAID’S TALE) as Phoebe, the Granddaughter most like the Grandfather, that really catches your attention and holds this film together in a way that is remarkable for one so young. She really is the secret weapon in this film.
And, of course, there are some fun cameos - cameos that would be spoilery if mentioned, but you can probably guess.
Reitman keeps the action moving along at a fine clip - though the first hour does drag out a bit - and the CGI is much improved since 1984, so that helps things out here as well.
More than a nostalgia play, GHOSTBUSTERS:AFTERLIFE is a fun romp that will be enjoyed by those who know (and love) the original as well as those who are coming to it for the first time.
Oh…and make sure you stay for the 2 End Credits scene - one comes about 2 minutes in and the other is right at the end, they are both worth staying for.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Greatest Showman (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
This IS the Greatest Show!
I sometimes wonder how “proper” UK film critics view films early for review. Is there a ‘special screening’ which all the film critics attend in London? The point I’m getting at is whether the collective critical opinion of a movie can be swayed by a critic leaping to their feet and wildly applauding a film like “Star Wars: The Last Jedi” or, alternatively, snorting in derision at a film like “The Greatest Showman”. For sometimes the critics seem to get it massively wrong across the board, panning a film that the general public will adore. Unfortunately, this has the effect of putting the general public off seeing it, especially in the lethargic post-Christmas period. I think here is a case in point. It’s not the best little film in the world, but as a musical crowd-pleaser it delivers in spades.
Will you like “The Greatest Showman”? This will be dictated almost entirely by whether you are a “musicals” person or not! For “The Greatest Showman” is a frothy, very loud, cheesy and high-energy musical, much more aligned, in fact, to the mainstream genre from the 40’s and 50’s than “La La Land” was.
Roll up, roll up. The circus cast entertain.
In a VERY loose interpretation of the early life of Phineas Taylor Barnum, the American huckster and impressario, we start the story with a pre-pubescent Barnum (Ellis Rubin, sung by Ziv Zaifman) as a young tailor’s assistant punching above his weight with young socialite Charity (Skylar Dunn), firmly against the wishes of her father. Spin forward (via song) and the hitched Barnum’s – now Hugh Jackman (“Logan“) and Michelle Williams (“Manchester By The Sea“) – are barely scraping a living. But Barnum has “A Million Dreams” and hits on the novel idea of opening an entertainment (coined “a circus” by journalist James Gordon Bennett (Paul Sparks)) where he offers both respect and a family to those of the city who are deformed, rejected and socially shunned. Barnum’s show is shockingly entertaining – as in both filling seats and shocking the morally-self-righteous upper classes. But never one to rest on his laurels, Barnum’s endless ambition drives him to break his social ceiling by importing the “Swedish songbird”, opera singer Jenny Lind (Rebecca Ferguson, “Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation“, “The Snowman“) ), for an ambitious and extravegant tour of the States. All does not exactly go to plan.
Washing day tunes. Hugh Jackman and Michelle Williams take to the rooftops.
As I’ve said, most critics have been making sniffy noises about this film. But I am not one of them…. I LOVED IT, have already bought the glorious soundtrack album and will be looking forwards to the DVD release. For this is joy in a box. Sure, the story is a bit weak, the characterisations of everyone (other than Barnum) pretty lightweight, but it’s a musical extravaganza! Live with it!
Hugh Jackman, who of course started his career in stage musicals, is marvellously charismatic as Barnum although his singing does tend to the “shouty” end of the scale in many of the numbers. He’s joined here by fellow musicals star Zac Efron (let’s forget “Dirty Grandpa“) as the fictitious Phillip Carlyle: a socialite playwright and partner.
But the acting and singing revelation for me was Zendaya (“Spider-Man: Homecoming“) as Efron’s (scandalous) inter-racial love interest, who has a fantastically athletic body, sings and dances wonderfully and has a magnetic stare. A marvellous trapeze routine between Efron and Zendaya (“Rewrite The Stars”) is one of the high-spots of the film for me.
An energetic dance. Zendaya and Efron take to the skies.
Elsewhere Williams proves she has a singing voice as well as being a top flight actress and the bearded lady (Broadway star Keala Settle) belts out one of the show-stopping numbers “This is Me” (although she is a little ‘shrill’ for my musical tastes).
It would be nice to extend that compliment to the wonderful Rebecca Ferguson as the “greatest singer in the world” – but she is (wisely I think) dubbed here by Loren Allred (a finalist on the US version of “The Voice”). It is a bit of a shock when “the great opera singer” opens her mouth and a modern love song comes out, but once you get over that then the combination of Ferguson’s acting and Allred’s singing makes “Never Enough” one of the standout songs in the movie. (It’s been described as “a bit Eurovision” by Kevin Maher, “The Times” critic, which I can see but I don’t care! I find it marvellously moving).
A dangerous songbird’s nest for the married Barnum. Rebecca Ferguson and Hugh Jackman.
If you haven’t guessed it, there are some fantastic songs in this movie, written by “La La Land” song composers Benj Pasek and Justin Paul and at least one of these surely must be Oscar nominated (I’m not sure what the cut-off would be for the 2018 Oscars?).
There’s also a lot of talent in the backroom with production design and memorable costumes. Where I’d single out particular praise though is in the choreography and the editing on show.
Firstly, the choreography of “beats” in the song to the action on screen is brilliantly done, done, probably at its most impressive in a shot-glass bar-room scene between Jackman and Efron. And never (hats off to the special effects guys and cinematographer Seamus McGarvey) have you seen washing on a washing line so cleverly in time with the music.
Secondly in terms of the film editing, I am a sucker for clever “transition” shots, and there are some in this movie that just took my breath away: a transition to a pregnant Charity; a transition from ballet practice to ballet performance; there are numerous others!
Inverted magnetism. Zendaya as the trapeze artist Anne Wheeler.
I have decided to park some of my minor criticisms within the greater joy of the whole: some of the dialogue (by Jenny Bicks and Bill Condon) is as cheesy as hell, but probably no more so than in some of the Judy Garland/Mickey Rooney musicals. Where I had my biggest problem is in some of the lip synching to the songs. This is an age where the live recording of songs in films like “Les Miserables” and “La La Land” has set the bar high, and returning to the norm (I had the same problem with “Beauty and the Beast“) becomes noticeable and irritating to me. (Perhaps this is just me!).
It’s certainly not a perfect film, but its energy and drive carry it through as a memorable movie musical that may well take on a life of its own as word-of-mouth gets it more widely viewed (outside of the rather difficult Christmas holiday season). It would also be a good film for youngsters, with a bit of judicious editing (there is one moment of violence in the first 10 minutes that I would choose to edit out). From my perspective it is certainly a truly impressive debut for advert director Michael Gracey. Recommended for musical fans.
Will you like “The Greatest Showman”? This will be dictated almost entirely by whether you are a “musicals” person or not! For “The Greatest Showman” is a frothy, very loud, cheesy and high-energy musical, much more aligned, in fact, to the mainstream genre from the 40’s and 50’s than “La La Land” was.
Roll up, roll up. The circus cast entertain.
In a VERY loose interpretation of the early life of Phineas Taylor Barnum, the American huckster and impressario, we start the story with a pre-pubescent Barnum (Ellis Rubin, sung by Ziv Zaifman) as a young tailor’s assistant punching above his weight with young socialite Charity (Skylar Dunn), firmly against the wishes of her father. Spin forward (via song) and the hitched Barnum’s – now Hugh Jackman (“Logan“) and Michelle Williams (“Manchester By The Sea“) – are barely scraping a living. But Barnum has “A Million Dreams” and hits on the novel idea of opening an entertainment (coined “a circus” by journalist James Gordon Bennett (Paul Sparks)) where he offers both respect and a family to those of the city who are deformed, rejected and socially shunned. Barnum’s show is shockingly entertaining – as in both filling seats and shocking the morally-self-righteous upper classes. But never one to rest on his laurels, Barnum’s endless ambition drives him to break his social ceiling by importing the “Swedish songbird”, opera singer Jenny Lind (Rebecca Ferguson, “Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation“, “The Snowman“) ), for an ambitious and extravegant tour of the States. All does not exactly go to plan.
Washing day tunes. Hugh Jackman and Michelle Williams take to the rooftops.
As I’ve said, most critics have been making sniffy noises about this film. But I am not one of them…. I LOVED IT, have already bought the glorious soundtrack album and will be looking forwards to the DVD release. For this is joy in a box. Sure, the story is a bit weak, the characterisations of everyone (other than Barnum) pretty lightweight, but it’s a musical extravaganza! Live with it!
Hugh Jackman, who of course started his career in stage musicals, is marvellously charismatic as Barnum although his singing does tend to the “shouty” end of the scale in many of the numbers. He’s joined here by fellow musicals star Zac Efron (let’s forget “Dirty Grandpa“) as the fictitious Phillip Carlyle: a socialite playwright and partner.
But the acting and singing revelation for me was Zendaya (“Spider-Man: Homecoming“) as Efron’s (scandalous) inter-racial love interest, who has a fantastically athletic body, sings and dances wonderfully and has a magnetic stare. A marvellous trapeze routine between Efron and Zendaya (“Rewrite The Stars”) is one of the high-spots of the film for me.
An energetic dance. Zendaya and Efron take to the skies.
Elsewhere Williams proves she has a singing voice as well as being a top flight actress and the bearded lady (Broadway star Keala Settle) belts out one of the show-stopping numbers “This is Me” (although she is a little ‘shrill’ for my musical tastes).
It would be nice to extend that compliment to the wonderful Rebecca Ferguson as the “greatest singer in the world” – but she is (wisely I think) dubbed here by Loren Allred (a finalist on the US version of “The Voice”). It is a bit of a shock when “the great opera singer” opens her mouth and a modern love song comes out, but once you get over that then the combination of Ferguson’s acting and Allred’s singing makes “Never Enough” one of the standout songs in the movie. (It’s been described as “a bit Eurovision” by Kevin Maher, “The Times” critic, which I can see but I don’t care! I find it marvellously moving).
A dangerous songbird’s nest for the married Barnum. Rebecca Ferguson and Hugh Jackman.
If you haven’t guessed it, there are some fantastic songs in this movie, written by “La La Land” song composers Benj Pasek and Justin Paul and at least one of these surely must be Oscar nominated (I’m not sure what the cut-off would be for the 2018 Oscars?).
There’s also a lot of talent in the backroom with production design and memorable costumes. Where I’d single out particular praise though is in the choreography and the editing on show.
Firstly, the choreography of “beats” in the song to the action on screen is brilliantly done, done, probably at its most impressive in a shot-glass bar-room scene between Jackman and Efron. And never (hats off to the special effects guys and cinematographer Seamus McGarvey) have you seen washing on a washing line so cleverly in time with the music.
Secondly in terms of the film editing, I am a sucker for clever “transition” shots, and there are some in this movie that just took my breath away: a transition to a pregnant Charity; a transition from ballet practice to ballet performance; there are numerous others!
Inverted magnetism. Zendaya as the trapeze artist Anne Wheeler.
I have decided to park some of my minor criticisms within the greater joy of the whole: some of the dialogue (by Jenny Bicks and Bill Condon) is as cheesy as hell, but probably no more so than in some of the Judy Garland/Mickey Rooney musicals. Where I had my biggest problem is in some of the lip synching to the songs. This is an age where the live recording of songs in films like “Les Miserables” and “La La Land” has set the bar high, and returning to the norm (I had the same problem with “Beauty and the Beast“) becomes noticeable and irritating to me. (Perhaps this is just me!).
It’s certainly not a perfect film, but its energy and drive carry it through as a memorable movie musical that may well take on a life of its own as word-of-mouth gets it more widely viewed (outside of the rather difficult Christmas holiday season). It would also be a good film for youngsters, with a bit of judicious editing (there is one moment of violence in the first 10 minutes that I would choose to edit out). From my perspective it is certainly a truly impressive debut for advert director Michael Gracey. Recommended for musical fans.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Ford v Ferrari (aka Le Mans '66) (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021 (Updated Jan 22, 2021)
Matt Damon asked Christian Bale how he had managed to lose almost 70lbs for his role as Ken Miles, following his chubbing up to play Dick Cheney in Vice the previous year. Bale just smiled, shrugged and said, “I didn’t eat”. Such is his reputation for playing real people with 100% commitment, apocryphal or not, I totally believe that is true.
Sports films, and especially racing films, hang on three things: the quality and believability of the sports/racing scenes, the dynamic tension between the lead characters, and the degree we are hooked by the underdog makes a comeback element. Le Mans ’66, also known as Ford V Ferrari for American audiences, who obviously can’t make sense of French or numbers, has all three of those boxes ticked, and several others besides.
It will make it easier for me to explain why I liked this film so much if I confess up front to how much I liked it, so without hesitation I confidently state… more than Rush (2013) and Grand Prix (1966), making it probably the best racing film ever, but less than Warrior (2011) or Rocky (1976), making it a contender for top 5 but not the best sports movie ever. So, that is pretty high praise from the flag-fall.
Let’s examine the 3 key elements in order. Firstly, the racing scenes: This film is based on real people in real races driving real cars, with very little altered or tweaked for dramatic purposes (save one key detail of the final race). It didn’t need anything adding, because the real story is incredible enough. Part of that is the very real rivalry that existed between the undisputed champions of the world’s most beautiful cars, Ferrari, representing everything essentially European, and the empire of mass production efficiency that was the Ford dynasty, representing everything American.
The reproductions of the cars themselves and the personalities behind them is vivid and believable from minute one, so when the cars hit the track you can almost smell the fuel and feel the heat and grime, not to mention the speed. Every shot on every straight and turn feels like it should, and would, if you yourself were driving: intense, terrifying, exhilarating and addictive!
At no point did I see anything unrealistic, or a piece of footage copied and pasted. No trick angles or overuse of time stretching techniques, what you see is mostly what you get, and if you understand car racing in even the most amateur way then that is impressive. Add to that a complete understanding of tension building during a race from a direction and acting point of view and you just have to tip your helmet visor to James Mangold and Christian Bale, who seem in complete synthesis about what is required from a racing scene.
Next, look at the chemistry between Damon’s laconic yet stubborn pragmatist, Carroll Shelby, and Bale’s idiosyncratic, twitchy adrenaline junky, Ken Miles. They couldn’t be more different, personality wise, or actually performance wise. Bale chews up the screen with another in a long line now of big bold characterisations that you can’t take your eyes off, and Damon gives off solid, dependable, trust-worthy movie-star vibes in return. Their scenes together are spiky, fun, compelling and feel authetic, in a Hollywood movie way that we recognise and love. It feels almost like Paul Newman and Jack Lemon – the handsome straight guy and the quirky foil.
I love both these actors when they bring their A game. And they do here. It is consummate film acting, completely in control of what kind of film they are making. Not a naturalistic drama hoping to sweep the Oscars and hit hard in the emotional solar plexus, but a fun sports film driven by the conventions and tropes of the genre. Both manage to keep it just the right side of fun and exciting, whilst holding the reigns on believability also. Mangold, who knows how both action (Logan) and Bio-pics (Walk the Line) work to a very high level, brings experience of both genres to the fore here, and the blend is sublime.
Finally, there is the underdog element. Both of these guys were unconventional mavericks, and well known as being so. Both respected, but never treated as champions as they deserved in their lifetime, perhaps because they were not yes men or company men, who toed the line and played by the rules of the big bosses of the sport. Both of them absolutely driven by compulsion and passion to win, yet both flawed on the ways they could achieve that.
Then there is the consideration how much the car is a character, or at least Ford as a concept. What makes this story so great is the David and Goliath element, that makes you sure there is no possible way this could be true. As with all great sports films, even if you know the history and result of a real event, the little guy sticking it to the invincible and arrogant behemoth, win, lose or draw, is what makes us invest and then cheer, or cry, when all the effort is finally spent.
Effort, sacrifice, overcoming obstacles, facing defeat, bouncing back from setbacks, gaining respect of friends and rivals alike – all these elements make a sports film great. Le Mans ’66 has it all, with the added bonus of enough budget to make it fly, which isn’t usually the case in this genre. It looks spectacular, feels exciting and is ultimately completely satisfying, as both a character study of real men, and a document of a game changing moment in sporting history.
It also doesn’t entirely ignore the female influence on such a masculine world; the little known Irish actress Catriona Balfe as Mollie Miles really caught my eye in some really tender scenes. This film won’t be passing the Bechdal test any time soon, however, as she is pretty much the only female member of the cast with an actual name! But it isn’t something to get too hung up about, in my opinion.
I’d be bold enough to recommend this to anyone. No need to love cars, or racing or even sport at all. If you love good movies that keep you hooked till the checkered flag of the credits, then look no further. High art? No. A proper movie with huge mass appeal? 100%
Sports films, and especially racing films, hang on three things: the quality and believability of the sports/racing scenes, the dynamic tension between the lead characters, and the degree we are hooked by the underdog makes a comeback element. Le Mans ’66, also known as Ford V Ferrari for American audiences, who obviously can’t make sense of French or numbers, has all three of those boxes ticked, and several others besides.
It will make it easier for me to explain why I liked this film so much if I confess up front to how much I liked it, so without hesitation I confidently state… more than Rush (2013) and Grand Prix (1966), making it probably the best racing film ever, but less than Warrior (2011) or Rocky (1976), making it a contender for top 5 but not the best sports movie ever. So, that is pretty high praise from the flag-fall.
Let’s examine the 3 key elements in order. Firstly, the racing scenes: This film is based on real people in real races driving real cars, with very little altered or tweaked for dramatic purposes (save one key detail of the final race). It didn’t need anything adding, because the real story is incredible enough. Part of that is the very real rivalry that existed between the undisputed champions of the world’s most beautiful cars, Ferrari, representing everything essentially European, and the empire of mass production efficiency that was the Ford dynasty, representing everything American.
The reproductions of the cars themselves and the personalities behind them is vivid and believable from minute one, so when the cars hit the track you can almost smell the fuel and feel the heat and grime, not to mention the speed. Every shot on every straight and turn feels like it should, and would, if you yourself were driving: intense, terrifying, exhilarating and addictive!
At no point did I see anything unrealistic, or a piece of footage copied and pasted. No trick angles or overuse of time stretching techniques, what you see is mostly what you get, and if you understand car racing in even the most amateur way then that is impressive. Add to that a complete understanding of tension building during a race from a direction and acting point of view and you just have to tip your helmet visor to James Mangold and Christian Bale, who seem in complete synthesis about what is required from a racing scene.
Next, look at the chemistry between Damon’s laconic yet stubborn pragmatist, Carroll Shelby, and Bale’s idiosyncratic, twitchy adrenaline junky, Ken Miles. They couldn’t be more different, personality wise, or actually performance wise. Bale chews up the screen with another in a long line now of big bold characterisations that you can’t take your eyes off, and Damon gives off solid, dependable, trust-worthy movie-star vibes in return. Their scenes together are spiky, fun, compelling and feel authetic, in a Hollywood movie way that we recognise and love. It feels almost like Paul Newman and Jack Lemon – the handsome straight guy and the quirky foil.
I love both these actors when they bring their A game. And they do here. It is consummate film acting, completely in control of what kind of film they are making. Not a naturalistic drama hoping to sweep the Oscars and hit hard in the emotional solar plexus, but a fun sports film driven by the conventions and tropes of the genre. Both manage to keep it just the right side of fun and exciting, whilst holding the reigns on believability also. Mangold, who knows how both action (Logan) and Bio-pics (Walk the Line) work to a very high level, brings experience of both genres to the fore here, and the blend is sublime.
Finally, there is the underdog element. Both of these guys were unconventional mavericks, and well known as being so. Both respected, but never treated as champions as they deserved in their lifetime, perhaps because they were not yes men or company men, who toed the line and played by the rules of the big bosses of the sport. Both of them absolutely driven by compulsion and passion to win, yet both flawed on the ways they could achieve that.
Then there is the consideration how much the car is a character, or at least Ford as a concept. What makes this story so great is the David and Goliath element, that makes you sure there is no possible way this could be true. As with all great sports films, even if you know the history and result of a real event, the little guy sticking it to the invincible and arrogant behemoth, win, lose or draw, is what makes us invest and then cheer, or cry, when all the effort is finally spent.
Effort, sacrifice, overcoming obstacles, facing defeat, bouncing back from setbacks, gaining respect of friends and rivals alike – all these elements make a sports film great. Le Mans ’66 has it all, with the added bonus of enough budget to make it fly, which isn’t usually the case in this genre. It looks spectacular, feels exciting and is ultimately completely satisfying, as both a character study of real men, and a document of a game changing moment in sporting history.
It also doesn’t entirely ignore the female influence on such a masculine world; the little known Irish actress Catriona Balfe as Mollie Miles really caught my eye in some really tender scenes. This film won’t be passing the Bechdal test any time soon, however, as she is pretty much the only female member of the cast with an actual name! But it isn’t something to get too hung up about, in my opinion.
I’d be bold enough to recommend this to anyone. No need to love cars, or racing or even sport at all. If you love good movies that keep you hooked till the checkered flag of the credits, then look no further. High art? No. A proper movie with huge mass appeal? 100%