Search
Search results
David McK (3251 KP) rated Wonder Woman (2017) in Movies
Jul 27, 2019 (Updated Jun 22, 2021)
Like, I'm sure, many others, if you'd mentioned the words 'Wonder Woman' to me prior to 2016 Batman Vs Superman: Dawn of Justice I probably would have thought of the 1970s(?) Linda Carter starring TV series.
That was a role that Gal Gadot took in in the 2016 movie, portraying a different take on the character: one who has largely remained in the background throughout history, only revealing herself (and her powers) towards the end of that movie.
This film takes place at an earlier period in her life (albeit 'bookended' by a modern day setting, with Diana receiving a vintage photo of her in costume): during the First World War, to be precise, when Diana first leaves the Amazonian island paradise of Thermiscyra and enters the world, discovering her powers and heritage in the process.
While there may be an element of truth in the criticism that the plot of this movie is - largely - a role-reversed Captain America (World War setting? Sacrificial ending?) and that it probably could have done without the CGI battle at the end (which, IMO, lessened the impact the movie would have had without it) this is still a very enjoyable movie indeed!
As an aside: the stand-out scene where Diana crosses No-Mans land on her own? That was nearly cut from the movie.
That was a role that Gal Gadot took in in the 2016 movie, portraying a different take on the character: one who has largely remained in the background throughout history, only revealing herself (and her powers) towards the end of that movie.
This film takes place at an earlier period in her life (albeit 'bookended' by a modern day setting, with Diana receiving a vintage photo of her in costume): during the First World War, to be precise, when Diana first leaves the Amazonian island paradise of Thermiscyra and enters the world, discovering her powers and heritage in the process.
While there may be an element of truth in the criticism that the plot of this movie is - largely - a role-reversed Captain America (World War setting? Sacrificial ending?) and that it probably could have done without the CGI battle at the end (which, IMO, lessened the impact the movie would have had without it) this is still a very enjoyable movie indeed!
As an aside: the stand-out scene where Diana crosses No-Mans land on her own? That was nearly cut from the movie.
Lenard (726 KP) rated The Call Of The Wild (2020) in Movies
Feb 24, 2020
It Wears Its Heart in the Right Place
I love Jack London's writing. It is so nice to read a story with language that is so straightforward. Caught between the romantic period, when writers used flowery prose and were paid per word, and the stream-of-consciousness movement, where narrators spoke in a manner of events as they were happening right at that moment, London's naturalism was a change of pace for readers.
Buck is the housebroken dog of a San Francisco judge who was indulged as any child of wealth would be in the 1890s. Alaska was harsh environment for man and beast. When money was offered for dogs who could work in Alaska as sled dogs for supplies to mining outposts, Buck is kidnapped. Along the way, Buck begins to learn the lineage of his forebears, the wolves, as he adapts to his new life in the frozen tundra.
The movie itself as adapted in 2020 avoids a lot of the hardships that Buck faces in his new life, but he is given a kindly old sage who looks out for him throughout the movie. It also includes a Snidely Whiplash-like literal gold-digger who comes to Alaska with little knowledge of Alaska or gold prospecting. This character is two-dimensional and portrayed as "evil." Also, the character of Spitz, an Alaskan malamute who leads the sled team and serves as an antagonist for Buck, is given very little screentime.
Last observation, during the film, as Harrison Ford lay on the ground in one of the final scenes, I looked into his eyes and saw not the 77-year-old Harrison Ford who has become a mentor to the film community, but the 30-year-old carpenter who just wanted to drag race a teenager in American Graffiti. He still has within his eyes, the look of hunger that acting feeds. And, he didn't need de-aging SPX to look younger than he is.
Buck is the housebroken dog of a San Francisco judge who was indulged as any child of wealth would be in the 1890s. Alaska was harsh environment for man and beast. When money was offered for dogs who could work in Alaska as sled dogs for supplies to mining outposts, Buck is kidnapped. Along the way, Buck begins to learn the lineage of his forebears, the wolves, as he adapts to his new life in the frozen tundra.
The movie itself as adapted in 2020 avoids a lot of the hardships that Buck faces in his new life, but he is given a kindly old sage who looks out for him throughout the movie. It also includes a Snidely Whiplash-like literal gold-digger who comes to Alaska with little knowledge of Alaska or gold prospecting. This character is two-dimensional and portrayed as "evil." Also, the character of Spitz, an Alaskan malamute who leads the sled team and serves as an antagonist for Buck, is given very little screentime.
Last observation, during the film, as Harrison Ford lay on the ground in one of the final scenes, I looked into his eyes and saw not the 77-year-old Harrison Ford who has become a mentor to the film community, but the 30-year-old carpenter who just wanted to drag race a teenager in American Graffiti. He still has within his eyes, the look of hunger that acting feeds. And, he didn't need de-aging SPX to look younger than he is.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Pie Society (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“Contented with little, wishing for more”.
Here’s a curious little British film that has some merit, both as an entertainment vehicle and as a history lesson.
Set in a split-timeline between 1941 and 1946, the film tells the story of Juliet Ashton (Lily James, “Darkest Hour“, “Baby Driver“), a young British writer who seems all at sea emotion-wise following the war. She is struggling to fit in with her high-society London life, and can’t seem to put her heart into either her publishing commitments, much to the frustration of her publisher Sidney (Matthew Goode, “The Imitation Game“, “Stoker“), or her boyfriend Mark (Glen Powell, “Hidden Figures“), the dashing and well-off American army officer.
Into this mix drops a letter out of the blue from Guernsey from a pig-farmer called Dawsey Adams (Michiel Huisman, “The Age of Adeline“, “Game of Thrones”), which leads her on a trail of discovery into the mysterious back-story of the strangely named book club. The secrets of the tightly-knit St Peter Port community, and what really happened during the Nazi occupation, come progressively to light as Juliet digs deeper.
Much as “Their Finest” shone a light on the rather invisible war efforts of the British propaganda film industry, so here we get an interesting and (I believe) relatively untapped view of the historical background of the German occupation of the Channel Islands. How many viewers I wonder, especially those outside of the UK, knew that the Nazis occupied “British” territory* during the war?
(* Well, strictly speaking, the Channel Islands are a “crown dependency” rather than being part of the UK per se).
Story-wise the screenplay splits the drama between:
the love triangle (which I almost took to be a love square at the start of the film… and to be honest I’m still not 100% sure!) between the main protagonists and;
the mystery surrounding Guernsey’s Elizabeth McKenna (Jessica Brown Findlay, “The Riot Club”, Lady Sybil from Downton Abbey).
In the first instance, you would need to be pretty dim I think, particularly if you’ve seen the trailer already, not to work out where the story is going to head! (Although, to be fair, I thought that about “Their Finest” and was woefully wrong!). I found this all rather paint-by-numbers stuff, but livened up immensely by a scene between James and Powell and a bottle of champagne which is wonderfully and refreshingly pulled off.
The second strand of the story is slightly more intriguing and provides the opportunity to see the wonderful Jessica Brown Findlay in action: it is just disappointing that she actually features so little in the film, and also disappointing that, at a crucial dramatic moment, the action moves “off-stage”. I wanted to see more of that story.
In terms of casting, Susie Figgis must have had a TERRIBLE job in casting Juliet: “Gemma Arterton not available…. hmmm… who else would fit…. think… think… think… think dammit….! Ah, yes!!” Lily James might be in danger of becoming typecast as a 40’s-style love interest. But she just fits the bill in terms of looks and mannerisms SO perfectly.
Elsewhere in the cast, Penelope Wilton (“The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel“, “The BFG“) is superb as the deeply damaged Amelia; Tom Courtenay is 300% better than in his last movie outing as the cranky old postmaster; and TV’s Katherine Parkinson impresses greatly as the kooky gin-swilling Isola Pribby. All in all this is a fine ensemble cast. (With James, Goode, Wilton and Brown Findlay there, it must have also felt like a “Downton Abbey” reunion party!)
I’d also like to say that the Guernsey scenery was gloriously filmed, but as this article suggests, most of it was actually filmed in glorious Devon instead! Given the Guernsey Tourist Board have been going overboard (at least in the Southampton area) on film tie-in advertising, this feels rather like false representation! But I’m sure its equally lovely!
So in summary, it’s a thoughtful period piece, with some great acting performances and well-directed by Mike Newell (still most famous for “Four Weddings and a Funeral”). I enjoyed it but I felt it moved at a GLACIAL pace, taking over two hours to unfold, and I thought a few editing nips and tucks on the long lingering looks and leisurely strolls could have given it most impetus. But to be fair, my wife and cinema buddy for this film thought it was PERFECTLY paced, giving the story the space it needed for the drama and Juliet’s state of mind to unfold. In fact she gave it “5 Mads” as her rating… top marks! For me though a very creditable…
Set in a split-timeline between 1941 and 1946, the film tells the story of Juliet Ashton (Lily James, “Darkest Hour“, “Baby Driver“), a young British writer who seems all at sea emotion-wise following the war. She is struggling to fit in with her high-society London life, and can’t seem to put her heart into either her publishing commitments, much to the frustration of her publisher Sidney (Matthew Goode, “The Imitation Game“, “Stoker“), or her boyfriend Mark (Glen Powell, “Hidden Figures“), the dashing and well-off American army officer.
Into this mix drops a letter out of the blue from Guernsey from a pig-farmer called Dawsey Adams (Michiel Huisman, “The Age of Adeline“, “Game of Thrones”), which leads her on a trail of discovery into the mysterious back-story of the strangely named book club. The secrets of the tightly-knit St Peter Port community, and what really happened during the Nazi occupation, come progressively to light as Juliet digs deeper.
Much as “Their Finest” shone a light on the rather invisible war efforts of the British propaganda film industry, so here we get an interesting and (I believe) relatively untapped view of the historical background of the German occupation of the Channel Islands. How many viewers I wonder, especially those outside of the UK, knew that the Nazis occupied “British” territory* during the war?
(* Well, strictly speaking, the Channel Islands are a “crown dependency” rather than being part of the UK per se).
Story-wise the screenplay splits the drama between:
the love triangle (which I almost took to be a love square at the start of the film… and to be honest I’m still not 100% sure!) between the main protagonists and;
the mystery surrounding Guernsey’s Elizabeth McKenna (Jessica Brown Findlay, “The Riot Club”, Lady Sybil from Downton Abbey).
In the first instance, you would need to be pretty dim I think, particularly if you’ve seen the trailer already, not to work out where the story is going to head! (Although, to be fair, I thought that about “Their Finest” and was woefully wrong!). I found this all rather paint-by-numbers stuff, but livened up immensely by a scene between James and Powell and a bottle of champagne which is wonderfully and refreshingly pulled off.
The second strand of the story is slightly more intriguing and provides the opportunity to see the wonderful Jessica Brown Findlay in action: it is just disappointing that she actually features so little in the film, and also disappointing that, at a crucial dramatic moment, the action moves “off-stage”. I wanted to see more of that story.
In terms of casting, Susie Figgis must have had a TERRIBLE job in casting Juliet: “Gemma Arterton not available…. hmmm… who else would fit…. think… think… think… think dammit….! Ah, yes!!” Lily James might be in danger of becoming typecast as a 40’s-style love interest. But she just fits the bill in terms of looks and mannerisms SO perfectly.
Elsewhere in the cast, Penelope Wilton (“The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel“, “The BFG“) is superb as the deeply damaged Amelia; Tom Courtenay is 300% better than in his last movie outing as the cranky old postmaster; and TV’s Katherine Parkinson impresses greatly as the kooky gin-swilling Isola Pribby. All in all this is a fine ensemble cast. (With James, Goode, Wilton and Brown Findlay there, it must have also felt like a “Downton Abbey” reunion party!)
I’d also like to say that the Guernsey scenery was gloriously filmed, but as this article suggests, most of it was actually filmed in glorious Devon instead! Given the Guernsey Tourist Board have been going overboard (at least in the Southampton area) on film tie-in advertising, this feels rather like false representation! But I’m sure its equally lovely!
So in summary, it’s a thoughtful period piece, with some great acting performances and well-directed by Mike Newell (still most famous for “Four Weddings and a Funeral”). I enjoyed it but I felt it moved at a GLACIAL pace, taking over two hours to unfold, and I thought a few editing nips and tucks on the long lingering looks and leisurely strolls could have given it most impetus. But to be fair, my wife and cinema buddy for this film thought it was PERFECTLY paced, giving the story the space it needed for the drama and Juliet’s state of mind to unfold. In fact she gave it “5 Mads” as her rating… top marks! For me though a very creditable…
Andy K (10821 KP) rated Creature from the Black Lagoon (1954) in Movies
Sep 22, 2019
The creature lurks!
In the Amazon jungle, a prehistoric amphibian claw fossil is found prodding local scientists to investigate its origins. They decide on an expedition to gain more information and possibly locate its origins.
The journey is a dangerous one figuring out where to find the mysterious lagoon which is locked in a desolate location within the tropical jungle. Their undersea adventures are met with initial disappoint only locating some interesting plant and animal life.
Within the depths on the lagoon, a strange creature has taken notice of his new guests and is not too happy about it. He lurks submerged within the deep watching and waiting for his opportunity to strike. He ventures close by to gather information and figure out his opponents' vulnerabilities. He also notices the pretty girl among the crew of men.
After a few encounters with the creature, the scientists grow increasingly concerned after the creature has had his way with a few of them, so they attempt to make their escape. Somehow, a large fallen tree is now blocking their path which was clear when they arrived at the lagoon.
There will be an ultimate standoff to secure their release or the demise of the creature.
The look of this film is plain remarkable. This has to be one of the earliest movies to utilize extensive underwater footage and it is very believable. The cinematography for the time period is both beautiful and menacing when needed in glorious black and white.
Obviously, we are talking 1950s special effects here; however, the creature itself stands the test of time. I am not sure how the man in the rubber sit was able to not only see what he was doing, swim quickly in and under water as well as jump into the water while on fire at one point. The mask also was able to move the creature's mouth up and down as well as look like he was breathing while out of the water using his gills. The effect worked really well.
This film was made at a time when the previous Universal Studios monster films had run their course in the 1930s and 1940s, but were not yet into the ultra B movie era in the 1950s and beyond.
If Universal ever gets back to its current "Monster" universe after the mediocre Tom Cruise "Mummy" film, I'm sure the creature will rise again. Until then, enjoy this classic creature gem.
The journey is a dangerous one figuring out where to find the mysterious lagoon which is locked in a desolate location within the tropical jungle. Their undersea adventures are met with initial disappoint only locating some interesting plant and animal life.
Within the depths on the lagoon, a strange creature has taken notice of his new guests and is not too happy about it. He lurks submerged within the deep watching and waiting for his opportunity to strike. He ventures close by to gather information and figure out his opponents' vulnerabilities. He also notices the pretty girl among the crew of men.
After a few encounters with the creature, the scientists grow increasingly concerned after the creature has had his way with a few of them, so they attempt to make their escape. Somehow, a large fallen tree is now blocking their path which was clear when they arrived at the lagoon.
There will be an ultimate standoff to secure their release or the demise of the creature.
The look of this film is plain remarkable. This has to be one of the earliest movies to utilize extensive underwater footage and it is very believable. The cinematography for the time period is both beautiful and menacing when needed in glorious black and white.
Obviously, we are talking 1950s special effects here; however, the creature itself stands the test of time. I am not sure how the man in the rubber sit was able to not only see what he was doing, swim quickly in and under water as well as jump into the water while on fire at one point. The mask also was able to move the creature's mouth up and down as well as look like he was breathing while out of the water using his gills. The effect worked really well.
This film was made at a time when the previous Universal Studios monster films had run their course in the 1930s and 1940s, but were not yet into the ultra B movie era in the 1950s and beyond.
If Universal ever gets back to its current "Monster" universe after the mediocre Tom Cruise "Mummy" film, I'm sure the creature will rise again. Until then, enjoy this classic creature gem.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Churchill (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“We will bore them on the beaches”.
“Churchill” tells the story of the great leader’s extreme opposition to “Operation Overlord”, the Eisenhower-led invasion of Normandy in 1944 that ultimately led – more by luck that judgement perhaps – to the fall of the Third Reich in the following year.
I’m not a historian but am married to one, so know the importance of “sources” in the pursuit of “truth”: one man’s terrorist is after all another man’s freedom fighter from a different perspective. Some sources on the internet (here for example) certainly suggest the The British (led by Churchill as Prime Minister) might have sensibly promoted the acceleration of the Italian campaign to reach Berlin rather than the far riskier Channel crossing.
This film however paints Churchill as a man demonised by his decision to send young men to their deaths in the fateful Gallipoli beach landings of World War One, with this – rather than a sensible strategic one – being the primary reason for opposing the Normandy landings. To further paint him as a bumbling old fool that is “worked around” by his peers strikes you as borderline libellous.
So the film’s script, by novice Alex von Tunzelmann, immediately set the wrong tone with me, and the undeniably strong performances of Brian Cox (“The Bourne Identity”) as Churchill and the wonderful Miranda Richardson (“Harry Potter” and the soon to be released “Stronger”) as Clemmie can’t fill the gap.
Besides anything else, diretor Jonathan Teplitzky (“The Railway Man”) delivers a piece so dull and lifeless, and with so much brooding, that its not remotely enjoyable. You think the introduction of a bullied secretary – Ms Garrett (Ella Purnell) – with a strong personal connection to ‘Overlord’ will add dramatic colour? But this angle too seems to go nowhere in particular.
There are many tales of the Normandy landings that are fascinating, over and above the dramatic sweep of “The Longest Day” (which is surely well overdue for a remake?) and Spielberg’s fictionalisation of the Niland brothers in “Saving Private Ryan”. How about the 2 out of 29 American amphibious tanks that reached Omaha beach after ignoring British advice to not launch so far from shore in rough seas?
So, as a film, it might be “worthy”. But I didn’t remotely believe the depiction of Churchill and it astonished me that such a rivetingly exciting period of British history could deliver a film that bored me. So, sorry, can’t recommend this one. Perhaps Joe Wright will have a better go with Gary Oldman as Churchill in “Darkest Hour”…
I’m not a historian but am married to one, so know the importance of “sources” in the pursuit of “truth”: one man’s terrorist is after all another man’s freedom fighter from a different perspective. Some sources on the internet (here for example) certainly suggest the The British (led by Churchill as Prime Minister) might have sensibly promoted the acceleration of the Italian campaign to reach Berlin rather than the far riskier Channel crossing.
This film however paints Churchill as a man demonised by his decision to send young men to their deaths in the fateful Gallipoli beach landings of World War One, with this – rather than a sensible strategic one – being the primary reason for opposing the Normandy landings. To further paint him as a bumbling old fool that is “worked around” by his peers strikes you as borderline libellous.
So the film’s script, by novice Alex von Tunzelmann, immediately set the wrong tone with me, and the undeniably strong performances of Brian Cox (“The Bourne Identity”) as Churchill and the wonderful Miranda Richardson (“Harry Potter” and the soon to be released “Stronger”) as Clemmie can’t fill the gap.
Besides anything else, diretor Jonathan Teplitzky (“The Railway Man”) delivers a piece so dull and lifeless, and with so much brooding, that its not remotely enjoyable. You think the introduction of a bullied secretary – Ms Garrett (Ella Purnell) – with a strong personal connection to ‘Overlord’ will add dramatic colour? But this angle too seems to go nowhere in particular.
There are many tales of the Normandy landings that are fascinating, over and above the dramatic sweep of “The Longest Day” (which is surely well overdue for a remake?) and Spielberg’s fictionalisation of the Niland brothers in “Saving Private Ryan”. How about the 2 out of 29 American amphibious tanks that reached Omaha beach after ignoring British advice to not launch so far from shore in rough seas?
So, as a film, it might be “worthy”. But I didn’t remotely believe the depiction of Churchill and it astonished me that such a rivetingly exciting period of British history could deliver a film that bored me. So, sorry, can’t recommend this one. Perhaps Joe Wright will have a better go with Gary Oldman as Churchill in “Darkest Hour”…
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated BlacKkKlansman (2018) in Movies
Oct 1, 2018 (Updated Oct 2, 2018)
Brilliant performances by the entire cast (1 more)
Funny, while still being relevant and sending a serious message
Spike Lee's Best In Years
BlackkKlansman released while I was on holiday, so after playing a bit of catchup at my local cinema, I eventually got around to seeing this film that I was looking forward to ever since seeing the first trailer for it. It lived up to my expectations and I really enjoyed it. Also, just a heads up; I usually don't like to get political in movie reviews, but I feel that with a film as politically charged as this one, it makes it inevitable to get around, so there may be some stuff in here that you disagree with.
The movie worked in several different ways, it definitely worked as a comedy and had me laughing raucously at certain points and then it would drop an important and relevant point on you and suddenly things wouldn't seem so funny any more. All of a sudden, these laughably ignorant racists suddenly became a very real threat, which I don't think was an accident in paralleling how Lee feels about a good amount of modern day Americans like Donald Trump. Remember when he first announced that he was running for office and everybody, (including the current president at that time,) laughed at him? Now he is the most powerful man in the world and poses a very real threat to minorities in the US. I thought that this was a very clever, subtle way to take a shot without being too blatant.
Then there was a slightly more obvious shot at him when characters are discussing a man filled with hate potentially working his way into power and getting the majority of the American public on his side and how awful that would be. Although this particular dig is way more obvious, it still didn't bother me too much and I accepted it as a filmmaker using his platform to send a message to someone that he morally disagrees with.
The final dig was a step too far for me. During a phone conversation between David Duke and Ron Stallworth, Duke says something about getting rid of non-whites to "make America great again." It was so heavy handed that the characters onscreen might as well have turned around and winked at the camera. Please don't get me wrong, I think that Donald Trump is a scumbag and am totally fine with Lee taking a couple of shots at him, but I much preferred the more subtle undertones that he sent his way earlier in the film to this blatantly obvious, slightly cringey callout.
I did enjoy Lee's references to Blaxploitation films of the 70's and I liked the whole aesthetic that this movie had. The score was brilliant and the cast did a great job, the performance that stayed with me the most after the film, was Corey Hawkins monologue as Kwame Ture. He only appears in one scene in the film, but his speech, (in which I felt he strongly channelled Denzel,) was mesmerising and electrifying to watch.
The way that Spike Lee chose to end this movie has stirred some controversy, but I found it to be incredibly powerful and moving. It really sent home the message that this kind of intense, despicable hatred isn't just something that was around in the 70's and 80's, it is something that is still sadly prevalent and happening in today's society and we have people in power, like Trump, who is willing to defend and stand by these people and their violent, hateful behaviour. It was also a fitting tribute to Heather Heyer who was killed when a car crashed into a crowd of people who had been peacefully protesting the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia one-year prior to this film's release.
Overall, this is a funny, entertaining, uncomfortable and anger-inducing film and all of these emotion are equally relevant. I also feel that this movie does exactly what it intends to on a moral level, whether you agree with the ideals portrayed or not, Lee does a terrific job in turning a period piece movie into a painfully relevant message for modern audiences.
The movie worked in several different ways, it definitely worked as a comedy and had me laughing raucously at certain points and then it would drop an important and relevant point on you and suddenly things wouldn't seem so funny any more. All of a sudden, these laughably ignorant racists suddenly became a very real threat, which I don't think was an accident in paralleling how Lee feels about a good amount of modern day Americans like Donald Trump. Remember when he first announced that he was running for office and everybody, (including the current president at that time,) laughed at him? Now he is the most powerful man in the world and poses a very real threat to minorities in the US. I thought that this was a very clever, subtle way to take a shot without being too blatant.
Then there was a slightly more obvious shot at him when characters are discussing a man filled with hate potentially working his way into power and getting the majority of the American public on his side and how awful that would be. Although this particular dig is way more obvious, it still didn't bother me too much and I accepted it as a filmmaker using his platform to send a message to someone that he morally disagrees with.
The final dig was a step too far for me. During a phone conversation between David Duke and Ron Stallworth, Duke says something about getting rid of non-whites to "make America great again." It was so heavy handed that the characters onscreen might as well have turned around and winked at the camera. Please don't get me wrong, I think that Donald Trump is a scumbag and am totally fine with Lee taking a couple of shots at him, but I much preferred the more subtle undertones that he sent his way earlier in the film to this blatantly obvious, slightly cringey callout.
I did enjoy Lee's references to Blaxploitation films of the 70's and I liked the whole aesthetic that this movie had. The score was brilliant and the cast did a great job, the performance that stayed with me the most after the film, was Corey Hawkins monologue as Kwame Ture. He only appears in one scene in the film, but his speech, (in which I felt he strongly channelled Denzel,) was mesmerising and electrifying to watch.
The way that Spike Lee chose to end this movie has stirred some controversy, but I found it to be incredibly powerful and moving. It really sent home the message that this kind of intense, despicable hatred isn't just something that was around in the 70's and 80's, it is something that is still sadly prevalent and happening in today's society and we have people in power, like Trump, who is willing to defend and stand by these people and their violent, hateful behaviour. It was also a fitting tribute to Heather Heyer who was killed when a car crashed into a crowd of people who had been peacefully protesting the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia one-year prior to this film's release.
Overall, this is a funny, entertaining, uncomfortable and anger-inducing film and all of these emotion are equally relevant. I also feel that this movie does exactly what it intends to on a moral level, whether you agree with the ideals portrayed or not, Lee does a terrific job in turning a period piece movie into a painfully relevant message for modern audiences.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Aftermath (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
Is there a period piece that Keira Knightley has ever turned down? After seeing her in Colette I retrieved her from the Nutcracker trash can I'd thrown her into and actually looked forward to whatever I was going to see her in next. I sort of wish it hadn't been this film though.
I'm conflicted. The Aftermath has some great pieces, but at the same time it's rather forgettable. Talking to a friend about films I'd seen this month I already forgot I'd seen it, and that doesn't normally happen this quickly.
Having seen the trailers I had come away with a rather definite idea of what the film was going to be like... I was actually surprised, the wool was properly pulled over my eyes. I had a completely different idea of the outcome. I really don't want to spoil it, if you've seen it message me and we'll waffle about it.
Alexander Skarsgård was incredibly good in this, I think I might be in love. I haven't seen him in anything recently but I might have to finally watch Tarzan. For the most part Stephen is a restrained and sensible character, so when he has an outburst of emotions it's all the more powerful. When he shows the Morgans round his house like a sad estate agent I felt that awkwardness.
Keira Knightley/Rachel isn't the leading lady I was looking for, as a character she is dislikeable. She's quick to judgment and takes for granted and abuses all the privileges that she has. I think this is partly what surprised me about the film, I hadn't expected her to be this way. In a film involving war I wouldn't have expected the female character to be the antagonist.
I'm pleased to see Jason Clarke again, he's going from strength to strength. Lewis Morgan is warm and accepting in contrast to the coldness of his wife. More strong emotions coming from our other male lead. Most feel like they're done perfectly, one outburst stuck out but I'm not sure that "out of character" is quite the right way to describe it.
The movie's handling of the Morgan's son was done nicely with a great link used to tie it together. Getting such a powerful moment out of such a small detail was amazing. The use of prop and flashback scenes came together very well.
The ending though... like the trailer I like that we're given something that doesn't necessarily hold with the expected. (Again, if you've seen it then message me so I can tell you how I wanted it to end.) I can't say I was happy with the end, it flies in the face of the traditional take on these sorts of films. There's an ending I would have preferred Rachel to have over the actual one just so that I could go "Ha! Serves you right!" but it wouldn't have been satisfactory for the other two points of the triangle. I'm not sure that any outcome could have left me content though.
There are some very striking visuals mixed through the film, most take part in the ruins of the city where we see the community living through the devastation of the city. I was intrigued to see that it was a BBC film, they usually have a certain feel to them but it wasn't really present in this.
As much as I enjoyed elements of this I can't say I would be fussed about seeing it again, if anything I think a second watch would remind me how annoying I found the ending.
What you should do
If you want to see Keira Knightley's character disrespecting her marriage then I would suggest watching Colette instead. However, if you want to have some strong feelings about Alexander Skarsgård then definitely see this one.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
It goes without saying that I would like Alexander Skarsgård, but failing that then the ability to play the piano beautifully will have to do.
I'm conflicted. The Aftermath has some great pieces, but at the same time it's rather forgettable. Talking to a friend about films I'd seen this month I already forgot I'd seen it, and that doesn't normally happen this quickly.
Having seen the trailers I had come away with a rather definite idea of what the film was going to be like... I was actually surprised, the wool was properly pulled over my eyes. I had a completely different idea of the outcome. I really don't want to spoil it, if you've seen it message me and we'll waffle about it.
Alexander Skarsgård was incredibly good in this, I think I might be in love. I haven't seen him in anything recently but I might have to finally watch Tarzan. For the most part Stephen is a restrained and sensible character, so when he has an outburst of emotions it's all the more powerful. When he shows the Morgans round his house like a sad estate agent I felt that awkwardness.
Keira Knightley/Rachel isn't the leading lady I was looking for, as a character she is dislikeable. She's quick to judgment and takes for granted and abuses all the privileges that she has. I think this is partly what surprised me about the film, I hadn't expected her to be this way. In a film involving war I wouldn't have expected the female character to be the antagonist.
I'm pleased to see Jason Clarke again, he's going from strength to strength. Lewis Morgan is warm and accepting in contrast to the coldness of his wife. More strong emotions coming from our other male lead. Most feel like they're done perfectly, one outburst stuck out but I'm not sure that "out of character" is quite the right way to describe it.
The movie's handling of the Morgan's son was done nicely with a great link used to tie it together. Getting such a powerful moment out of such a small detail was amazing. The use of prop and flashback scenes came together very well.
The ending though... like the trailer I like that we're given something that doesn't necessarily hold with the expected. (Again, if you've seen it then message me so I can tell you how I wanted it to end.) I can't say I was happy with the end, it flies in the face of the traditional take on these sorts of films. There's an ending I would have preferred Rachel to have over the actual one just so that I could go "Ha! Serves you right!" but it wouldn't have been satisfactory for the other two points of the triangle. I'm not sure that any outcome could have left me content though.
There are some very striking visuals mixed through the film, most take part in the ruins of the city where we see the community living through the devastation of the city. I was intrigued to see that it was a BBC film, they usually have a certain feel to them but it wasn't really present in this.
As much as I enjoyed elements of this I can't say I would be fussed about seeing it again, if anything I think a second watch would remind me how annoying I found the ending.
What you should do
If you want to see Keira Knightley's character disrespecting her marriage then I would suggest watching Colette instead. However, if you want to have some strong feelings about Alexander Skarsgård then definitely see this one.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
It goes without saying that I would like Alexander Skarsgård, but failing that then the ability to play the piano beautifully will have to do.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Shazam! (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
This was a massive turn out for an Unlimited Screening, the last time it was this busy was when we had the secret screening for The Incredibles 2. I guess everyone loves a bit of action, I know I do, so thank you very much, Cineworld.
Captain Sparkle Fingers amused and entertained, and it produced some of those goosebump moments you get from the anticipation. This is going to be a winner of the East period with the schools being out, I think that means I'll be avoiding the cinema for a bit.
I was concerned early on as it was a rather slow start and the tone was nothing like what we'd been seeing in the promotional material, but once that stumbling block was out of the way we started down a very fun path.
Billy Batson's search for his birth mother lands him with a new foster situation after his antics are no longer tolerated by his previous home. There he meets his new family who have a spectacular amount of alliterative name. Freddy Freeman, Darla Dudley, Victor Vasquez, Pedro Peña, (I really do think that alliteration should be mandatory in super movies) and the rather less rhythmic Rosa Vasquez, Mary Bromfield and Eugene Choi.
Billy is set on not being part of the family until two bullies set upon Freddy outside school, his instincts kick in and he wades in to protect him. This act catches the attention of The Wizard, Shazam, and knowing that the world needs a saviour he bestows his power on Billy.
The fact that Billy probably would have failed to be worthy of the power, or declined it, does sit a little heavy when you see it in the film. But we know that it eventually comes good so I let it slide.
Shazam is a massive departure for DC, it's very Marvel meets Teen Titans GO! To The Movies. It feels a little like the film is fighting with the brand's roots though, there's obviously a darkness around our villain but when you compare it to the goofy nature of the hero side it begins to feel like two different films. Had either of those films been made on their own I don't think we'd have been in for something quite so entertaining.
By far the most entertaining bits of Shazam are when we see Billy and Freddy exploring what superpowers Captain Sparkle Fingers has. Keep an eye out for the teleportation test, that was my favourite. I could quite happily have watched an entire film of these scenes.
I don't think there are many people out there that could have played this role, Zachary Levi is certainly the right fit. The childlike glee is so good that I can't help but think he was channelling Chuck Bartowski. I think there's something even more appealing about characters when the character gets to be a little wacky and act outside the expected. Jack Black in Jumanji, Tom Hanks in Big, Paul Rudd briefly in Ant-Man And The Wasp, they all produced some really amusing moments.
Mark Strong is brilliant, in general as well as in this film. I love him being menacing. He does a superb job with what he's given but I would have loved him to have had a few humorous moments in the whole lolfest. Being the serious thing in a film with so much humour wasn't a great situation to be in.
The family aspect in the movie is a strong theme throughout and our band of actors all work well as a team. I'm sad to say that individually I'm not a real fan of any of the characters apart from perhaps Eugene and his video games, but when they're together it's a great dynamic.
Shazam manages to be both brilliant and terrible all at the same time. Despite its identity crisis it is still a great film, I came out feeling happy and entertained, and that's all you really ask for in a movie.
What you should do
If you love superhero movies then definitely fit it into your schedule, you'll definitely be entertained.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I've said Shazam a lot over the last week and I've been hoping for some superpowers but nothing is happening... yet... SHAZAM!
Captain Sparkle Fingers amused and entertained, and it produced some of those goosebump moments you get from the anticipation. This is going to be a winner of the East period with the schools being out, I think that means I'll be avoiding the cinema for a bit.
I was concerned early on as it was a rather slow start and the tone was nothing like what we'd been seeing in the promotional material, but once that stumbling block was out of the way we started down a very fun path.
Billy Batson's search for his birth mother lands him with a new foster situation after his antics are no longer tolerated by his previous home. There he meets his new family who have a spectacular amount of alliterative name. Freddy Freeman, Darla Dudley, Victor Vasquez, Pedro Peña, (I really do think that alliteration should be mandatory in super movies) and the rather less rhythmic Rosa Vasquez, Mary Bromfield and Eugene Choi.
Billy is set on not being part of the family until two bullies set upon Freddy outside school, his instincts kick in and he wades in to protect him. This act catches the attention of The Wizard, Shazam, and knowing that the world needs a saviour he bestows his power on Billy.
The fact that Billy probably would have failed to be worthy of the power, or declined it, does sit a little heavy when you see it in the film. But we know that it eventually comes good so I let it slide.
Shazam is a massive departure for DC, it's very Marvel meets Teen Titans GO! To The Movies. It feels a little like the film is fighting with the brand's roots though, there's obviously a darkness around our villain but when you compare it to the goofy nature of the hero side it begins to feel like two different films. Had either of those films been made on their own I don't think we'd have been in for something quite so entertaining.
By far the most entertaining bits of Shazam are when we see Billy and Freddy exploring what superpowers Captain Sparkle Fingers has. Keep an eye out for the teleportation test, that was my favourite. I could quite happily have watched an entire film of these scenes.
I don't think there are many people out there that could have played this role, Zachary Levi is certainly the right fit. The childlike glee is so good that I can't help but think he was channelling Chuck Bartowski. I think there's something even more appealing about characters when the character gets to be a little wacky and act outside the expected. Jack Black in Jumanji, Tom Hanks in Big, Paul Rudd briefly in Ant-Man And The Wasp, they all produced some really amusing moments.
Mark Strong is brilliant, in general as well as in this film. I love him being menacing. He does a superb job with what he's given but I would have loved him to have had a few humorous moments in the whole lolfest. Being the serious thing in a film with so much humour wasn't a great situation to be in.
The family aspect in the movie is a strong theme throughout and our band of actors all work well as a team. I'm sad to say that individually I'm not a real fan of any of the characters apart from perhaps Eugene and his video games, but when they're together it's a great dynamic.
Shazam manages to be both brilliant and terrible all at the same time. Despite its identity crisis it is still a great film, I came out feeling happy and entertained, and that's all you really ask for in a movie.
What you should do
If you love superhero movies then definitely fit it into your schedule, you'll definitely be entertained.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I've said Shazam a lot over the last week and I've been hoping for some superpowers but nothing is happening... yet... SHAZAM!
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Dolittle (2020) in Movies
Mar 5, 2020
More CGI animals in another adaptation of a franchise that has been around since the 1920s. I do so love Eddie Murphy's comedy portrayal, am I ready for a period appropriate version?
Tommy Stubbins isn't like his uncle, he doesn't want to hunt the animals in the wood. When he shoots wide in an attempt to miss his target he accidentally hits a squirrel, but his reaction makes his uncle and cousin leave him there with the injured animal. Clutching the squirrel and not knowing what to do Tommy finds himself being beckoned by a parrot. She leads him through a gap in a high stone wall to an expanse filled with (not so) wild animals.
Doctor Dolittle has been hidden behind closed doors ever since his wife disappeared. With just the animals for company he's forgotten some of his human manners, he must remember them quickly as he's summoned by the Queen who is gravely ill.
Welsh. That accent that you couldn't quite put your finger on, that was Welsh... yeah, it wouldn't have been my first guess either but let's just accept it and move on shall we?
Seeing the CGI on this in the trailer didn't annoy me, and looking back now I'm not sure how that was the case when Call Of The Wild basically the same thing and I was livid. Just like Call Of The Wild, Dolittle benefits from the comedy you can get from the CGI and it really needed that.
RDJ is a big ticket name, but I'm not entirely sure he was suited to the role of John Dolittle. Perhaps that's partly to do with the fact that so much of his recent history is dominated by him as Tony Stark, perhaps it's because the slightly crazy and vulnerable Dolittle in this film has little impact. The truth for me is probably somewhere in the middle.
Considering the live action section of the films features a lot of Tommy Stubbins (played by Harry Collett) his role seems of little consequence after he's taken us to the estate, after all, Lady Rose would still have gone there and I suspect Polly would have steered him right. Stubbins, in the books, narrates the stories after he first appears, but in this adaptation it's given to Polly, voiced by Emma Thompson. I can understand that decision, she's got a very soothing and yet commanding voice that's perfect for that role.
There seems to be a lot of pieces kept from the books, though they've been tweaked for the modern audience. Not only the change of narrator but Polly is no longer a grey African parrot, instead we're given a much brighter macaw which has a better visual payoff.
One day I'll remember to look at the cast list for animated films before I go in, trying to place voices is so difficult on the fly. All in all the animals are fine, the script doesn't feel great but the antics help it out somewhat.
Our villains are quite varied throughout but Michael Sheen takes a main role as Dr. Blair Müdfly, Dolittle's rival. The interactions between him and the animals did amuse me but his over the top nature that built steadily through the film felt much too cliche, sadly not always in an entertaining way.
There are many things to like hidden in the film. It opens with a great animation that gives us back story which allows us not to suffer through clumsy attempts at the same during the film. I also really enjoyed the way we're shown how Dolittle speaks to the animals, though that does raise other questions that make things unravel, so I'll move on. The squirrel's commentary is hilarious and probably makes him my favourite character, though the octopus isn't too far behind.
Dolittle has a lot of nice little touches but it relies heavily on predictable humour and at times doesn't know when to stop (I'm thinking specifically about a scene towards the end of the film here). Even with its many ups and downs the film was enjoyable to watch, just the once. I'm entirely convinced that with a different accent it would have been infinitely better.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/dolittle-movie-review.html
Tommy Stubbins isn't like his uncle, he doesn't want to hunt the animals in the wood. When he shoots wide in an attempt to miss his target he accidentally hits a squirrel, but his reaction makes his uncle and cousin leave him there with the injured animal. Clutching the squirrel and not knowing what to do Tommy finds himself being beckoned by a parrot. She leads him through a gap in a high stone wall to an expanse filled with (not so) wild animals.
Doctor Dolittle has been hidden behind closed doors ever since his wife disappeared. With just the animals for company he's forgotten some of his human manners, he must remember them quickly as he's summoned by the Queen who is gravely ill.
Welsh. That accent that you couldn't quite put your finger on, that was Welsh... yeah, it wouldn't have been my first guess either but let's just accept it and move on shall we?
Seeing the CGI on this in the trailer didn't annoy me, and looking back now I'm not sure how that was the case when Call Of The Wild basically the same thing and I was livid. Just like Call Of The Wild, Dolittle benefits from the comedy you can get from the CGI and it really needed that.
RDJ is a big ticket name, but I'm not entirely sure he was suited to the role of John Dolittle. Perhaps that's partly to do with the fact that so much of his recent history is dominated by him as Tony Stark, perhaps it's because the slightly crazy and vulnerable Dolittle in this film has little impact. The truth for me is probably somewhere in the middle.
Considering the live action section of the films features a lot of Tommy Stubbins (played by Harry Collett) his role seems of little consequence after he's taken us to the estate, after all, Lady Rose would still have gone there and I suspect Polly would have steered him right. Stubbins, in the books, narrates the stories after he first appears, but in this adaptation it's given to Polly, voiced by Emma Thompson. I can understand that decision, she's got a very soothing and yet commanding voice that's perfect for that role.
There seems to be a lot of pieces kept from the books, though they've been tweaked for the modern audience. Not only the change of narrator but Polly is no longer a grey African parrot, instead we're given a much brighter macaw which has a better visual payoff.
One day I'll remember to look at the cast list for animated films before I go in, trying to place voices is so difficult on the fly. All in all the animals are fine, the script doesn't feel great but the antics help it out somewhat.
Our villains are quite varied throughout but Michael Sheen takes a main role as Dr. Blair Müdfly, Dolittle's rival. The interactions between him and the animals did amuse me but his over the top nature that built steadily through the film felt much too cliche, sadly not always in an entertaining way.
There are many things to like hidden in the film. It opens with a great animation that gives us back story which allows us not to suffer through clumsy attempts at the same during the film. I also really enjoyed the way we're shown how Dolittle speaks to the animals, though that does raise other questions that make things unravel, so I'll move on. The squirrel's commentary is hilarious and probably makes him my favourite character, though the octopus isn't too far behind.
Dolittle has a lot of nice little touches but it relies heavily on predictable humour and at times doesn't know when to stop (I'm thinking specifically about a scene towards the end of the film here). Even with its many ups and downs the film was enjoyable to watch, just the once. I'm entirely convinced that with a different accent it would have been infinitely better.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/03/dolittle-movie-review.html
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Misbehaviour (2020) in Movies
Jan 11, 2021
Watchable but a little misdirected
Misbehaviour is a 2020 drama directed by Philippa Lowthorpe based on a true story, that follows a group of women from the Women’s Liberation Movement as they attempt to disrupt the 1970 Miss World pageant being held in London.
Misbehaviour has made a decision to follow four separate stories as they eventually intersect at the Miss World pageant, and I think this is to it’s detriment as it seemed to dilute the main issue about women’s inequality. It follows Sally (Keira Knightley), a history student wanting her place at the table, as she joins forces with Jo Robinson (Jessie Buckley), a radical feminist from the Women’s Liberation Movement who believes in taking physical action as the plot to disrupt the pageant. It also follows 3 other storylines centred around the pageant itself: Eric (Rhys Ifans) and Julia Morley (Keeley Hawes), the creators of the Miss World Pageant as they attempt to respond to controversies surrounding it; Miss Grenada Jennifer Hosten (Gugu Mbatha-Raw) as she takes part in the contest and; Bob Hope (Greg Kinnear) who is hosting the pageant. All of these stories together, whilst interesting, mean that not enough time and detail is given to each individual storyline, especially with an under two hour run time.
The film begins with some fairly shocking male behaviour from Sally’s university interviewers and Bob Hope, but sadly it doesn’t carry on in this vein throughout. Had the entire film focused on the behaviour and attitudes women had really experienced during the 70s, it would’ve been a lot more hard hitting and engaging. Instead it comes across as a little too light hearted. The most disturbing scenes were those involving Bob Hope and his clearly inappropriate behaviour, and Greg Kinnear plays him very well although the prosthetic nose is a tad distracting. However the problem with Hope is that his scenes, whilst good, are entirely unnecessary when linked to the main plot and are a big contributor to the dilution of the story.
Misbehaviour looks good, the costume and sets are very in keeping with the time period and so is the music. It also has a rather stellar cast, all of whom put in performances that are very good and not to be criticised – Rhys Ifans provides some much needed comic relief as pageant creator Eric Morley. The standout of all of these is Gugu Mbatha-Raw as Jennifer, who brings poise and intrigue to a character with barely any lines and leaves us wanting more. And sadly due to the intersecting storylines, we don’t see enough of her until right at the end, which was far too late. It was also nice to see the real women that inspired this film featured before the credits and find out how they moved forward with their lives.
Overall Misbehaviour is a decent film with good performances with an important message and story to promote. I just wish that instead of trying to tell this story from the point of every key player involved, they had focused on the central subject of the inequality women experienced at the time as this would’ve made Misbehaviour a lot more memorable.
Misbehaviour has made a decision to follow four separate stories as they eventually intersect at the Miss World pageant, and I think this is to it’s detriment as it seemed to dilute the main issue about women’s inequality. It follows Sally (Keira Knightley), a history student wanting her place at the table, as she joins forces with Jo Robinson (Jessie Buckley), a radical feminist from the Women’s Liberation Movement who believes in taking physical action as the plot to disrupt the pageant. It also follows 3 other storylines centred around the pageant itself: Eric (Rhys Ifans) and Julia Morley (Keeley Hawes), the creators of the Miss World Pageant as they attempt to respond to controversies surrounding it; Miss Grenada Jennifer Hosten (Gugu Mbatha-Raw) as she takes part in the contest and; Bob Hope (Greg Kinnear) who is hosting the pageant. All of these stories together, whilst interesting, mean that not enough time and detail is given to each individual storyline, especially with an under two hour run time.
The film begins with some fairly shocking male behaviour from Sally’s university interviewers and Bob Hope, but sadly it doesn’t carry on in this vein throughout. Had the entire film focused on the behaviour and attitudes women had really experienced during the 70s, it would’ve been a lot more hard hitting and engaging. Instead it comes across as a little too light hearted. The most disturbing scenes were those involving Bob Hope and his clearly inappropriate behaviour, and Greg Kinnear plays him very well although the prosthetic nose is a tad distracting. However the problem with Hope is that his scenes, whilst good, are entirely unnecessary when linked to the main plot and are a big contributor to the dilution of the story.
Misbehaviour looks good, the costume and sets are very in keeping with the time period and so is the music. It also has a rather stellar cast, all of whom put in performances that are very good and not to be criticised – Rhys Ifans provides some much needed comic relief as pageant creator Eric Morley. The standout of all of these is Gugu Mbatha-Raw as Jennifer, who brings poise and intrigue to a character with barely any lines and leaves us wanting more. And sadly due to the intersecting storylines, we don’t see enough of her until right at the end, which was far too late. It was also nice to see the real women that inspired this film featured before the credits and find out how they moved forward with their lives.
Overall Misbehaviour is a decent film with good performances with an important message and story to promote. I just wish that instead of trying to tell this story from the point of every key player involved, they had focused on the central subject of the inequality women experienced at the time as this would’ve made Misbehaviour a lot more memorable.