Search
The Man in the High Castle - Season 2
8.0
Rate It
TV Season Watch
After giving Joe the film, Juliana is forced to flee the fury of the Resistance while embarking on a...
The Man In The High Castle
7.3
Rate It
TV Show Watch
This series, loosely based Philip K. Dick's novel of the same name, takes a look at what the world...
The Pillars of the Earth
8.3
Rate It
TV Show Watch
Set in 12th-century England, this eight-hour miniseries based on Ken Follett's best-seller begins...
Victoria - Season 2
7.4
Rate It
TV Season Watch
Jenna Coleman and Tom Hughes joined by Dame Diana Rigg as shooting starts on second series of...
Victoria - Season 1
7.5
Rate It
TV Season Watch
Victoria comes to the throne at a time of great economic turbulence and resurgent republicanism –...
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Judy (2019) in Movies
Feb 6, 2020
Brilliant performance by Zellwegger - and not much else
Renee Zellwegger is absolutely brilliant in her channeling of Judy Garland in the film JUDY. She deserves to - and WILL WIN - the Oscar for Best Actress. Her performance is amazing and I forgot that I was watching an actress playing Judy Garland and fell into a trance thinking I was actually watching the real Judy Garland.
Too bad the rest of the film is not this good.
Based on actual events, JUDY tells the story of a late in her career Judy Garland's trek to London for a series of Concerts. She is down on her luck, addicted to pills, filled with self doubt and ghosts from her past. In general...she is a wreck...and needs the $$ from these concerts to keep custody of her 2 young children.
And...Zellwegger plays all of these emotions as Judy very, very well as well as shining in the performance scenes where Judy was able - albeit for a short time - to "come up for air" and perform as the world class performer she is. Zellwegger trained for over a year with a vocal coach to get the singing/performance part of this film down - and it shows. She is brilliant in these moments.
The trouble with this film as written by Tom Edge (based on the stage play "End of the Rainbow" by Peter Quilter) and Director Rupert Goold is that this film doesn't really go anywhere. There is no arc to Judy's story. She starts the film as a trainwreck...and ends the film as a trainwreck. There isn't evem a realization by Judy that she is a trainwreck. She just IS a trainwreck.
And that does not a compelling movie make.
Rufus Sewell, Jessie Buckley, Finn Wittrock and Michael Gambon are all along for a ride on this train and all choose to get off before the end and the inevitable trainwreck that is going to happen.
Is this film worth seeing? Sure...for Zellwegger's Oscar winning performance. Unfortunately, it doesn't have anything else to recommend it.
Letter Grade B (solely on the performance)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (OfMarquis)
Too bad the rest of the film is not this good.
Based on actual events, JUDY tells the story of a late in her career Judy Garland's trek to London for a series of Concerts. She is down on her luck, addicted to pills, filled with self doubt and ghosts from her past. In general...she is a wreck...and needs the $$ from these concerts to keep custody of her 2 young children.
And...Zellwegger plays all of these emotions as Judy very, very well as well as shining in the performance scenes where Judy was able - albeit for a short time - to "come up for air" and perform as the world class performer she is. Zellwegger trained for over a year with a vocal coach to get the singing/performance part of this film down - and it shows. She is brilliant in these moments.
The trouble with this film as written by Tom Edge (based on the stage play "End of the Rainbow" by Peter Quilter) and Director Rupert Goold is that this film doesn't really go anywhere. There is no arc to Judy's story. She starts the film as a trainwreck...and ends the film as a trainwreck. There isn't evem a realization by Judy that she is a trainwreck. She just IS a trainwreck.
And that does not a compelling movie make.
Rufus Sewell, Jessie Buckley, Finn Wittrock and Michael Gambon are all along for a ride on this train and all choose to get off before the end and the inevitable trainwreck that is going to happen.
Is this film worth seeing? Sure...for Zellwegger's Oscar winning performance. Unfortunately, it doesn't have anything else to recommend it.
Letter Grade B (solely on the performance)
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (OfMarquis)
Darren (1599 KP) rated Judy (2019) in Movies
Dec 15, 2019
Verdict: Zellweger Shines
Story: Judy starts in the late 1960’s where screen legend Judy Garland (Zellweger) has been running low on money, struggling to keep a roof over her children’s heads, she must let her ex-husband Sidney Luft (Sewell) look after them, while she travels to London, where she has a fan base dying to see her in sell-out concerts.
In London Judy is managed by Rosalyn Wilder (Buckley) who must make sure she makes the shows, Judy is trying to make the money, while experiencing the flashbacks of her time working on the Wizard of Oz, being order into certain diets, being controlled. She does make new friends and learns about her own personal problems.
Thoughts on Judy
Characters – Judy Garland is the screen legend, she has been struggling in the mid-40s with a reputation that claims she is difficult, needing to find a way to have an income, she moves to London for a string of shows, which soon sell out, giving her a chance at recovering her career, only her demons will continue to haunt her. Sidney Luft is the ex-husband that wants to have custody of their children back in America. Rosalyn Wilder is trying to manage Judy on the London, she does what she can, getting the most out of her. Bernard Delfont is financing the concerts, he is left disappointed with Judy, echoing what it was like for her as a child star. Most of the supporting characters don’t get much to do, while we focus a lot more on Judy’s life.
Performances – Renee Zellweger is fantastic in this leading role, completely controlling the scenes, making us feel every emotion that Judy would go through. Rufus Sewell, Jessie Buckley and Michael Gambon are all strong, though they don’t get much to work with.
Story – The story here follows Judy Garland’s arrival in London for a set of concerts, hoping to revive her career, only her past demons and reputation come back to haunt her once again. The story might show more of her time on the big stage in London which is all fine, but the tragic side of her story only comes in small flashbacks, these scenes are filled with pain and would have been a lot more interesting to see, just how badly she was treated at a young age by the blossoming Hollywood system. We don’t see much between The Wizard of Oz and 1968 either, which is where her bad reputation comes from, this would have also been nice to see, what caused this reputation, was it fair etc. we just seem to skip a lot, despite how interesting the loneliness Judy is experiencing in London would be.
Biopic – We only get to see a couple of moments from Judy’s life, part of the making of Wizard of Oz and then her 1968 concert tour in London, different stages of her career, different problems in her life.
Settings – The film has a couple of main settings, the set of Wizard of Oz, the stage in London and the hotel where she was staying in her time in London, they show her strength, her weakness and the place that broke her early in her life.
Scene of the Movie – Somewhere Over the Rainbow.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not learning enough about why Judy became difficult to work with.
Final Thoughts – This is an interesting biopic, where we get to see a difficult stage of her career, Zellweger is fantastic and elevates this film to new levels.
Overall: Nice Biopic, With Something Missing.
Story: Judy starts in the late 1960’s where screen legend Judy Garland (Zellweger) has been running low on money, struggling to keep a roof over her children’s heads, she must let her ex-husband Sidney Luft (Sewell) look after them, while she travels to London, where she has a fan base dying to see her in sell-out concerts.
In London Judy is managed by Rosalyn Wilder (Buckley) who must make sure she makes the shows, Judy is trying to make the money, while experiencing the flashbacks of her time working on the Wizard of Oz, being order into certain diets, being controlled. She does make new friends and learns about her own personal problems.
Thoughts on Judy
Characters – Judy Garland is the screen legend, she has been struggling in the mid-40s with a reputation that claims she is difficult, needing to find a way to have an income, she moves to London for a string of shows, which soon sell out, giving her a chance at recovering her career, only her demons will continue to haunt her. Sidney Luft is the ex-husband that wants to have custody of their children back in America. Rosalyn Wilder is trying to manage Judy on the London, she does what she can, getting the most out of her. Bernard Delfont is financing the concerts, he is left disappointed with Judy, echoing what it was like for her as a child star. Most of the supporting characters don’t get much to do, while we focus a lot more on Judy’s life.
Performances – Renee Zellweger is fantastic in this leading role, completely controlling the scenes, making us feel every emotion that Judy would go through. Rufus Sewell, Jessie Buckley and Michael Gambon are all strong, though they don’t get much to work with.
Story – The story here follows Judy Garland’s arrival in London for a set of concerts, hoping to revive her career, only her past demons and reputation come back to haunt her once again. The story might show more of her time on the big stage in London which is all fine, but the tragic side of her story only comes in small flashbacks, these scenes are filled with pain and would have been a lot more interesting to see, just how badly she was treated at a young age by the blossoming Hollywood system. We don’t see much between The Wizard of Oz and 1968 either, which is where her bad reputation comes from, this would have also been nice to see, what caused this reputation, was it fair etc. we just seem to skip a lot, despite how interesting the loneliness Judy is experiencing in London would be.
Biopic – We only get to see a couple of moments from Judy’s life, part of the making of Wizard of Oz and then her 1968 concert tour in London, different stages of her career, different problems in her life.
Settings – The film has a couple of main settings, the set of Wizard of Oz, the stage in London and the hotel where she was staying in her time in London, they show her strength, her weakness and the place that broke her early in her life.
Scene of the Movie – Somewhere Over the Rainbow.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – Not learning enough about why Judy became difficult to work with.
Final Thoughts – This is an interesting biopic, where we get to see a difficult stage of her career, Zellweger is fantastic and elevates this film to new levels.
Overall: Nice Biopic, With Something Missing.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Old (2021) in Movies
Jul 28, 2021
Cinematography and Sound Design - very Hitchcockian (1 more)
Concept and initial set-up of the movie
Dafter than the Dharma initiative.
"Old" is the latest from the gloriously inconsistent writer/director M. Night Shyamalan. Will this be great Shyamalan (à la "The Sixth Sense") or dire Shyamalan (à la "The Last Airbender")? The answer, in my view, is somewhere in the middle. It's a curate's egg of a movie.
Positives:
- The premise feels very familiar (desert island beach; time slips; weird things happening.... "Lost" anyone?). But as a shell for a big screen adventure it kept me well-engaged.
- Shyamalan and his "Glass" cinematographer Mike Gioulakis use some novel techniques to portray the ageing effects. The angles they utilize feel quite Hitchcockian at times. Shyamalan supports this with the sound design, which makes this a REALLY good movie to watch in a cinema with good surround sound. Often the camera will be spinning showing nothing but ocean or rocks, with the character's conversation rotating behind you in the cinema. It's really quite effective.
- Shyamalan knows that no visual effects can improve on the horrors your mind can come up with. Although a '15' certificate, the "sustained threat, strong violence and injury detail" referenced by the BBFC pales into insignificance (in terms of what you actually see) compared to the equally rated "Freaky".
- I've seen other reviews comment that the "twist" (no spoilers here) was obvious. But, although not a ground-breaking idea, I was sufficiently satisfied with the denouement. It made sense, albeit twisted sense.
Negatives:
- I enjoyed the movie's leisurely set-up, introducing the characters and the movie's concept. (In many ways, it felt like the start of one of Irwin Allen's disaster movies of the 70's and 80's). But then Shyamalan turns the dial up to 11 and the action becomes increasingly farcical. Add into that the fact that you can see some of the 'jolts' coming a mile off, and the movie becomes progressively more disappointing, with a high ERQ (eye-rolling quotient) by the end.
- In particular, there are inconsistencies to the story that get you asking uncomfortable questions. For example, wounds can heal in the blink of an eye.... but not stab wounds apparently.
- The cast is truly global in nature: Vicky ("Phantom Thread") Krieps hails from Luxembourg; Bernal is Mexican; Sewell is a Brit; Amuka-Bird ("David Copperfield") is Nigerian; Leung is American; Eliza Scanlan is an Aussie; and Thomasin McKenzie (so good in "Jojo Rabbit", and good here too) is a Kiwi. But although it's clearly quite natural that an exotic beach resort would attract guests from all over the world, the combination of accents here makes the whole thing, unfortunately, sound like a dodgy spaghetti western!
Summary Thoughts: 'Time' and 'ageing' have of course been a popular movie topic for many years. I remember being both gripped and horrified by George Pal's wonderful 1960's version of "The Time Machine" when Rod Taylor threw his machine into fast forward and the dead Morlock decomposed in front of his eyes! Ursula Andress did the same as the rapidly ageing Ayesha in 1965's "She". And, more recently and with better effects, Julian Glover did the same in "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade".
Unfortunately, "Old" isn't likely to join any of these classic movies in my consciousness. It's a diverting enough movie, with fabulous views of the Dominican Republic (which the local tourist board will no doubt be delighted with). A "less is more" approach might have made this a classic. But unfortunately, that's not what Shyamalan delivered here. Since what we get is a 'Lost-lite' with farcical elements.
And, by the way.... The movie that Charles (Rufus Sewell) refers to starring Jack Nicholson and Marlon Brando is "The Missouri Breaks". It has a very unusual John Williams soundtrack, which I have on vinyl somewhere and is probably worth a few bob!
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on t'interweb, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks.)
Positives:
- The premise feels very familiar (desert island beach; time slips; weird things happening.... "Lost" anyone?). But as a shell for a big screen adventure it kept me well-engaged.
- Shyamalan and his "Glass" cinematographer Mike Gioulakis use some novel techniques to portray the ageing effects. The angles they utilize feel quite Hitchcockian at times. Shyamalan supports this with the sound design, which makes this a REALLY good movie to watch in a cinema with good surround sound. Often the camera will be spinning showing nothing but ocean or rocks, with the character's conversation rotating behind you in the cinema. It's really quite effective.
- Shyamalan knows that no visual effects can improve on the horrors your mind can come up with. Although a '15' certificate, the "sustained threat, strong violence and injury detail" referenced by the BBFC pales into insignificance (in terms of what you actually see) compared to the equally rated "Freaky".
- I've seen other reviews comment that the "twist" (no spoilers here) was obvious. But, although not a ground-breaking idea, I was sufficiently satisfied with the denouement. It made sense, albeit twisted sense.
Negatives:
- I enjoyed the movie's leisurely set-up, introducing the characters and the movie's concept. (In many ways, it felt like the start of one of Irwin Allen's disaster movies of the 70's and 80's). But then Shyamalan turns the dial up to 11 and the action becomes increasingly farcical. Add into that the fact that you can see some of the 'jolts' coming a mile off, and the movie becomes progressively more disappointing, with a high ERQ (eye-rolling quotient) by the end.
- In particular, there are inconsistencies to the story that get you asking uncomfortable questions. For example, wounds can heal in the blink of an eye.... but not stab wounds apparently.
- The cast is truly global in nature: Vicky ("Phantom Thread") Krieps hails from Luxembourg; Bernal is Mexican; Sewell is a Brit; Amuka-Bird ("David Copperfield") is Nigerian; Leung is American; Eliza Scanlan is an Aussie; and Thomasin McKenzie (so good in "Jojo Rabbit", and good here too) is a Kiwi. But although it's clearly quite natural that an exotic beach resort would attract guests from all over the world, the combination of accents here makes the whole thing, unfortunately, sound like a dodgy spaghetti western!
Summary Thoughts: 'Time' and 'ageing' have of course been a popular movie topic for many years. I remember being both gripped and horrified by George Pal's wonderful 1960's version of "The Time Machine" when Rod Taylor threw his machine into fast forward and the dead Morlock decomposed in front of his eyes! Ursula Andress did the same as the rapidly ageing Ayesha in 1965's "She". And, more recently and with better effects, Julian Glover did the same in "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade".
Unfortunately, "Old" isn't likely to join any of these classic movies in my consciousness. It's a diverting enough movie, with fabulous views of the Dominican Republic (which the local tourist board will no doubt be delighted with). A "less is more" approach might have made this a classic. But unfortunately, that's not what Shyamalan delivered here. Since what we get is a 'Lost-lite' with farcical elements.
And, by the way.... The movie that Charles (Rufus Sewell) refers to starring Jack Nicholson and Marlon Brando is "The Missouri Breaks". It has a very unusual John Williams soundtrack, which I have on vinyl somewhere and is probably worth a few bob!
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on t'interweb, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks.)
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Father (2020) in Movies
Apr 7, 2021
1st half is GREAT! The 2nd half? Not so much...
THE FATHER is one of those types of films that, generally, I would not seek out - except at Oscar time. A small, “drawing room” type of drama, based on a stage play and starring a couple of Oscar winning performers at it’s core.
And that is enough to make this film very entertaining and interesting…but, unfortunately…this piece of entertainment falls flat at the end, so one will have to be contented to watching a decent drawing room drama (based on a Stage play) starring 2 strong Oscar winning actors at it’s core.
Written and Directed by Florian Zeller, THE FATHER tells the tale of a…well…FATHER, who is aging and mentally deteriorating. His daughter is trying to aide him and bring him comfort, but his befuddled mind begins to see things (conspiracies) that are not there…or are they?
Zeller wrote the lead role, specifically for Anthony Hopkins and it is a very good thing that Hopkins agree to this role for he is in EVERY scene and commands this picture as only a performer of Hopkins stature and abilities can. Hopkins is, rightfully, nominated for this performance and could pull the upset (but I highly doubt it).
Strongly supporting him - in an Oscar nominated turn herself - as Olivia Colman as his daughter. She has the much less flashy - but no less important - role in this drama and Hopkins would not be as good as he is without her to play against.
Zeller (who was nominated for an Oscar for his Screenplay adaptation of his Stage Play) was smart to cast a strong ensemble of British Stage Actors for this film - Mark Gattis, Olivia Williams, Rufus Sewell and Imogen Poots are all strong, interesting people to watch on screen and they help bring an air of seriousness and gravitas to the proceedings.
The first half of this film is extremely fascinating to watch and I was intrigued by the premise, the direction, the script and the direction it seemed to be headed. But…unfortunately (at least for me) the 2nd half of the film (and I would imagine, the Stage Play) never, really capitalizes on the promise of the first half and THE FATHER just sorts of peters out in the end.
Which, I guess, you could say for the poor souls who suffer from dementia, but I don’t think that was the point that Zeller was trying to make.
Letter Grade: A- (did I mention that I really, really liked the first half)
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
And that is enough to make this film very entertaining and interesting…but, unfortunately…this piece of entertainment falls flat at the end, so one will have to be contented to watching a decent drawing room drama (based on a Stage play) starring 2 strong Oscar winning actors at it’s core.
Written and Directed by Florian Zeller, THE FATHER tells the tale of a…well…FATHER, who is aging and mentally deteriorating. His daughter is trying to aide him and bring him comfort, but his befuddled mind begins to see things (conspiracies) that are not there…or are they?
Zeller wrote the lead role, specifically for Anthony Hopkins and it is a very good thing that Hopkins agree to this role for he is in EVERY scene and commands this picture as only a performer of Hopkins stature and abilities can. Hopkins is, rightfully, nominated for this performance and could pull the upset (but I highly doubt it).
Strongly supporting him - in an Oscar nominated turn herself - as Olivia Colman as his daughter. She has the much less flashy - but no less important - role in this drama and Hopkins would not be as good as he is without her to play against.
Zeller (who was nominated for an Oscar for his Screenplay adaptation of his Stage Play) was smart to cast a strong ensemble of British Stage Actors for this film - Mark Gattis, Olivia Williams, Rufus Sewell and Imogen Poots are all strong, interesting people to watch on screen and they help bring an air of seriousness and gravitas to the proceedings.
The first half of this film is extremely fascinating to watch and I was intrigued by the premise, the direction, the script and the direction it seemed to be headed. But…unfortunately (at least for me) the 2nd half of the film (and I would imagine, the Stage Play) never, really capitalizes on the promise of the first half and THE FATHER just sorts of peters out in the end.
Which, I guess, you could say for the poor souls who suffer from dementia, but I don’t think that was the point that Zeller was trying to make.
Letter Grade: A- (did I mention that I really, really liked the first half)
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)