Search
Search results
Entertainment Editor (1988 KP) created a video about Victoria - Season 1 in TV
Oct 13, 2017 (Updated Oct 14, 2017)
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)
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.