Search
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Judy (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Neither a true biopic nor a musical, a very sad and sombre film worth seeing for a sure-fire nominee for Zellweger for the Oscars.
Decline and Fall (Part 1).
This is an extremely sombre film. I will go as far as saying that it is well-and-truly a “Father Ted” film (see glossary).
The Story.
Young Judy Garland is a starlet in the MGM studio system run by Louis B. Mayer (a villainous Richard Cordery). She doesn’t have a life outside of the movies; is fed diet pills and “pep-pills” that destroy her sleep; and she is starting to get fed up with it all. No wonder then that she grows up to be an alcoholic insomniac with a trail of failed marriages and a temperamental nature.
Thus, through flash-backs to the young Judy (the English Darci Shaw, in her movie debut) we track the older Judy (Renée Zellweger) through the last tragic years of her life. Unable to work, due to a reputation that proceeds her, she is forced to take up the offer from Bernard Delfont (Michael Gambon) of a residency at London’s “Talk of the Town”. This separates her from her older daughter (Liza Minnelli played by Gemma-Leah Devereux) and, crucially, her younger children Lorna (Bella Ramsey) and Joey (Lewin Lloyd). (Their Dad is Sidney Luft (“Victoria’s” Rufus Sewell): hence Lorna being Lorna Luft). This separation increases Judy’s mental decline.
Also in a constant state of stress is Rosalyn Wilder (Jessie Buckley) who has the unenviable job of trying to keep Garland on the straight and narrow to perform every night.
A Towering Performance.
Whatever I think about the film overall (and we’ll come to that), this is 100% the “Renée Zellweger show”. It’s an extraordinary performance, and is pitch perfect, both in terms of capturing Garland’s mannerisms and vocal style. If Zellweger doesn’t get an Oscar nomination for this then I’ll eat my favourite orange baseball hat! I’ll have to review the final short-list, but I would not be remotely surprised if she won for this.
Elsewhere is the cast, Michael Gambon gives a reliable performance as Delfont (his second depiction this year after the turn by Rufus Jones in “Stan and Ollie“!) and the rising star that is Jessie Buckley is also effective as Wilder in a much quieter role than we’re used to seeing her in.
Musical? Or biopic?
Is this a musical? Or a biopic? Or neither? Actually, I would suggest it’s neither. There’s been a curious split in the last year between films like “Bohemian Rhapsody“, which were biopics with music, to “Rocketman” which was very much a musical based around a biopic.
“Judy” can’t be classed as a musical since (and I checked my watch) the first musical number doesn’t come until FORTY MINUTES into the picture. Neither is it a true biopic, focusing only on a few short months of Garland’s extensive career, the ‘young Judy’ scenes being nothing but short flashbacks to set the scene. This probably makes sense, else a true biopic of the wonder that was Judy Garland would have turned into a 4 hour plus epic!
A rough ride, but could I care?
Above all, it’s a depressing watch, like seeing a sick animal in distress. But I never felt the film got to the heart of the matter to really make me CARE enough. The nearest it gets is with a moving portion where Judy makes the evening (if not the lifetime) of some super-fans – Dan (Andy Nyman) and Stan (Daniel Cerqueira). She goes home with them for omelettes and a sing-song: a strong nod towards Garland’s extensive following, even today, among the gay community. The finale, where the couple try to salvage an on-stage psychiatric session by Judy is touching but, for me, not tear-inducing.
The screenplay is by Tom Edge, from the stage play by Peter Quilter. The director is relative movie-newcomer Rupert Goold.
I liked this movie, but did I like it enough to rush and see it again? No, not really. Worth seeing though to appreciate the odds-on favourite (surely!) for the Best Actress Oscar of this year.
This is an extremely sombre film. I will go as far as saying that it is well-and-truly a “Father Ted” film (see glossary).
The Story.
Young Judy Garland is a starlet in the MGM studio system run by Louis B. Mayer (a villainous Richard Cordery). She doesn’t have a life outside of the movies; is fed diet pills and “pep-pills” that destroy her sleep; and she is starting to get fed up with it all. No wonder then that she grows up to be an alcoholic insomniac with a trail of failed marriages and a temperamental nature.
Thus, through flash-backs to the young Judy (the English Darci Shaw, in her movie debut) we track the older Judy (Renée Zellweger) through the last tragic years of her life. Unable to work, due to a reputation that proceeds her, she is forced to take up the offer from Bernard Delfont (Michael Gambon) of a residency at London’s “Talk of the Town”. This separates her from her older daughter (Liza Minnelli played by Gemma-Leah Devereux) and, crucially, her younger children Lorna (Bella Ramsey) and Joey (Lewin Lloyd). (Their Dad is Sidney Luft (“Victoria’s” Rufus Sewell): hence Lorna being Lorna Luft). This separation increases Judy’s mental decline.
Also in a constant state of stress is Rosalyn Wilder (Jessie Buckley) who has the unenviable job of trying to keep Garland on the straight and narrow to perform every night.
A Towering Performance.
Whatever I think about the film overall (and we’ll come to that), this is 100% the “Renée Zellweger show”. It’s an extraordinary performance, and is pitch perfect, both in terms of capturing Garland’s mannerisms and vocal style. If Zellweger doesn’t get an Oscar nomination for this then I’ll eat my favourite orange baseball hat! I’ll have to review the final short-list, but I would not be remotely surprised if she won for this.
Elsewhere is the cast, Michael Gambon gives a reliable performance as Delfont (his second depiction this year after the turn by Rufus Jones in “Stan and Ollie“!) and the rising star that is Jessie Buckley is also effective as Wilder in a much quieter role than we’re used to seeing her in.
Musical? Or biopic?
Is this a musical? Or a biopic? Or neither? Actually, I would suggest it’s neither. There’s been a curious split in the last year between films like “Bohemian Rhapsody“, which were biopics with music, to “Rocketman” which was very much a musical based around a biopic.
“Judy” can’t be classed as a musical since (and I checked my watch) the first musical number doesn’t come until FORTY MINUTES into the picture. Neither is it a true biopic, focusing only on a few short months of Garland’s extensive career, the ‘young Judy’ scenes being nothing but short flashbacks to set the scene. This probably makes sense, else a true biopic of the wonder that was Judy Garland would have turned into a 4 hour plus epic!
A rough ride, but could I care?
Above all, it’s a depressing watch, like seeing a sick animal in distress. But I never felt the film got to the heart of the matter to really make me CARE enough. The nearest it gets is with a moving portion where Judy makes the evening (if not the lifetime) of some super-fans – Dan (Andy Nyman) and Stan (Daniel Cerqueira). She goes home with them for omelettes and a sing-song: a strong nod towards Garland’s extensive following, even today, among the gay community. The finale, where the couple try to salvage an on-stage psychiatric session by Judy is touching but, for me, not tear-inducing.
The screenplay is by Tom Edge, from the stage play by Peter Quilter. The director is relative movie-newcomer Rupert Goold.
I liked this movie, but did I like it enough to rush and see it again? No, not really. Worth seeing though to appreciate the odds-on favourite (surely!) for the Best Actress Oscar of this year.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Gods Of Egypt (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Gods of Egypt is a visually stunning fantasy film that teeters on the edge of being campy.
The trailers for this film set high expectations, promising a story of the mythical, god-like beings that come from Egyptian lore. But they also raised questions: would the story keep in tune with common mythos, or branch out into a whole new realm?
With Game of Thrones star Nikolaj Coster-Waldau taking the lead, along with 300’s Gerard Butler, the film starts off in a beautiful, ancient Egypt, ruled over by Osiris and his Queen. Horus, Osiris’s son (Coster- Waldau), is ready to assume the crown, but Set (Butler), brother to Osiris, has other plans. He feels scorned for having to live in the desert, and decides it is his time to rule all of Egypt. He murders Osiris, but leaves Horus alive, taking his eyes instead of his life.
Enter a thief, who wants to rescue his beloved from the clutches of Set’s architect (Rufus Sewell). The love of his life somehow talks him into rallying a dejected Horus to fight Set.
All the gods of Egypt are represented in some form or fashion, even if in minor capacity.
The gods have the ability to morph into larger, more powerful beings. They are nigh invincible, but still age, and die. They pray to Ra, god of the sun and grandfather to Horus.
This two-hour movie is filled to the brim with star-power, and superb acting. The special effects are a sight to behold, and they instill a sense of wonderment. The adventure is grand indeed, and will certainly leave you entertained.
That said, the script is sub-par. There are moments where emotional lines could be delivered, but aren’t. This is not from lack of trying on the part of the actors; the writers simply failed to find the proper words. In these moments, there was laughter from the audience at my viewing — during scenes clearly not meant for humor. This is the precarious knife-edge the movie walks between greatness and campy.
I’ve read several articles about how moviegoers are upset at the very Caucasian-looking cast. I shared this sentiment, to a certain degree. It seemed odd that a movie about a specific time and place in history made little effort to be ethnically accurate.
In the end, I let it go. The movie’s lore turned out to be so far from a real-world tie in that it no longer mattered. It was clear this was some sort of alternate universe; one of the major plot holes is a lack of connection to planet Earth.
If you can divorce yourself from some of these elements, you can really enjoy the film for what it is.
My screener companion said he didn’t care for the graphics, because they were obviously fake. I experienced this movie using animated films as my frame of reference, and that made it easier to watch. It is also clearly a High Fantasy film.
In summary: great acting is the glue that holds this film together. Without that talent, it wouldn’t stand up. It is, however, worth seeing if you love fantasy films. You will be entertained, for sure.
3.5 out 5 stars
The trailers for this film set high expectations, promising a story of the mythical, god-like beings that come from Egyptian lore. But they also raised questions: would the story keep in tune with common mythos, or branch out into a whole new realm?
With Game of Thrones star Nikolaj Coster-Waldau taking the lead, along with 300’s Gerard Butler, the film starts off in a beautiful, ancient Egypt, ruled over by Osiris and his Queen. Horus, Osiris’s son (Coster- Waldau), is ready to assume the crown, but Set (Butler), brother to Osiris, has other plans. He feels scorned for having to live in the desert, and decides it is his time to rule all of Egypt. He murders Osiris, but leaves Horus alive, taking his eyes instead of his life.
Enter a thief, who wants to rescue his beloved from the clutches of Set’s architect (Rufus Sewell). The love of his life somehow talks him into rallying a dejected Horus to fight Set.
All the gods of Egypt are represented in some form or fashion, even if in minor capacity.
The gods have the ability to morph into larger, more powerful beings. They are nigh invincible, but still age, and die. They pray to Ra, god of the sun and grandfather to Horus.
This two-hour movie is filled to the brim with star-power, and superb acting. The special effects are a sight to behold, and they instill a sense of wonderment. The adventure is grand indeed, and will certainly leave you entertained.
That said, the script is sub-par. There are moments where emotional lines could be delivered, but aren’t. This is not from lack of trying on the part of the actors; the writers simply failed to find the proper words. In these moments, there was laughter from the audience at my viewing — during scenes clearly not meant for humor. This is the precarious knife-edge the movie walks between greatness and campy.
I’ve read several articles about how moviegoers are upset at the very Caucasian-looking cast. I shared this sentiment, to a certain degree. It seemed odd that a movie about a specific time and place in history made little effort to be ethnically accurate.
In the end, I let it go. The movie’s lore turned out to be so far from a real-world tie in that it no longer mattered. It was clear this was some sort of alternate universe; one of the major plot holes is a lack of connection to planet Earth.
If you can divorce yourself from some of these elements, you can really enjoy the film for what it is.
My screener companion said he didn’t care for the graphics, because they were obviously fake. I experienced this movie using animated films as my frame of reference, and that made it easier to watch. It is also clearly a High Fantasy film.
In summary: great acting is the glue that holds this film together. Without that talent, it wouldn’t stand up. It is, however, worth seeing if you love fantasy films. You will be entertained, for sure.
3.5 out 5 stars
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
When I first heard about this movie, I was expecting the worst. I’ve been exposed to my fair share of B-type horror movies (I was raised on “Critters,” “Ghoulies,” “Killer Clowns from Outerspace,” and everything else one can imagine as a kid). I laughed at the SyFy channel’s monster movie line-up and was sick unto death of zombie movies. That said, I wasn’t entirely excited for this movie’s premier. My boyfriend, however, was chomping at the bit. He adores B-type
movies and this was no exception. And, to my honest surprise, it wasn’t as awful as I had wholly envisioned in my head.
The movie starts with a young Abraham Lincoln (Benjamin Walker) defending his slave friend, Will Johnson (Anthony Mackie), from abuse at the hands of a slave trader. A scuffle ensues and Abraham’s father is ultimately met face-to-face with “Adam” (Rufus Sewell), a well-known and well-feared trader in the lands. The two exchange heated words with Adam threatening to extract his revenge by some unknown means. What seems later that evening, Abraham’s mother is attacked by Adam as young Abraham watches from the shadows. Adam, as one can guess, is a vampire and leaves Abraham’s mother in such a state she cannot recover. Upon her death, Abraham vows revenge, devoting the next ten years of his life to killing Adam.
As the reader can surmise, Abraham is ill-equipped to face Adam and when the day finally arrives, he finds himself wholly unprepared for the task. Cue the entrance of Henry Sturgess, Vampire Hunter. Saving Abraham from an early demise, Henry (Dominic Cooper) takes the young man under his wing and teaches him the way of vampire hunting. He teaches young Abe that the vampires control the whole of the south, using the slave trade as their means for fresh and easily accessible blood. Having never tolerated slavery of any kind, Abraham is infuriated by this and his desire to eradicate the vampire colony grows.
From there he is bequeathed his infamous axe, its edge lined in silver, and we watch as young Abe grows and matures as a skilled warrior before our eyes. When the time comes, Abraham is sent away on a mission to kill select vampires in a quiet town, vampires who pose as noted professionals and townspersons during the day. As a rule, Henry cautions Abraham not to make any friends or form any kind of attachments. Of course, it’s at this point he meets Mary Todd and that whole theory goes out the window. In addition to his vampire hunting, he also begins his career in politics and as a renowned orator. Given one’s knowledge of history, we can see where this all leads.
I won’t divulge the whole of the story here – I’m sure you can imagine where it goes and what comes of it. That said, aside from the over-the-top fighting scenes and certain drawn out moments (the horse stampede and train fight immediately come to mind), it wasn’t as awful as I had originally envisioned. The movie is entertaining and still
retains a fair amount of the B-movie cheesiness one hopes for in watching it. Obviously, the storyline is wracked with historical inaccuracies and unlikely moments (really, Abe Lincoln survives a horse being thrown at him?), but it’s a B-movie and I wasn’t expecting perfection.
If you’re looking for something that offers sheer entertainment and nothing further, this is a movie for you then. You won’t be blown away by the acting skills, the special effects are decent enough (don’t pay extra for 3-D though – it was awful), and while the movie feels slow and drags at parts, over-all it’s rather entertaining for what it is.
movies and this was no exception. And, to my honest surprise, it wasn’t as awful as I had wholly envisioned in my head.
The movie starts with a young Abraham Lincoln (Benjamin Walker) defending his slave friend, Will Johnson (Anthony Mackie), from abuse at the hands of a slave trader. A scuffle ensues and Abraham’s father is ultimately met face-to-face with “Adam” (Rufus Sewell), a well-known and well-feared trader in the lands. The two exchange heated words with Adam threatening to extract his revenge by some unknown means. What seems later that evening, Abraham’s mother is attacked by Adam as young Abraham watches from the shadows. Adam, as one can guess, is a vampire and leaves Abraham’s mother in such a state she cannot recover. Upon her death, Abraham vows revenge, devoting the next ten years of his life to killing Adam.
As the reader can surmise, Abraham is ill-equipped to face Adam and when the day finally arrives, he finds himself wholly unprepared for the task. Cue the entrance of Henry Sturgess, Vampire Hunter. Saving Abraham from an early demise, Henry (Dominic Cooper) takes the young man under his wing and teaches him the way of vampire hunting. He teaches young Abe that the vampires control the whole of the south, using the slave trade as their means for fresh and easily accessible blood. Having never tolerated slavery of any kind, Abraham is infuriated by this and his desire to eradicate the vampire colony grows.
From there he is bequeathed his infamous axe, its edge lined in silver, and we watch as young Abe grows and matures as a skilled warrior before our eyes. When the time comes, Abraham is sent away on a mission to kill select vampires in a quiet town, vampires who pose as noted professionals and townspersons during the day. As a rule, Henry cautions Abraham not to make any friends or form any kind of attachments. Of course, it’s at this point he meets Mary Todd and that whole theory goes out the window. In addition to his vampire hunting, he also begins his career in politics and as a renowned orator. Given one’s knowledge of history, we can see where this all leads.
I won’t divulge the whole of the story here – I’m sure you can imagine where it goes and what comes of it. That said, aside from the over-the-top fighting scenes and certain drawn out moments (the horse stampede and train fight immediately come to mind), it wasn’t as awful as I had originally envisioned. The movie is entertaining and still
retains a fair amount of the B-movie cheesiness one hopes for in watching it. Obviously, the storyline is wracked with historical inaccuracies and unlikely moments (really, Abe Lincoln survives a horse being thrown at him?), but it’s a B-movie and I wasn’t expecting perfection.
If you’re looking for something that offers sheer entertainment and nothing further, this is a movie for you then. You won’t be blown away by the acting skills, the special effects are decent enough (don’t pay extra for 3-D though – it was awful), and while the movie feels slow and drags at parts, over-all it’s rather entertaining for what it is.