Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Censor (2021) in Movies
Sep 3, 2021
Niamh Algar is fabulous (1 more)
Novel story and great direction
A genuinely original story (at last!)
Positives:
- I often whinge on about there being no novelty in movies anymore, with everything being derivative of everything else. Well here's a case for the defence. There have been movies before about the mental effect of working in the horror movie business (Toby Jones in "Berberian Sound Studio" comes to mind). But none (as far as I'm aware) from the viewpoint of a film censor. This novelty gave the movie the scope to go in a number of different directions - including as a historical drama. But it focuses on a study of how loss and grief can suddenly emerge in dramatic ways even after many years. Director Prano Bailey-Bond co-wrote this and directs it with such verve that she is very much added to my "one to watch" list for writer-directors.
- Irish actress Niamh Algar is just brilliant here, reminiscent of Morfydd Clark's fantastic performance in "Saint Maud" (not the only parallel to be drawn in this review). The acting during the dramatic conclusion is utterly chilling.
- While the ending of the movie might be polarising, I loved it. No spoilers, but it's one of my favourite endings of any movie so far this year. It reminded me strongly of the ending of "Saint Maud".
- The editing is by Mark Towns (who also did "Saint Maud"). And it's bloody marvellous, particularly during that finale! While it doesn't shy away from showing some pretty horrible stuff, Towns shows much of this subliminally in the edit (shades of the "Psycho" shower scene). This probably helped with its certification (of which more later).
- The music by Emilie Levienaise-Farrouch is quirky and fitting for the movie. I loved the jaunty end-title music.
- Has one of the best impalings since Timothy Dalton fell on that model church spire in "Hot Fuzz"!
Negatives:
- While Algar is utterly fabulous, I was less convinced by the acting of some of her fellow censors in the office. Some of this felt a bit wooden to me.
Summary Thoughts on "Censor": The workings of the UK film censors have always fascinated me, and here's a novel insight into their work during a very difficult period in their history: the National Viewers and Listener's Association, headed by the fearsome Mary Whitehouse, was up in arms at the potential damage to people's (and particularly children's) mental wellbeing from the influx of "video nasties" arriving in homes on VHS tapes. The film needs to be applauded for coming up with such a novel storyline.
What I found surprising (and ironic) is that this got away with only a "15" certificate. Editor Mark Towns suggested to me, in a private communication on Twitter, that the BBFC rated it thus due to the "context" in which the violence was set. But I remember the first 'X' film I saw. It was Brian De Palma's "The Fury", which (from memory) was purely rated as such for the final scene in which John Cassavetes's character explodes in a gory fountain. Judging from "Censor"'s "15" certificate, things have become significantly more permissive in recent years!
(For the full graphical review check out onemannsmovies on the web, facebook and (for the video review) Tiktok. Thanks)
- I often whinge on about there being no novelty in movies anymore, with everything being derivative of everything else. Well here's a case for the defence. There have been movies before about the mental effect of working in the horror movie business (Toby Jones in "Berberian Sound Studio" comes to mind). But none (as far as I'm aware) from the viewpoint of a film censor. This novelty gave the movie the scope to go in a number of different directions - including as a historical drama. But it focuses on a study of how loss and grief can suddenly emerge in dramatic ways even after many years. Director Prano Bailey-Bond co-wrote this and directs it with such verve that she is very much added to my "one to watch" list for writer-directors.
- Irish actress Niamh Algar is just brilliant here, reminiscent of Morfydd Clark's fantastic performance in "Saint Maud" (not the only parallel to be drawn in this review). The acting during the dramatic conclusion is utterly chilling.
- While the ending of the movie might be polarising, I loved it. No spoilers, but it's one of my favourite endings of any movie so far this year. It reminded me strongly of the ending of "Saint Maud".
- The editing is by Mark Towns (who also did "Saint Maud"). And it's bloody marvellous, particularly during that finale! While it doesn't shy away from showing some pretty horrible stuff, Towns shows much of this subliminally in the edit (shades of the "Psycho" shower scene). This probably helped with its certification (of which more later).
- The music by Emilie Levienaise-Farrouch is quirky and fitting for the movie. I loved the jaunty end-title music.
- Has one of the best impalings since Timothy Dalton fell on that model church spire in "Hot Fuzz"!
Negatives:
- While Algar is utterly fabulous, I was less convinced by the acting of some of her fellow censors in the office. Some of this felt a bit wooden to me.
Summary Thoughts on "Censor": The workings of the UK film censors have always fascinated me, and here's a novel insight into their work during a very difficult period in their history: the National Viewers and Listener's Association, headed by the fearsome Mary Whitehouse, was up in arms at the potential damage to people's (and particularly children's) mental wellbeing from the influx of "video nasties" arriving in homes on VHS tapes. The film needs to be applauded for coming up with such a novel storyline.
What I found surprising (and ironic) is that this got away with only a "15" certificate. Editor Mark Towns suggested to me, in a private communication on Twitter, that the BBFC rated it thus due to the "context" in which the violence was set. But I remember the first 'X' film I saw. It was Brian De Palma's "The Fury", which (from memory) was purely rated as such for the final scene in which John Cassavetes's character explodes in a gory fountain. Judging from "Censor"'s "15" certificate, things have become significantly more permissive in recent years!
(For the full graphical review check out onemannsmovies on the web, facebook and (for the video review) Tiktok. Thanks)
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.
Phillip McSween (751 KP) rated BlacKkKlansman (2018) in Movies
Mar 7, 2019
Important Movie
Set in the 1970’s, the first black police officer on the Colorado Springs police force attempts to infiltrate the Klu Klux Klan by becoming one of them.
Acting: 10
I don’t know who I liked better throughout the movie, John David Washington as Ron Stallworth or Adam Driver playing Jewish cop Flip Zimmerman. Not only were they amazing individually, but they complimented each other with great chemistry on screen. Whatever emotion director Spike Lee was trying to make you feel was amplified in their joint scenes. Washington is charming, funny, and witty, all the things you want from a leading role. His heroic character is one of my favorites from the year.
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 9
The visuals are amazingly crisp, poignant for each scene. It transports you perfectly into the time period without feeling overdone. While the film is largely a comedy, it succeeds in spots by relying on tension and intense moments. Spike Lee has a way of capturing those moments with sheer perfection. It has an artsy feel to it, sometimes over the top, but never unrelatable. Relatable Art. I think that’s the best way to describe it.
Conflict: 10
Whether subtle or in your face, conflict comes in waves throughout BlackkKlansman. You keep waiting for bad things to happen and sometimes they do. When they don’t, you know it’s only a matter of time before things get harry again. There was never a point where I was bored in the movie. Even the planning scenes where they were trying to figure out just how to get a black man to infiltrate a white supremacist organization was fun to watch.
Genre: 10
One of the most important dramas of our generation. Period. Nothing else needs to be said here.
Memorability: 10
The story in and of itself brings an originality you won’t soon forget. On paper, it sounds absolutely nuts. Watching it unfold on the big screen is even more nuts. Even though it’s based on a true story, it’s still very much hard to believe. It’s powerful and real with solid messaging that translates to the now. Even the comedy in certain moments has a way of leaving a real impact.
Pace: 10
The film is long, but it’s a smooth long. The pacing feels like a brisk jog. You always know the direction you’re heading and it never feels like it has to cheat or take shortcuts to properly tell the story. Not boring in the least. Engaging and entertaining throughout.
Plot: 8
Again, much respect for an original story. My one gripe: I don’t think the love story was necessary. It didn’t really contribute to the movie as a whole. Everything outside of that was wonderful and beautifully done.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 97
Expected to like BlackkKlansman, but I fell in love with this movie. It tells a wonderful story that leaves you talking long after it’s over. I’ve said this already, but it bears repeating: This is one of the most important films of our generation. See it. Don’t think twice.
Acting: 10
I don’t know who I liked better throughout the movie, John David Washington as Ron Stallworth or Adam Driver playing Jewish cop Flip Zimmerman. Not only were they amazing individually, but they complimented each other with great chemistry on screen. Whatever emotion director Spike Lee was trying to make you feel was amplified in their joint scenes. Washington is charming, funny, and witty, all the things you want from a leading role. His heroic character is one of my favorites from the year.
Beginning: 10
Characters: 10
Cinematography/Visuals: 9
The visuals are amazingly crisp, poignant for each scene. It transports you perfectly into the time period without feeling overdone. While the film is largely a comedy, it succeeds in spots by relying on tension and intense moments. Spike Lee has a way of capturing those moments with sheer perfection. It has an artsy feel to it, sometimes over the top, but never unrelatable. Relatable Art. I think that’s the best way to describe it.
Conflict: 10
Whether subtle or in your face, conflict comes in waves throughout BlackkKlansman. You keep waiting for bad things to happen and sometimes they do. When they don’t, you know it’s only a matter of time before things get harry again. There was never a point where I was bored in the movie. Even the planning scenes where they were trying to figure out just how to get a black man to infiltrate a white supremacist organization was fun to watch.
Genre: 10
One of the most important dramas of our generation. Period. Nothing else needs to be said here.
Memorability: 10
The story in and of itself brings an originality you won’t soon forget. On paper, it sounds absolutely nuts. Watching it unfold on the big screen is even more nuts. Even though it’s based on a true story, it’s still very much hard to believe. It’s powerful and real with solid messaging that translates to the now. Even the comedy in certain moments has a way of leaving a real impact.
Pace: 10
The film is long, but it’s a smooth long. The pacing feels like a brisk jog. You always know the direction you’re heading and it never feels like it has to cheat or take shortcuts to properly tell the story. Not boring in the least. Engaging and entertaining throughout.
Plot: 8
Again, much respect for an original story. My one gripe: I don’t think the love story was necessary. It didn’t really contribute to the movie as a whole. Everything outside of that was wonderful and beautifully done.
Resolution: 10
Overall: 97
Expected to like BlackkKlansman, but I fell in love with this movie. It tells a wonderful story that leaves you talking long after it’s over. I’ve said this already, but it bears repeating: This is one of the most important films of our generation. See it. Don’t think twice.
Kris Karcher (10 KP) rated Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (2017) in Movies
Jan 5, 2018
Better then it looks.
Contains spoilers, click to show
It’s been years since I’ve seen the original 1995 Jumanji, but from what I can remember as a 5-10 year old (not sure when I got around to owning the VHS) I enjoyed it. Robin Williams was on fire in the 90’s and turned in another comparable performance in this fun action adventure film. This new incarnation of the Jumanji tale changes direction a bit. For one it swaps the outdated board game that contains an entire jungle world inside it, for a more cultural relevant video game console that contains an entire jungle world inside it. I’m actually surprised they didn't use an iPad. 2017’s Jumanji also adds in a body swapping element. The teens that enter the game suddenly become adult video game characters. Complete with skills and weakness of varying degrees of usefulness.
Semantics aside, Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle is also a serviceable blockbuster flick. It’s a fun film that moves at a decent pace and avoids a lot of the typical dull spots most popcorn flicks fall victim to. The adult cast is a fun mixture of comedic talent and have some great chemistry together. The teenage cast less so but they have a more limited role in the film. I enjoyed watching the adult cast attempt to convey the teenagers “inside” them. Dwayne Johnson does this particularly well, playing a timid nerdy teenager trapped in the body of a jacked, smoldering, elite fighting machine. The film purposefully miscast each role. Kevin Hart play’s the avatar of a 6ft football star, Jack black stands in for a Mean Chick-esc selfie obsessed teenage girl, and the bad ass Karen Gillan plays the avatar of an insecure self-conscious teenage girl. The dichotomy of the characters real-life personalities always being at odds with their avatars new physical and mental attributes provides much of the comedy. Not all of it lands, but enough does and they don’t overdo it.
Once we enter the world of Jumanji the characters attempt to figure out how the “game” works. This leads to some humorous video game style exposition. I found this method of exposition to be unique and interesting. Incorporating NPC’s (Non-playable characters) whose sole purpose is to help players figure out what is going on and how to play the game was a fun and meta way to advance the story. It sort of reminds me of some of the things I enjoyed about 2012’s Wreck-It Ralph.
Then the gang runs into the other player in the game and another star of the film, Nick Jonas. Jonas plays Jefferson "Seaplane" McDonough who is the avatar of Zack a teenage boy sucked into the game in 1997 (Jonas uses 1997 lingo frequently. Radical.) and has lived in the jungle for what he claims to be “a few months”. This leads to the biggest missed opportunity of the film. Time apparently moves differently in Jumanji. A few months in Jumanji translates to 20 years in real life. When Zack is told he has been missing 20 years this should have been a major B plot. They do try and add some weight to the situation by showing how deeply affected Zack is by this news, but I feel they could have explored this dynamic a bit further. Especially when it comes to the ending. Which is a bit anticlimactic. Once they all end up working together to escape Jumanji they all are all transported back to their respective timelines and it would appear as though no time has passed. So it sort of ditches the whole being stuck in the game for 20 years angle and instead chooses to allow Zack to live a full and complete life starting from 1997. Also, the main cast seems to be unaffected timeline wise. All of this film took place while they were down in the basement serving their detentions. It would have made for a much more interesting ending if they return to their bodies and find out that in the real world they were gone for a longer period of time. Even just a week or so would have added an interesting dynamic to the pretty flat and standard ending. They do end up meeting up with grown-up Zack (Played by Colin Hanks) and there is a nice little payoff to the quasi-romance Nick Jonas and Jack Black had throughout the film. (Yes you read that correctly.) Alex named his daughter after Bethany who saved his life in the jungle.
The four teenagers all learn valuable life lessons inside the jungle. Fridge leans to appreciate his friend Spencer. Spencer learns to man up and take risks. Bethany learns to care about something other than herself and her popularity, and Martha learns to come out of her shell a bit and open up. While I often find these types of stories to be heavy-handed and snooze-worthy Jumanji manages to keep the gushy feel good stuff to a minimum. It’s there, and it’s obvious but it’s not in your face enough to bring down the movie.
Ultimately I will go ahead and recommend Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle if your into Action comedy that doesn't ever take itself too seriously. I repeat this is not a serious movie. But it is a mildly funny, family-friendly romp that I fully expect anyone who paid for a ticket to at least get their monies worth. Provided they came in with the right expectations.
Semantics aside, Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle is also a serviceable blockbuster flick. It’s a fun film that moves at a decent pace and avoids a lot of the typical dull spots most popcorn flicks fall victim to. The adult cast is a fun mixture of comedic talent and have some great chemistry together. The teenage cast less so but they have a more limited role in the film. I enjoyed watching the adult cast attempt to convey the teenagers “inside” them. Dwayne Johnson does this particularly well, playing a timid nerdy teenager trapped in the body of a jacked, smoldering, elite fighting machine. The film purposefully miscast each role. Kevin Hart play’s the avatar of a 6ft football star, Jack black stands in for a Mean Chick-esc selfie obsessed teenage girl, and the bad ass Karen Gillan plays the avatar of an insecure self-conscious teenage girl. The dichotomy of the characters real-life personalities always being at odds with their avatars new physical and mental attributes provides much of the comedy. Not all of it lands, but enough does and they don’t overdo it.
Once we enter the world of Jumanji the characters attempt to figure out how the “game” works. This leads to some humorous video game style exposition. I found this method of exposition to be unique and interesting. Incorporating NPC’s (Non-playable characters) whose sole purpose is to help players figure out what is going on and how to play the game was a fun and meta way to advance the story. It sort of reminds me of some of the things I enjoyed about 2012’s Wreck-It Ralph.
Then the gang runs into the other player in the game and another star of the film, Nick Jonas. Jonas plays Jefferson "Seaplane" McDonough who is the avatar of Zack a teenage boy sucked into the game in 1997 (Jonas uses 1997 lingo frequently. Radical.) and has lived in the jungle for what he claims to be “a few months”. This leads to the biggest missed opportunity of the film. Time apparently moves differently in Jumanji. A few months in Jumanji translates to 20 years in real life. When Zack is told he has been missing 20 years this should have been a major B plot. They do try and add some weight to the situation by showing how deeply affected Zack is by this news, but I feel they could have explored this dynamic a bit further. Especially when it comes to the ending. Which is a bit anticlimactic. Once they all end up working together to escape Jumanji they all are all transported back to their respective timelines and it would appear as though no time has passed. So it sort of ditches the whole being stuck in the game for 20 years angle and instead chooses to allow Zack to live a full and complete life starting from 1997. Also, the main cast seems to be unaffected timeline wise. All of this film took place while they were down in the basement serving their detentions. It would have made for a much more interesting ending if they return to their bodies and find out that in the real world they were gone for a longer period of time. Even just a week or so would have added an interesting dynamic to the pretty flat and standard ending. They do end up meeting up with grown-up Zack (Played by Colin Hanks) and there is a nice little payoff to the quasi-romance Nick Jonas and Jack Black had throughout the film. (Yes you read that correctly.) Alex named his daughter after Bethany who saved his life in the jungle.
The four teenagers all learn valuable life lessons inside the jungle. Fridge leans to appreciate his friend Spencer. Spencer learns to man up and take risks. Bethany learns to care about something other than herself and her popularity, and Martha learns to come out of her shell a bit and open up. While I often find these types of stories to be heavy-handed and snooze-worthy Jumanji manages to keep the gushy feel good stuff to a minimum. It’s there, and it’s obvious but it’s not in your face enough to bring down the movie.
Ultimately I will go ahead and recommend Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle if your into Action comedy that doesn't ever take itself too seriously. I repeat this is not a serious movie. But it is a mildly funny, family-friendly romp that I fully expect anyone who paid for a ticket to at least get their monies worth. Provided they came in with the right expectations.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The King (2019) in Movies
Oct 29, 2019
There has been a lot of talk about The King, it's not one that I would necessarily have picked but I do enjoy historical films and who doesn't like a good battle scene? With Timothée Chalamet in the lead and Robert Pattinson in a supporting role I had my doubts, I'm not a fan of either one particularly but in the end it changed my opinion... partly. What surprised me was that this was a Netflix film, from all the hype I had been expecting a general release and I think it would have done incredibly well at the cinema, but we shall see how it fairs online.
My historical knowledge is terrible, luckily the evening I saw this I was meeting a friend for dinner who would be my phone a friend for all things historical so I picked his brain. We compared notes and it seems like they haven't messed with the actual history of it too much, though he did admit to not being an expert on this period. Do let me know in the comments how it stands up against documented history if you're up to speed on the topic.
The film does a good job of keeping the timeline clear, it doesn't jump around unnecessarily and despite the obvious long time frame of real life the scenes capture and condense everything quite nicely.
I'm going to start covering the acting by talking about Robert Pattinson. I have never heard such a unanimous reaction to a performance in my life. From the sheer volume in the Odean Luxe I believe that as soon as he spoke everyone broke out laughing. It wasn't just the one time either, it was every time. I don't know anything about The Dauphin of France but perhaps he did have the stereotypical accent... I don't know if I want to give RPat the benefit of the doubt. Almost every scene he was in had a rather tragic comedy element, mostly that was the accent but later there's a scene that would have sat well in a silent black and white comedy skit, I did laugh, but it really didn't fit the tone of any part of the film that he wasn't in.
Timothée Chalamet hasn't made much of an impression on me so far in his acting career. Beautiful Boy wasn't my cup of tea and his parts in Lady Bird and Hostiles clearly didn't either as I only remembered them when skimming IMDb. In The King though I found him to be excellent, I didn't make a single negative note about his performance. Every scene, every emotion, every moment in battle landed perfectly. This really did turn my opinion of him around and I'll be looking forward to his next role a lot more.
Joel Edgerton as Sir John Falstaff is the comic relief this film needed, his moments were light and broke the tension in the perfect way. He's a very consistent actor whose a pleasure to watch on screen and he's a multi-talented fella to boot... writer, producer and actor in this, well played sir, well played.
Sean Harris will also be a familiar face to most of us, and I suspect the main go to for people would be the MI franchise though he's got over 50 acting credits including the UK actors' traditional stint on The Bill. Yet another great actor in the mix and he managed to bring the characteristics of William out with great effect in his performance.
Overall the cast was excellent, though a couple of performances may have been a little on the irritating side for me, that did feel more intentional than anything else when you took the scenes into consideration.
It's difficult to know whether I'm spoiling something or not, but this is based on historical fact so I'm going to say not... The build up to the battle seemed fitting and yet somehow understated for what was to follow. The sound and the visuals are stunning, I'm getting goosebumps just remembering it. The rumble of the horses, the arrows... the sound in the cinema was so powerful and it makes me a little sad that this is going straight to Netflix where that part won't meet its full potential for most of its streams.
The other worry is that the battle won't get the same impact on a smaller screen. The camera work in The King is amazing, you got the sense of claustrophobia and the crush of the fight as we were brought into the mob of actors. I was in awe watching it. I genuinely don't know how they successfully managed to film that whole sequence in what was essentially a pool of mud. It makes my mind boggle.
While I can't really get on board with Robert Pattinson in this film everyone else was a joy to watch. It's a shame it's a Netflix film, I commend them for making something this impressive but it really deserves a cinema experience, I'm thankful to LFF for giving me that honour.
Full review originally posted on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-king-movie-review.html
My historical knowledge is terrible, luckily the evening I saw this I was meeting a friend for dinner who would be my phone a friend for all things historical so I picked his brain. We compared notes and it seems like they haven't messed with the actual history of it too much, though he did admit to not being an expert on this period. Do let me know in the comments how it stands up against documented history if you're up to speed on the topic.
The film does a good job of keeping the timeline clear, it doesn't jump around unnecessarily and despite the obvious long time frame of real life the scenes capture and condense everything quite nicely.
I'm going to start covering the acting by talking about Robert Pattinson. I have never heard such a unanimous reaction to a performance in my life. From the sheer volume in the Odean Luxe I believe that as soon as he spoke everyone broke out laughing. It wasn't just the one time either, it was every time. I don't know anything about The Dauphin of France but perhaps he did have the stereotypical accent... I don't know if I want to give RPat the benefit of the doubt. Almost every scene he was in had a rather tragic comedy element, mostly that was the accent but later there's a scene that would have sat well in a silent black and white comedy skit, I did laugh, but it really didn't fit the tone of any part of the film that he wasn't in.
Timothée Chalamet hasn't made much of an impression on me so far in his acting career. Beautiful Boy wasn't my cup of tea and his parts in Lady Bird and Hostiles clearly didn't either as I only remembered them when skimming IMDb. In The King though I found him to be excellent, I didn't make a single negative note about his performance. Every scene, every emotion, every moment in battle landed perfectly. This really did turn my opinion of him around and I'll be looking forward to his next role a lot more.
Joel Edgerton as Sir John Falstaff is the comic relief this film needed, his moments were light and broke the tension in the perfect way. He's a very consistent actor whose a pleasure to watch on screen and he's a multi-talented fella to boot... writer, producer and actor in this, well played sir, well played.
Sean Harris will also be a familiar face to most of us, and I suspect the main go to for people would be the MI franchise though he's got over 50 acting credits including the UK actors' traditional stint on The Bill. Yet another great actor in the mix and he managed to bring the characteristics of William out with great effect in his performance.
Overall the cast was excellent, though a couple of performances may have been a little on the irritating side for me, that did feel more intentional than anything else when you took the scenes into consideration.
It's difficult to know whether I'm spoiling something or not, but this is based on historical fact so I'm going to say not... The build up to the battle seemed fitting and yet somehow understated for what was to follow. The sound and the visuals are stunning, I'm getting goosebumps just remembering it. The rumble of the horses, the arrows... the sound in the cinema was so powerful and it makes me a little sad that this is going straight to Netflix where that part won't meet its full potential for most of its streams.
The other worry is that the battle won't get the same impact on a smaller screen. The camera work in The King is amazing, you got the sense of claustrophobia and the crush of the fight as we were brought into the mob of actors. I was in awe watching it. I genuinely don't know how they successfully managed to film that whole sequence in what was essentially a pool of mud. It makes my mind boggle.
While I can't really get on board with Robert Pattinson in this film everyone else was a joy to watch. It's a shame it's a Netflix film, I commend them for making something this impressive but it really deserves a cinema experience, I'm thankful to LFF for giving me that honour.
Full review originally posted on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-king-movie-review.html
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Once Upon a Time in Hollywood (2019) in Movies
Jul 25, 2019
Director Quentin Tarantino is well known for his language and excessive violence-based movies. All one needs to do is look at some of his earlier works such as Reservoir Dogs or Pulp Fiction to really get an understanding of how over-the-top they really can be. So, when I saw the initial previews for his latest dramatic comedy Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, I wasn’t sure what to expect. This only fueled the expectation and interest I had going into the film.
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood takes place in 1969 near the end of the golden age of Hollywood. Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio) is an aging star of Westerns trying to desperately remain relevant in a world that considers those even in their 30’s as ancient, much like the black and white film common even to that day. His stuntman and best friend Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt) is happy to go along for the ride. More of an assistant and better known as the man who got away with killing his own wife, Cliff is content with his role in the world and isn’t looking for the next big break.
You can’t have a Hollywood story in 1969 without involving one of the most brutal murders of the time, that of Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie) and the now infamous Charles Manson and his “family”. A dark cloud that would leave a lasting mark on Hollywood itself. Their presence reminds us of the chilling reality to the evil that is lurking just outside the amazing set pieces and bright lights of the city itself.
Brad Pitt and Leonardo DiCaprio do a phenomenal job as one would expect. It’s always interesting to watch a movie where the actor is portraying another character in an entirely different movie and Leonardo delivers in spades. Brad Pitt brings his usual lovable charm to the otherwise tough persona as Cliff, the dog loving, Bruce Lee ass kicking sidekick. The chemistry between the two is undeniable, displaying both touching and comedic undertones throughout. It’s almost surreal to think that they are portraying characters that do represent themselves in the real world. It’s hard not to make the comparison of Brad and Leo to their onscreen characters, as aging stars wondering what the future holds for them.
Tarantino does a marvelous job of transporting his viewers back to 1969. Everything from episodes of old television shows, to advertisements on the street envelop the viewers in the tie-dyed/hippy reality of what the 60’s was. It’s hard not to be impressed with the cinematography that has been so lavishly recreated before us. The streets, the cars, even the film itself all take their cues from the time period. Car scenes are shot with laughably fake backdrops at times to remind us exactly the types of effects that went into filming back in the day. It’s a mix of old school and new school filming that takes you from one reality and places you in another. Tarantino does his best to make the audience more than spectators to what is developing on screen and instead as active participants.
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is a fairytale of sorts, of what made Hollywood so special back in the 60’s. It lacks much of the brutal nature that has become second nature to Tarantino films, and those who are going to see it for its brutality will likely be very disappointed. It’s a film that is incredibly difficult to talk about without spoilers, because outside the general plot synopsis the viewer is left with more questions than answers. The film is long, coming in at two hours and forty minutes, and there are scenes that tend to drag on a little longer than necessary. Thankfully though, Tarantino has weaved a story of what was and what could have been, if Rick and Cliff both had existed…Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.
4 out of 5 stars
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood takes place in 1969 near the end of the golden age of Hollywood. Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio) is an aging star of Westerns trying to desperately remain relevant in a world that considers those even in their 30’s as ancient, much like the black and white film common even to that day. His stuntman and best friend Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt) is happy to go along for the ride. More of an assistant and better known as the man who got away with killing his own wife, Cliff is content with his role in the world and isn’t looking for the next big break.
You can’t have a Hollywood story in 1969 without involving one of the most brutal murders of the time, that of Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie) and the now infamous Charles Manson and his “family”. A dark cloud that would leave a lasting mark on Hollywood itself. Their presence reminds us of the chilling reality to the evil that is lurking just outside the amazing set pieces and bright lights of the city itself.
Brad Pitt and Leonardo DiCaprio do a phenomenal job as one would expect. It’s always interesting to watch a movie where the actor is portraying another character in an entirely different movie and Leonardo delivers in spades. Brad Pitt brings his usual lovable charm to the otherwise tough persona as Cliff, the dog loving, Bruce Lee ass kicking sidekick. The chemistry between the two is undeniable, displaying both touching and comedic undertones throughout. It’s almost surreal to think that they are portraying characters that do represent themselves in the real world. It’s hard not to make the comparison of Brad and Leo to their onscreen characters, as aging stars wondering what the future holds for them.
Tarantino does a marvelous job of transporting his viewers back to 1969. Everything from episodes of old television shows, to advertisements on the street envelop the viewers in the tie-dyed/hippy reality of what the 60’s was. It’s hard not to be impressed with the cinematography that has been so lavishly recreated before us. The streets, the cars, even the film itself all take their cues from the time period. Car scenes are shot with laughably fake backdrops at times to remind us exactly the types of effects that went into filming back in the day. It’s a mix of old school and new school filming that takes you from one reality and places you in another. Tarantino does his best to make the audience more than spectators to what is developing on screen and instead as active participants.
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is a fairytale of sorts, of what made Hollywood so special back in the 60’s. It lacks much of the brutal nature that has become second nature to Tarantino films, and those who are going to see it for its brutality will likely be very disappointed. It’s a film that is incredibly difficult to talk about without spoilers, because outside the general plot synopsis the viewer is left with more questions than answers. The film is long, coming in at two hours and forty minutes, and there are scenes that tend to drag on a little longer than necessary. Thankfully though, Tarantino has weaved a story of what was and what could have been, if Rick and Cliff both had existed…Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.
4 out of 5 stars
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Great Wall (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Disappointingly Pedestrian
Acclaimed director Zhang Yimou has been at the helm of some of China’s greatest film assets. 1991’s Raise the Red Lantern is widely regarded as one of the defining foreign-language films of its period and 2004’s House of Flying Daggers received huge critical acclamation for its stunning cinematography and exceptional script.
Here, Yimou teams up with one of Hollywood’s greatest assets, Matt Damon in a monster flick to rival all others. But does The Great Wall showcase the very best from its director and leading man?
When a mercenary warrior on the run from a group of bandits (Matt Damon) is imprisoned within China’s magnificent Great Wall, he discovers the mystery behind one of the greatest wonders of the world. As surge after surge of snarling, prowling beasts called Taotie besiege the massive construction, his quest for immeasurable fortune turns into a journey toward heroism. He joins a vast army of elite Chinese soldiers to confront the unimaginable and seemingly unstoppable force.
Unfortunately, The Great Wall squanders the talents of both Damon and Yimou with an unnecessarily dense script overriding any sense of drama. To be honest, it’s all just a bit of a bore.
The cast is fine but so vast that Damon and Jin Tian, who we will see again very soon in Kong: Skull Island, are the only stars to make any sort of impact. Even then, a poor script stops them from being anything but cardboard cut-outs. There is no character development whatsoever. In fact, as I write this paragraph I nearly forgot to mention Willem Dafoe. He makes no impact on the final outcome at all.
Elsewhere, the special effects range from laughably poor to adequate and certainly not befitting of a film costing well over $200million. The wall itself is rendered in decent CGI and the numerous battle scenes have a reasonably immersive feel, but the Taotie lacks realism and as the main antagonists throughout, this is a serious problem.
The cinematography too is not up to the standard of Yimou’s previous works. Relying far too heavily on green screen, it wastes his incredible eye for detail and continuously feels like you’re sat watching a very expensive video game. As with last year’s Gods of Egypt, there’s a certain glossy quality to the picture that dominates and this is what stops it being believable.
Nevertheless, the music is very good indeed. Ramin Djawadi has scored big budget blockbusters like Iron Man and Pacific Rim with The Great Wall taking a few influences from the latter. It’s definitely the saving grace here and alleviates a couple of the shortcomings.
Overall, The Great Wall is a film unworthy of the talent both behind and in front of the lens. It’s crammed full of poor CGI and uninspiring cinematography, though its great score is unquestionably a highlight. With such good subject matter, it feels like a bit of a wasted opportunity.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/02/18/the-great-wall-disappointingly-pedestrian/
Here, Yimou teams up with one of Hollywood’s greatest assets, Matt Damon in a monster flick to rival all others. But does The Great Wall showcase the very best from its director and leading man?
When a mercenary warrior on the run from a group of bandits (Matt Damon) is imprisoned within China’s magnificent Great Wall, he discovers the mystery behind one of the greatest wonders of the world. As surge after surge of snarling, prowling beasts called Taotie besiege the massive construction, his quest for immeasurable fortune turns into a journey toward heroism. He joins a vast army of elite Chinese soldiers to confront the unimaginable and seemingly unstoppable force.
Unfortunately, The Great Wall squanders the talents of both Damon and Yimou with an unnecessarily dense script overriding any sense of drama. To be honest, it’s all just a bit of a bore.
The cast is fine but so vast that Damon and Jin Tian, who we will see again very soon in Kong: Skull Island, are the only stars to make any sort of impact. Even then, a poor script stops them from being anything but cardboard cut-outs. There is no character development whatsoever. In fact, as I write this paragraph I nearly forgot to mention Willem Dafoe. He makes no impact on the final outcome at all.
Elsewhere, the special effects range from laughably poor to adequate and certainly not befitting of a film costing well over $200million. The wall itself is rendered in decent CGI and the numerous battle scenes have a reasonably immersive feel, but the Taotie lacks realism and as the main antagonists throughout, this is a serious problem.
The cinematography too is not up to the standard of Yimou’s previous works. Relying far too heavily on green screen, it wastes his incredible eye for detail and continuously feels like you’re sat watching a very expensive video game. As with last year’s Gods of Egypt, there’s a certain glossy quality to the picture that dominates and this is what stops it being believable.
Nevertheless, the music is very good indeed. Ramin Djawadi has scored big budget blockbusters like Iron Man and Pacific Rim with The Great Wall taking a few influences from the latter. It’s definitely the saving grace here and alleviates a couple of the shortcomings.
Overall, The Great Wall is a film unworthy of the talent both behind and in front of the lens. It’s crammed full of poor CGI and uninspiring cinematography, though its great score is unquestionably a highlight. With such good subject matter, it feels like a bit of a wasted opportunity.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/02/18/the-great-wall-disappointingly-pedestrian/
Rob Zombie recommended Dracula (1958) in Movies (curated)
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Oh Yeah, Audrey! in Books
Dec 17, 2018
<i>I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.</i>
Fans of Audrey Hepburn are bound to love Tucker Shaw’s latest contemporary young adult novel <i>Oh Yeah, Audrey!</i> especially if they admire her as much as sixteen year old Gemma Beasley does. The novel takes place over a time period of twenty-six hours beginning at 5:00am outside <i>Tiffany’s</i> in New York. Through Tumblr Gemma has “met” other Audrey fanatics and has arranged a get together in honour of the twentieth anniversary of the legendary star’s death.
It helps to have watched the film <i>Breakfast at Tiffany’s</i> (I haven’t) or at least have read the book (I have), as the narrative is full of quotes and references to Holly Golightly and scenes from the film. At first it appears no one else will turn up to the meeting but eventually they do and their exciting day gets off to an enjoyable start. Although they have a strict itinerary planned out it is soon forgotten as other options arise. By asking themselves: “what would Holly do?” they end up doing a lot of things they have never done before.
It all seems too good to be true when a rich good-looking guy asks Gemma out for dinner. She accepts despite it meaning she will be ditching her friends but she promises to meet up with them later. However, Gemma soon finds herself out of her depth and feels like she has ruined the evening not just for herself, but for her friends as well.
Initially readers may expect <i>Oh Yeah, Audrey!</i> to be a very girly book but it actually has a strong message behind it. The whole time that Gemma is asking herself “what would Holly do?” she is not discovering the person she is and what she really wants. <i>Breakfast at Tiffany’s</i> may have made running away from home and living independently look like a glamorous adventure, but Gemma discovers that Holly Golightly was most likely a very lonely character.
I enjoyed this book much more than I was expecting to. It is a quick easy read that is very funny and entertaining but also moving at the end. Those who have not yet read/seen <i>Breakfast at Tiffany’s</i> will definitely be thinking about doing so after reading <i>Oh Yeah, Audrey!</i>
Fans of Audrey Hepburn are bound to love Tucker Shaw’s latest contemporary young adult novel <i>Oh Yeah, Audrey!</i> especially if they admire her as much as sixteen year old Gemma Beasley does. The novel takes place over a time period of twenty-six hours beginning at 5:00am outside <i>Tiffany’s</i> in New York. Through Tumblr Gemma has “met” other Audrey fanatics and has arranged a get together in honour of the twentieth anniversary of the legendary star’s death.
It helps to have watched the film <i>Breakfast at Tiffany’s</i> (I haven’t) or at least have read the book (I have), as the narrative is full of quotes and references to Holly Golightly and scenes from the film. At first it appears no one else will turn up to the meeting but eventually they do and their exciting day gets off to an enjoyable start. Although they have a strict itinerary planned out it is soon forgotten as other options arise. By asking themselves: “what would Holly do?” they end up doing a lot of things they have never done before.
It all seems too good to be true when a rich good-looking guy asks Gemma out for dinner. She accepts despite it meaning she will be ditching her friends but she promises to meet up with them later. However, Gemma soon finds herself out of her depth and feels like she has ruined the evening not just for herself, but for her friends as well.
Initially readers may expect <i>Oh Yeah, Audrey!</i> to be a very girly book but it actually has a strong message behind it. The whole time that Gemma is asking herself “what would Holly do?” she is not discovering the person she is and what she really wants. <i>Breakfast at Tiffany’s</i> may have made running away from home and living independently look like a glamorous adventure, but Gemma discovers that Holly Golightly was most likely a very lonely character.
I enjoyed this book much more than I was expecting to. It is a quick easy read that is very funny and entertaining but also moving at the end. Those who have not yet read/seen <i>Breakfast at Tiffany’s</i> will definitely be thinking about doing so after reading <i>Oh Yeah, Audrey!</i>
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated T2 Trainspotting (2017) in Movies
Jul 19, 2017
Cast (3 more)
Script
Direction
Soundtrack
Here comes Johnny Yen again...
Choose nostalgia, choose sequels, choose another dose of high energy antics and following four reprobates as they show that although time rolls by, people don’t change. Choose betraying your mates and abandoning them for two decades until you are forced to return home and face your demons. Choose to buy the fact that Renton returns to Edinburgh the same week that Begbie decides to break out of prison after a twenty year stretch and try not to think too much about it. Choose facing the fact that we aren’t getting any younger and not everything works out the way we hope it will. Choose a killer soundtrack, a lighter tone, a witty script and phenomenal direction. Danny Boyle and the cast in this movie have came a long way in the last twenty years and this movie exhibits that awesomely, but doesn’t forget where they came from. This movie was never going to exceed the first movie but it instead functions as a companion piece to the original and actually makes the events of the first movie more meaningful. The film isn’t afraid to play on its legacy and the fact that a good amount of time has passed since the last time we saw these characters, it in fact relies on the time that has past since the original movie. This is one of the best Scottish films ever made and is right up there alongside the original and the two movies together tell a fantastic, gripping and engaging story over a significant period of time.