Search
Search results
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Monty Python's Life of Brian (1979) in Movies
Mar 15, 2021
A classic
Film #16 on the 100 Movies Bucket List: Monty Python’s Life of Brian
Life of Brian (1979] is an old school comedy classic, and alongside Python’s take on the Holy Grail, were fairly revered comedies when I was growing up and I doubt there’s many people over a certain age that haven’t seen these films. Films like this are my favourite type of comedy, and I just wish they still made films similar today.
Life of Brian follows Brian (Graham Chapman), who was born on the same night one stable down from Jesus, yet has lived an entirely different life. Fed up of the Romans, Brian joins the People’s Front of Judea led by Reggie (John a Cleese), whose aim is to get the Romans out of Judea. After being caught infiltrating the palace and put in front of Pontius Pilate (Michael Palin), Brian escapes capture and in his bid to hide from the Romans, winds up relaying some of the teachings he learnt from Jesus. This spurs a crowd into thinking he is the next Messiah, leaving Brian to try and evade his followers as well as the Romans, with rather dire consequences.
This is the Pythons second proper feature film, following on from the hugely successful Holy Grail and their tv series, Flying Circus. Directed by Terry Jones, the purpose of Life of Brian was to lampoon and satirise the New Testament, and more specifically, to make fun of followers of mistaken religious figures. To be quite honest, I don’t think they could make comedy films like this anymore. This lampoon, satire style was fairly rife even up until the 90s (with the likes of Hot Shots and The Naked Gun sequels), but I think they’d struggle to make anything like this nowadays which is a great shame. The humour in this isn’t offensive at all, it’s intelligent and adult and whipsmart and wonderfully done. Admittedly there are a few scenes that may cause some offence purely because it was made when times were different over 40 years ago, but there’s also a lot in here that is surprisingly relevant even in today’s society – one scene where the People’s Front of Judea discuss women’s rights and a request from Stan to be known as Loretta is unexpectedly well done and respectful, albeit with a Python comedy edge. There are some genius works of comedy in this film too that have become cult favourites, from Palin’s depiction of Pontius Pilate with a speech impediment (“Stwike him centuwion, vewy wuffly!”) to Terry Jones’ mother crying out to Brian’s followers that “he’s not the Messiah, he’s a very naughty boy!”. Personally, Palin’s take on Pilate and all of his scenes are my favourite of the entire film.
This isn’t to say that Life of Brian is perfect. There are some scenes and acting that are maybe a little too pantomime-esque (even for a parody) and there are some jokes and scenes that don’t quite land - the alien scene (yes I did say “alien”) is one that jumps to mind. Because of this some scenes can seem rather drawn out if you don’t get the gag. Humour like this isn’t for everyone, although for me it’s my favourite kind. This is British comedy at its best and a shining example that humour doesn’t be crude to be funny. I mean who else other than the Monty Python troupe could pull off crucified men singing “Always Look on the Bright Side of Life”?
Life of Brian (1979] is an old school comedy classic, and alongside Python’s take on the Holy Grail, were fairly revered comedies when I was growing up and I doubt there’s many people over a certain age that haven’t seen these films. Films like this are my favourite type of comedy, and I just wish they still made films similar today.
Life of Brian follows Brian (Graham Chapman), who was born on the same night one stable down from Jesus, yet has lived an entirely different life. Fed up of the Romans, Brian joins the People’s Front of Judea led by Reggie (John a Cleese), whose aim is to get the Romans out of Judea. After being caught infiltrating the palace and put in front of Pontius Pilate (Michael Palin), Brian escapes capture and in his bid to hide from the Romans, winds up relaying some of the teachings he learnt from Jesus. This spurs a crowd into thinking he is the next Messiah, leaving Brian to try and evade his followers as well as the Romans, with rather dire consequences.
This is the Pythons second proper feature film, following on from the hugely successful Holy Grail and their tv series, Flying Circus. Directed by Terry Jones, the purpose of Life of Brian was to lampoon and satirise the New Testament, and more specifically, to make fun of followers of mistaken religious figures. To be quite honest, I don’t think they could make comedy films like this anymore. This lampoon, satire style was fairly rife even up until the 90s (with the likes of Hot Shots and The Naked Gun sequels), but I think they’d struggle to make anything like this nowadays which is a great shame. The humour in this isn’t offensive at all, it’s intelligent and adult and whipsmart and wonderfully done. Admittedly there are a few scenes that may cause some offence purely because it was made when times were different over 40 years ago, but there’s also a lot in here that is surprisingly relevant even in today’s society – one scene where the People’s Front of Judea discuss women’s rights and a request from Stan to be known as Loretta is unexpectedly well done and respectful, albeit with a Python comedy edge. There are some genius works of comedy in this film too that have become cult favourites, from Palin’s depiction of Pontius Pilate with a speech impediment (“Stwike him centuwion, vewy wuffly!”) to Terry Jones’ mother crying out to Brian’s followers that “he’s not the Messiah, he’s a very naughty boy!”. Personally, Palin’s take on Pilate and all of his scenes are my favourite of the entire film.
This isn’t to say that Life of Brian is perfect. There are some scenes and acting that are maybe a little too pantomime-esque (even for a parody) and there are some jokes and scenes that don’t quite land - the alien scene (yes I did say “alien”) is one that jumps to mind. Because of this some scenes can seem rather drawn out if you don’t get the gag. Humour like this isn’t for everyone, although for me it’s my favourite kind. This is British comedy at its best and a shining example that humour doesn’t be crude to be funny. I mean who else other than the Monty Python troupe could pull off crucified men singing “Always Look on the Bright Side of Life”?
Curtis Sittenfeld's engaging novel looks at Hillary Rodham's life through this prism: what if she hadn't married Bill Clinton? In 1971, as Hillary Rodham graduates from Wellesley, she delivers a commencement speech that gains national prominence. She heads to Yale Law school--an intelligent woman, filled with the desire to help those in need. It is there she meets Bill Clinton, a fellow law student. The connection between the two is instant--for the first time, Hillary feels she has found someone who appreciates her both emotionally and physically. In real life, Hillary and Bill head to Arkansas. He proposes three times, and she finally accepts, becoming Hillary Rodham Clinton.
"The first time I saw him, I thought he looked like a lion."
But here, in this imaginative and powerful novel, Hillary does not accept Bill's third proposal. Devastated, she leaves Arkansas and embarks on a different life. The pair's paths cross again (and again) in the years ahead, causing Hillary to sometimes doubt her decision.
I found this to be such an interesting read and oddly hopeful somehow, as if Sittenfeld read my brain and created the world I dreamed of--what a great book to read during these dismal times. It takes a little time to get into the flow of the writing: the first-person narrative certainly places you in the action, but I needed to adjust to switching back and forth between time periods (Hillary's past and present). And, funnily enough, you have to remember that this is and isn't Hillary--the first quarter of the book or so loosely follows Hillary's real life, so sometimes you have to recall who is truly speaking. I am not actually reading a Hillary memoir.
I loved how this book rewrites history--and with zero apologies. Bill Clinton does not always come off looking good here, though the love and chemistry between the two is clearly palpable. You find a variety of other characters from real life, so to speak, who sometimes play their actual roles, or re-imagined versions, and it's so fun. And, why yes, even Donald Trump has a place here. What a wonderful place it is, too. If you love politics, or political satire, there's a lot to love here.
"'If Bill Clinton was my boyfriend, I'd keep an eye on him too.'"
The Hillary of Sittenfeld's world is so real, so true, and so vulnerable and lovable. (And whoa, are there sex scenes, guys.) Even better, Sittenfeld doesn't make her perfect by any stretch; she's flawed and fallible, too. It doesn't take long to see history's actual Hillary taking this path, and sometimes, oh sometimes, I longed for her to do so. Sittenfeld excels at telling a tale from another person's perspective, somehow putting herself in their shoes. I got so caught up in this Hillary's world that I read the last half of the book in one take, desperate to know what happened to her. She felt real to me, and I needed to know how her life turned out. Please, Hillary, let it all work out this time.
This book is different, yes. It might not be for everyone, politically. But I found it fascinating to think about such a thing--how the choices we make in life affect so much. Not just saying yes to a marriage proposal, but all the other actions we take on any given day. This is a smartly written book, cementing Sittenfeld as a brilliant writer and storyteller. 4 stars.
"The first time I saw him, I thought he looked like a lion."
But here, in this imaginative and powerful novel, Hillary does not accept Bill's third proposal. Devastated, she leaves Arkansas and embarks on a different life. The pair's paths cross again (and again) in the years ahead, causing Hillary to sometimes doubt her decision.
I found this to be such an interesting read and oddly hopeful somehow, as if Sittenfeld read my brain and created the world I dreamed of--what a great book to read during these dismal times. It takes a little time to get into the flow of the writing: the first-person narrative certainly places you in the action, but I needed to adjust to switching back and forth between time periods (Hillary's past and present). And, funnily enough, you have to remember that this is and isn't Hillary--the first quarter of the book or so loosely follows Hillary's real life, so sometimes you have to recall who is truly speaking. I am not actually reading a Hillary memoir.
I loved how this book rewrites history--and with zero apologies. Bill Clinton does not always come off looking good here, though the love and chemistry between the two is clearly palpable. You find a variety of other characters from real life, so to speak, who sometimes play their actual roles, or re-imagined versions, and it's so fun. And, why yes, even Donald Trump has a place here. What a wonderful place it is, too. If you love politics, or political satire, there's a lot to love here.
"'If Bill Clinton was my boyfriend, I'd keep an eye on him too.'"
The Hillary of Sittenfeld's world is so real, so true, and so vulnerable and lovable. (And whoa, are there sex scenes, guys.) Even better, Sittenfeld doesn't make her perfect by any stretch; she's flawed and fallible, too. It doesn't take long to see history's actual Hillary taking this path, and sometimes, oh sometimes, I longed for her to do so. Sittenfeld excels at telling a tale from another person's perspective, somehow putting herself in their shoes. I got so caught up in this Hillary's world that I read the last half of the book in one take, desperate to know what happened to her. She felt real to me, and I needed to know how her life turned out. Please, Hillary, let it all work out this time.
This book is different, yes. It might not be for everyone, politically. But I found it fascinating to think about such a thing--how the choices we make in life affect so much. Not just saying yes to a marriage proposal, but all the other actions we take on any given day. This is a smartly written book, cementing Sittenfeld as a brilliant writer and storyteller. 4 stars.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Death Of Stalin (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Death…. Torture…. Child Abuse…. LOL??
Armando Iannucci is most familiar to TV audiences on both sides of the pond for his cutting political satire of the likes of “Veep” and “The Thick of It”, with his only previous foray into directing movies being “In the Loop”: a spin-off of the latter series. Lovers of his work will know that he sails very close to the wind on many occasions, such that watching can be more of a squirm-fest than enjoyment.
Rupert Friend (centre) tries to deliver a eulogy to his father against winged opposition. With (from left to right) Michael Palin, Jeffrey Tambor, Steve Buscemi and Simon Russell Beale.
It should come as no surprise then that his new film – “The Death of Stalin” – follows that same pattern, but transposed into the anarchic and violent world of 1950’s Russia. Based on a French comic strip, the film tells the farcical goings on surrounding the last days of the great dictator in 1953. Stalin keeps distributing his “lists” of undesirables, most of who will meet unpleasant ends before the end of the night. But as Stalin suddenly shuffles off his mortal coil, the race is on among his fellow commissariat members as to who will ultimately succeed him.
Stalin…. Going… but not forgotten.
The constitution dictates that Georgy Malenkov (an excellently vacillating Jeffrey Tambor) secedes but, as a weak man, the job is clearly soon going to become vacant again and spy-chief Lavrentiy Beria (Simon Russell Beale) and Nikita Khrushchev (Steve Buscemi) are jostling for position. (No spoilers, but you’ll never guess who wins!). Colleagues including Molotov (Michael Palin) and Mikoyan (Paul Whitehouse) need to decide who to side with as the machinations around Stalin’s funeral become more and more desperate.
The film starts extremely strongly with the ever-excellent Paddy Considine (“Pride”) playing a Radio Russia producer tasked with recording a classical concert, featuring piano virtuoso Maria Yudina (Olga Kurylenko, “Quantum of Solace”). A definition of paranoia in action!
Great fingering. Olga Kurylenko as Yudina, with more than a hand in the way the evening’s events will unfold.
We then descend into the chaos of Stalin’s Russia, with mass torture and execution colouring the comedy from dark-grey to charcoal-black in turns. There is definitely comedy gold in there: Khrushchev’s translation of his drunken scribblings from the night before (of things that Stalin found funny and – more importantly – things he didn’t) being a high point for me. Stalin’s children Svetlana (Andrea Riseborough, “Nocturnal Animals”) and Vasily (Rupert Friend, “Homeland”) add knockabout humour to offset the darker elements, and army chief Georgy Zhukov (Jason Isaacs, “Harry Potter”) is a riot with a no-nonsense North-of-England accent.
Brass Eye: Jason Isaacs as the army chief from somewhere just north of Wigan.
Production values are universally excellent, with great locations, great sets and a screen populated with enough extras to make the crowd scenes all appear realistic.
Another broad Yorkshire accent: (the almost unknown) Adrian McLoughlin delivers an hysterical speaking voice as Stalin.
The film absolutely held my interest and was thorougly entertaining, but the comedy is just so dark in places it leaves you on edge throughout. The writing is also patchy at times, with some of the lines falling to the ground as heavily as the dispatched Gulag residents.
It’s not going to be for everyone, with significant violence and gruesome scenes, but go along with the black comic theme and this is a film that delivers rewards.
Rupert Friend (centre) tries to deliver a eulogy to his father against winged opposition. With (from left to right) Michael Palin, Jeffrey Tambor, Steve Buscemi and Simon Russell Beale.
It should come as no surprise then that his new film – “The Death of Stalin” – follows that same pattern, but transposed into the anarchic and violent world of 1950’s Russia. Based on a French comic strip, the film tells the farcical goings on surrounding the last days of the great dictator in 1953. Stalin keeps distributing his “lists” of undesirables, most of who will meet unpleasant ends before the end of the night. But as Stalin suddenly shuffles off his mortal coil, the race is on among his fellow commissariat members as to who will ultimately succeed him.
Stalin…. Going… but not forgotten.
The constitution dictates that Georgy Malenkov (an excellently vacillating Jeffrey Tambor) secedes but, as a weak man, the job is clearly soon going to become vacant again and spy-chief Lavrentiy Beria (Simon Russell Beale) and Nikita Khrushchev (Steve Buscemi) are jostling for position. (No spoilers, but you’ll never guess who wins!). Colleagues including Molotov (Michael Palin) and Mikoyan (Paul Whitehouse) need to decide who to side with as the machinations around Stalin’s funeral become more and more desperate.
The film starts extremely strongly with the ever-excellent Paddy Considine (“Pride”) playing a Radio Russia producer tasked with recording a classical concert, featuring piano virtuoso Maria Yudina (Olga Kurylenko, “Quantum of Solace”). A definition of paranoia in action!
Great fingering. Olga Kurylenko as Yudina, with more than a hand in the way the evening’s events will unfold.
We then descend into the chaos of Stalin’s Russia, with mass torture and execution colouring the comedy from dark-grey to charcoal-black in turns. There is definitely comedy gold in there: Khrushchev’s translation of his drunken scribblings from the night before (of things that Stalin found funny and – more importantly – things he didn’t) being a high point for me. Stalin’s children Svetlana (Andrea Riseborough, “Nocturnal Animals”) and Vasily (Rupert Friend, “Homeland”) add knockabout humour to offset the darker elements, and army chief Georgy Zhukov (Jason Isaacs, “Harry Potter”) is a riot with a no-nonsense North-of-England accent.
Brass Eye: Jason Isaacs as the army chief from somewhere just north of Wigan.
Production values are universally excellent, with great locations, great sets and a screen populated with enough extras to make the crowd scenes all appear realistic.
Another broad Yorkshire accent: (the almost unknown) Adrian McLoughlin delivers an hysterical speaking voice as Stalin.
The film absolutely held my interest and was thorougly entertaining, but the comedy is just so dark in places it leaves you on edge throughout. The writing is also patchy at times, with some of the lines falling to the ground as heavily as the dispatched Gulag residents.
It’s not going to be for everyone, with significant violence and gruesome scenes, but go along with the black comic theme and this is a film that delivers rewards.
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Dead In A Week (Or Your Money Back) (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Dark comedy at its finest
This review discusses dark topics such as death and suicide. Reader discretion advised.
Getting comedy right is difficult enough, let alone trying to do it with sensitive topics. But Dead In A Week (or your money back) hits the nail on the head. After several failed suicide attempts, William (Aneurin Barnard) signs a contract with veteran assassin Leslie (Tom Wilkinson), who promises he’ll be dead within the week. This simple concept results in 1 hour and 30 mins of pure entertainment.
Though explicit in the way it discusses suicide, there is a reason for this. Right from the start, William is positioned as an incredibly depressed, isolated failed writer, who is struggling to see the point in living. He is very open about this fact, and spends a lot of time planning ways he could do it, accompanied by a darkly funny montage of the ways he’s tried. He is a troubled character that you can’t help but feel sorry for.
What makes this film even more interesting is the way it makes you sympathise with both target and killer. Leslie is trying his best to avoid retirement, and sees William as an answer to his prayers. If he kills him, he’ll fill his quota, and all will be well. This creates a paradox where you want both men to succeed, but you know that’s impossible.
William changes his mind about the contract when a publisher takes interest in his novel, and he begins to fall in love with Ellie (Freya Mavor), the assistant who called him regarding his latest story. This encounter comes with some rather frank and heartwarming messages about life, reminding us how precious life can be if you give it a chance.
Of course, the film doesn’t just end there. After William’s 360, Leslie is having none of it, and for the rest of the film we see this young writer trying to outrun a seasoned assassin. Leslie’s boss Harvey (Christopher Eccleston) is hot on his tail as well, tired of giving the old man too many chances. It’s a classic tale of a failed assassin, flipped entirely on its head.
Filled with some brilliant twists and turns, the script is formulaic yet hugely entertaining, with some laugh out loud moments throughout. It will certainly appeal to those who like their humour a little darker, with its use of comedic timing and deadpan delivery. It addresses so much in a short space of time, adding depth where needed.
Leslie’s wife Penny (Marion Bailey) adds her own comic relief to the situation, with a delightful satire on middle-class culture. Whilst her husband is trying to keep a dangerous job he loves so much, she’s more concerned about beating her church rivals in a cushion competition. The parallels between the couple are simultaneously heartwarming and awkward, and I enjoyed the way they bounced off each other throughout.
This was a thoroughly enjoyable film, with some unexpectedly touching moments. I really connected with certain characters and loathed others, allowing me to become fully invested in the film. The encounter between these two men should have ended one way, but the two embark on a journey that changes their lives for the better. Underneath all the humour comes an understanding of mental health issues, and sympathy for those who struggle.
This was Tom Edmund’s feature length debut, after directing a few short films. It’s an impressive first film with good pacing, solid characters, and a well-polished look throughout. It was an ambitious first feature length, but it certainly delivered.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2019/05/06/dark-comedy-at-its-finest-my-thoughts-on-dead-in-a-week-or-your-money-back/
Getting comedy right is difficult enough, let alone trying to do it with sensitive topics. But Dead In A Week (or your money back) hits the nail on the head. After several failed suicide attempts, William (Aneurin Barnard) signs a contract with veteran assassin Leslie (Tom Wilkinson), who promises he’ll be dead within the week. This simple concept results in 1 hour and 30 mins of pure entertainment.
Though explicit in the way it discusses suicide, there is a reason for this. Right from the start, William is positioned as an incredibly depressed, isolated failed writer, who is struggling to see the point in living. He is very open about this fact, and spends a lot of time planning ways he could do it, accompanied by a darkly funny montage of the ways he’s tried. He is a troubled character that you can’t help but feel sorry for.
What makes this film even more interesting is the way it makes you sympathise with both target and killer. Leslie is trying his best to avoid retirement, and sees William as an answer to his prayers. If he kills him, he’ll fill his quota, and all will be well. This creates a paradox where you want both men to succeed, but you know that’s impossible.
William changes his mind about the contract when a publisher takes interest in his novel, and he begins to fall in love with Ellie (Freya Mavor), the assistant who called him regarding his latest story. This encounter comes with some rather frank and heartwarming messages about life, reminding us how precious life can be if you give it a chance.
Of course, the film doesn’t just end there. After William’s 360, Leslie is having none of it, and for the rest of the film we see this young writer trying to outrun a seasoned assassin. Leslie’s boss Harvey (Christopher Eccleston) is hot on his tail as well, tired of giving the old man too many chances. It’s a classic tale of a failed assassin, flipped entirely on its head.
Filled with some brilliant twists and turns, the script is formulaic yet hugely entertaining, with some laugh out loud moments throughout. It will certainly appeal to those who like their humour a little darker, with its use of comedic timing and deadpan delivery. It addresses so much in a short space of time, adding depth where needed.
Leslie’s wife Penny (Marion Bailey) adds her own comic relief to the situation, with a delightful satire on middle-class culture. Whilst her husband is trying to keep a dangerous job he loves so much, she’s more concerned about beating her church rivals in a cushion competition. The parallels between the couple are simultaneously heartwarming and awkward, and I enjoyed the way they bounced off each other throughout.
This was a thoroughly enjoyable film, with some unexpectedly touching moments. I really connected with certain characters and loathed others, allowing me to become fully invested in the film. The encounter between these two men should have ended one way, but the two embark on a journey that changes their lives for the better. Underneath all the humour comes an understanding of mental health issues, and sympathy for those who struggle.
This was Tom Edmund’s feature length debut, after directing a few short films. It’s an impressive first film with good pacing, solid characters, and a well-polished look throughout. It was an ambitious first feature length, but it certainly delivered.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2019/05/06/dark-comedy-at-its-finest-my-thoughts-on-dead-in-a-week-or-your-money-back/
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Team America: World Police (2004) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
With world tensions at an all time high with the very real threat of terrorism, the creators of South Park, Trey Parker and Matt Stone, have rushed to the rescue with a biting political and social satire named “Team America: World Police”.
The film is a puppet movie based upon the old Thunderbirds television show about a team of specialists who fight to save the world from all manner of threats both real and imagined. The story is told entirely by puppets and miniatures which allows Stone and Parker to push the boundaries much further than they would be allowed to with live actors and in doing so, give the audience some of the deepest albeit raunchiest laughs seen in a long time.
The story opens with Team America battling the terrorists in Paris. Ever quick on the trigger, the team is able to stop the deployment of a weapon of mass destruction but in the process much of the cities famed landmarks fall from collateral damage.
Forced to find a new team member, the leader of Team America, Spottswoode recruits a stage actor named Gary Johnston to join the team and infiltrate the terrorist organization to learn what new attacks are being planned.
While this is seen as a good move by the team, there are parts of the team that are unsure of this as one in particular does not trust actors and thinks that he will escalate an already volatile situation. Undaunted, the team sets off for Cairo Egypt and eventually leaves a trail of mayhem and destruction in their path.
It is at this point that the real story of the films kicks into gear. It is learned that North Korean leader Kim Jong Il is working with the terrorists to plot the ultimate attack and have convinced a cadre of Hollywood actors to attend a peace conference with other world leaders in an attempt to undermine Team America.
In between battles, Team America has plenty of time to take on other concerns such as love, self-doubt, personal issues, and suspicions, some of which result in a side-splitting sex scene that will soon become legend, as even though it involved puppets, it has to be severely edited in order to avoid an NC-17 rating. As it stands, it is one of the funniest moments in cinematic history and worth the price of admission alone.
The film does a good job of mixing comedy and commentary without ever drawing a line and saying this is how it is. We see Team America as a gun happy bunch, but we are also shown that they are true patriots who are willing to do what it takes to keep the country safe. Such is the genius of Parker and Stone as they are able to create a biting social commentary that makes you aware of issues without pounding the audience over their heads with the creator’s viewpoints. Instead the audience is given a situation and watch things taken to highly comical levels in an effort to entertain. People are free to draw their own conclusions and interpretations of the messages in the film as despite your beliefs or political leanings, we all laugh. There will be those that take umbrage to the crude humor and language, and others will not like what they may call a right-wing message. Instead I looked at the film as a very funny comedy with solid social commentary.
The only fault I had with the film is that it does drag a bit about ¾ in before getting to the final confrontations but those are well worth the wait. The film also parodies many action films and it is fun to try to try to uncover which film is being parodied. The puppets themselves are very impressive as their movements and facial expressions are easily the best ever captured on film.
The film is a puppet movie based upon the old Thunderbirds television show about a team of specialists who fight to save the world from all manner of threats both real and imagined. The story is told entirely by puppets and miniatures which allows Stone and Parker to push the boundaries much further than they would be allowed to with live actors and in doing so, give the audience some of the deepest albeit raunchiest laughs seen in a long time.
The story opens with Team America battling the terrorists in Paris. Ever quick on the trigger, the team is able to stop the deployment of a weapon of mass destruction but in the process much of the cities famed landmarks fall from collateral damage.
Forced to find a new team member, the leader of Team America, Spottswoode recruits a stage actor named Gary Johnston to join the team and infiltrate the terrorist organization to learn what new attacks are being planned.
While this is seen as a good move by the team, there are parts of the team that are unsure of this as one in particular does not trust actors and thinks that he will escalate an already volatile situation. Undaunted, the team sets off for Cairo Egypt and eventually leaves a trail of mayhem and destruction in their path.
It is at this point that the real story of the films kicks into gear. It is learned that North Korean leader Kim Jong Il is working with the terrorists to plot the ultimate attack and have convinced a cadre of Hollywood actors to attend a peace conference with other world leaders in an attempt to undermine Team America.
In between battles, Team America has plenty of time to take on other concerns such as love, self-doubt, personal issues, and suspicions, some of which result in a side-splitting sex scene that will soon become legend, as even though it involved puppets, it has to be severely edited in order to avoid an NC-17 rating. As it stands, it is one of the funniest moments in cinematic history and worth the price of admission alone.
The film does a good job of mixing comedy and commentary without ever drawing a line and saying this is how it is. We see Team America as a gun happy bunch, but we are also shown that they are true patriots who are willing to do what it takes to keep the country safe. Such is the genius of Parker and Stone as they are able to create a biting social commentary that makes you aware of issues without pounding the audience over their heads with the creator’s viewpoints. Instead the audience is given a situation and watch things taken to highly comical levels in an effort to entertain. People are free to draw their own conclusions and interpretations of the messages in the film as despite your beliefs or political leanings, we all laugh. There will be those that take umbrage to the crude humor and language, and others will not like what they may call a right-wing message. Instead I looked at the film as a very funny comedy with solid social commentary.
The only fault I had with the film is that it does drag a bit about ¾ in before getting to the final confrontations but those are well worth the wait. The film also parodies many action films and it is fun to try to try to uncover which film is being parodied. The puppets themselves are very impressive as their movements and facial expressions are easily the best ever captured on film.
Phil Leader (619 KP) rated Flatland (Enhanced Illustrated Edition) in Books
Nov 13, 2019
I have wanted to read Flatland since I read the reference to it in Gödel Escher Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid which was a set text at university. As the book is out of copyright it was one of the first that I downloaded to my eReader.
The book (although really a novella rather than a full novel at only 88 pages) works on two levels; firstly the story revolves around A Square, an inhabitant of the two dimensional space that is Flatland. Most of the book describes the rigid social hierarchy of the regular polygons that make up the people - the more sides a person has the higher their social standing. Irregular shapes are despised and usually executed. The second half involves investigation into the nature of dimensions when A Square first of all dreams of a one dimensional land, then is shown three dimensions and zero dimensions by a spherical person from the three dimensional land.
The first half is a satire on the rigid class system of Victorian society - it is particularly disparaging of women, who being lines rather than shapes are very much second class citizens, even having their own doors into and out of houses. This half shows the book's age, it was written in a different time and looking at it from more than 100 years later a lot of the discussion is overlong and unengaging. This part has not aged at all well.
The book only comes into its own when A Square has a dream about a land of one dimension, populated by lines of varying length, the longest line being the King of Lineland. The two dimensional dreamer attempts to persuade the King that is he could step sideways he would be able to see that his land of a single line was limited. Of course the King can conceive of no such direction as 'sideways' and rejects the suggestion as ridiculous.
A sphere from the 3 dimensional land of Space then visits Flatland, appearing as a circle of varying size as he passes through the two dimensional space. He tries to persuade Square that if he could move 'up' or 'down' he would be able to move beyond the rigid plane of his existence. Obviously the square cannot understand a direction which doesn't fall into two dimensions, until the sphere pulls him up and then he can look down to see Flatland spread out below him. He has an epiphany and is determined to spread the word on three dimensional space. The sphere also visits a zero dimensional land. However when the square suggests that if the sphere could somehow move in a new direction he might be able to enter four dimensional space the sphere is very quick to say how ridiculous such a notion is.
In this way the ideas behind dimensions are communicated quite effectively, including being able to deduce the properties of a four dimensional regular shape by extrapolating the properties of lines, squares and cubes. It is then clear how properties of higher dimensions can be calculated without our poor three dimensional minds actually being able to perceive of it.
Flatland is regarded as one of the very first science fiction novels. So is Gulliver's Travels but that has very little science and to my mind is more of a fantasy book. Despite Flatland having very little in the way of story and plot (although there are twists in the story) and the first half isn't really story at all but social commentary, it definitely describes fantastic worlds and imagines what the results would be of living in such places. This seems to me to be the very concept behind science fiction.
In conclusion, I would not recommend this to everyone as I think its appeal is quite limited. But for anyone of a mathematical bent who likes science fiction, it's always good to see where it all started.
The book (although really a novella rather than a full novel at only 88 pages) works on two levels; firstly the story revolves around A Square, an inhabitant of the two dimensional space that is Flatland. Most of the book describes the rigid social hierarchy of the regular polygons that make up the people - the more sides a person has the higher their social standing. Irregular shapes are despised and usually executed. The second half involves investigation into the nature of dimensions when A Square first of all dreams of a one dimensional land, then is shown three dimensions and zero dimensions by a spherical person from the three dimensional land.
The first half is a satire on the rigid class system of Victorian society - it is particularly disparaging of women, who being lines rather than shapes are very much second class citizens, even having their own doors into and out of houses. This half shows the book's age, it was written in a different time and looking at it from more than 100 years later a lot of the discussion is overlong and unengaging. This part has not aged at all well.
The book only comes into its own when A Square has a dream about a land of one dimension, populated by lines of varying length, the longest line being the King of Lineland. The two dimensional dreamer attempts to persuade the King that is he could step sideways he would be able to see that his land of a single line was limited. Of course the King can conceive of no such direction as 'sideways' and rejects the suggestion as ridiculous.
A sphere from the 3 dimensional land of Space then visits Flatland, appearing as a circle of varying size as he passes through the two dimensional space. He tries to persuade Square that if he could move 'up' or 'down' he would be able to move beyond the rigid plane of his existence. Obviously the square cannot understand a direction which doesn't fall into two dimensions, until the sphere pulls him up and then he can look down to see Flatland spread out below him. He has an epiphany and is determined to spread the word on three dimensional space. The sphere also visits a zero dimensional land. However when the square suggests that if the sphere could somehow move in a new direction he might be able to enter four dimensional space the sphere is very quick to say how ridiculous such a notion is.
In this way the ideas behind dimensions are communicated quite effectively, including being able to deduce the properties of a four dimensional regular shape by extrapolating the properties of lines, squares and cubes. It is then clear how properties of higher dimensions can be calculated without our poor three dimensional minds actually being able to perceive of it.
Flatland is regarded as one of the very first science fiction novels. So is Gulliver's Travels but that has very little science and to my mind is more of a fantasy book. Despite Flatland having very little in the way of story and plot (although there are twists in the story) and the first half isn't really story at all but social commentary, it definitely describes fantastic worlds and imagines what the results would be of living in such places. This seems to me to be the very concept behind science fiction.
In conclusion, I would not recommend this to everyone as I think its appeal is quite limited. But for anyone of a mathematical bent who likes science fiction, it's always good to see where it all started.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Downsizing (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
Overpopulation is a growing problem in the world and two Doctors, Dr. Jorgen Asbjornsen (Rolf Lassgard) and Dr. Andreas Jacobsen (Soren Pilmark) have found what they believe is the answer. The have discovered how to shrink all kinds of living matter, including humans. Asbjornsen and a group of volunteers are shrunk and live for years before showing the world. They believe that they can help solve the worlds hunger crisis as well as overpopulation. When occupational therapist Paul Safranek (Matt Damon) first hears of this he is fascinated with the idea of doing something grand to help save the world. But it isn’t until years later when he and his wife, Audrey Safranek (Kristen Wiig), run into an old college friend, Dave Johnson (Jason Sudeikis), who has been shrunk that he realizes he might be able to have a better life at four inches tall. Because of how cheap everything is to build for new tiny people there is an opportunity to live lavishly on meager means. The Safrankek’s have been struggling to get by and really be able enjoy life. When they hear that their hundreds of thousands could be millions they see this as their chance to live the luxury life. The head out to Leisureland Estates, a tiny community, to see what the small world has to offer. After the visit they are convinced and decide to go through with the procedure and begin the irreversible process of becoming “small.” On the operation date they go to separate areas to get completely shaved and prepped. When Paul wakes up he is surprised that Audrey is not with him and she has decided she cannot go through the irreversible process. After his divorce he is left alone trying to find himself and where he fits in a whole new world, at a whole new size.
This Alexander Payne (The Descendants, Nebraska, Sideways) written (co-written by Jim Taylor) and directed film is interesting and fun. If you look at this movie as a satire and don’t get too caught up in is this actually plausible you will be fine. For instance they make mention to how the people who are shrunk are pretty much left alone by things like mosquitoes and other insects but never mention things like rodents or other predators that would be difficult to fend off. I also was surprised by how in depth they get into social issues as the trailer I saw made it look more comedic than the film turned out to be. Not saying that there are not funny moments but the emphasis was really on issues like global overpopulation, exploitation of the poor, etc. and how one man decides to tackle these issues as the present themselves. I was taken by surprise at first but by the end of the film it really put everything into perspective.
Hong Chau, as Ngoc Lan Tran in the film, stood out and was really funny at times. The rest of the cast was good and fit the story well. The story did tend to drift between comedy and drama and not always as smoothly as intended. The film comes in at 2 hours and 15 minutes which is a little long but really if it was shorter the story would be even more all over the place. The plausibility of most of the film was in question for me and that was definitely distracting. But looking back if I spent less time on that I would have enjoyed the film more. Visually nothing really stand out like I thought it would and there was potential. The novelty of everyday things being bigger did get over done a little.
This Alexander Payne (The Descendants, Nebraska, Sideways) written (co-written by Jim Taylor) and directed film is interesting and fun. If you look at this movie as a satire and don’t get too caught up in is this actually plausible you will be fine. For instance they make mention to how the people who are shrunk are pretty much left alone by things like mosquitoes and other insects but never mention things like rodents or other predators that would be difficult to fend off. I also was surprised by how in depth they get into social issues as the trailer I saw made it look more comedic than the film turned out to be. Not saying that there are not funny moments but the emphasis was really on issues like global overpopulation, exploitation of the poor, etc. and how one man decides to tackle these issues as the present themselves. I was taken by surprise at first but by the end of the film it really put everything into perspective.
Hong Chau, as Ngoc Lan Tran in the film, stood out and was really funny at times. The rest of the cast was good and fit the story well. The story did tend to drift between comedy and drama and not always as smoothly as intended. The film comes in at 2 hours and 15 minutes which is a little long but really if it was shorter the story would be even more all over the place. The plausibility of most of the film was in question for me and that was definitely distracting. But looking back if I spent less time on that I would have enjoyed the film more. Visually nothing really stand out like I thought it would and there was potential. The novelty of everyday things being bigger did get over done a little.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated People Just Do Nothing: Big in Japan (2021) in Movies
Aug 20, 2021
Good jokes, most of which land (1 more)
Enough David Brent/Partridge moments to make you cringe
As a PJDN virgin, I still laughed a lot!
It’s brave then that such a relatively niche UK TV show should have a go at ‘jumping the shark’ onto the big screen. Would fans like it? And, just as importantly, would newcomers to the characters, like me, be able to enjoy the film as a standalone entity? The answer to the last question is a qualified “yes”.
Positives:
- It well-surpasses the “6 laugh test” for a comedy. There are some scenes that I found extremely funny, with others that rated highly for me on the David Brent / Alan Partridge scale of cringiness.
- I’ve seen comment that the story is "silly" and “unbelievable”. But having experienced the crazy clash between English and Japanese culture first hand, it strikes me as very true to form! The way in which the Japanese music execs try to stylise the ground as a ‘boy band’ (“Bang Boys”!), which Grindah greedily goes along with, is a nice satire on the music industry asserting its brand over musician’s art.
- A subplot of a love story beween the inept Steves and the cute Japanese translator Ishika (Ayumi Itô) is nicely done and strangely touching.
- The good news is that you don’t need any previous experience of the characters to get fun out of the movie: you can jump right in. That being said though, I’m sure fans of the series will get more out of this than I did.
Negatives:
- While the ending was uplifting, I was itching to know what fallout (or success?) there was from the event we witnessed. Perhaps if its a box office success (unlikely I think!) then there will be a sequel.
Summary Thoughts on “People Just Do Nothing: Big in Japan”: IMDB is littered with disastrous reviews of British TV shows that have tried and failed to make the leap from the small screen to the big screen. “On the Buses”; “Are You Being Served?”; “Steptoe and Son”; “Please Sir”; “Love Thy Neighbour” – the list is endless. They are mostly all horribly unfunny. Even the great “Morecambe and Wise”, although showing occasional moments of brilliance, struggled to fully land any of their three big-screen outings.
The ‘go-to’ of many of these efforts was to “go abroad”: take the well-loved characters and put them into a ‘bigger’ and stranger pool. So “People Just Do Nothing: Big in Japan” was following a well-trodden path here. It’s a tribute to the team and their TV-series director Jack Clough, in his feature debut, that they pretty much pull it off.
I’d like to agree with Kevin Maher of “The Times” that the movie is full of “Japanese stereotypes… drunken businessmen, passive giggling women etc”. But having travelled extensively on business in Japan, it seems pretty close to the mark with its observations to me! More importantly, the film never seems to be particularly derogatory or disrespectful of the culture. For example, they take their shoes off too much!
Key to its box office success will be whether or not it can attract an audience outside of its niche TV fan-bases. As a member of that sub-group, I really wasn’t expecting to enjoy this one, but I actually did. It was good fun, and if you want a good laugh at the cinema – a pretty rare thing – then I’d recommend this one, even if – like me – you haven’t seen the original TV show.
(For the full graphical review, please check out onemannsmovies on the web, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks!)
Positives:
- It well-surpasses the “6 laugh test” for a comedy. There are some scenes that I found extremely funny, with others that rated highly for me on the David Brent / Alan Partridge scale of cringiness.
- I’ve seen comment that the story is "silly" and “unbelievable”. But having experienced the crazy clash between English and Japanese culture first hand, it strikes me as very true to form! The way in which the Japanese music execs try to stylise the ground as a ‘boy band’ (“Bang Boys”!), which Grindah greedily goes along with, is a nice satire on the music industry asserting its brand over musician’s art.
- A subplot of a love story beween the inept Steves and the cute Japanese translator Ishika (Ayumi Itô) is nicely done and strangely touching.
- The good news is that you don’t need any previous experience of the characters to get fun out of the movie: you can jump right in. That being said though, I’m sure fans of the series will get more out of this than I did.
Negatives:
- While the ending was uplifting, I was itching to know what fallout (or success?) there was from the event we witnessed. Perhaps if its a box office success (unlikely I think!) then there will be a sequel.
Summary Thoughts on “People Just Do Nothing: Big in Japan”: IMDB is littered with disastrous reviews of British TV shows that have tried and failed to make the leap from the small screen to the big screen. “On the Buses”; “Are You Being Served?”; “Steptoe and Son”; “Please Sir”; “Love Thy Neighbour” – the list is endless. They are mostly all horribly unfunny. Even the great “Morecambe and Wise”, although showing occasional moments of brilliance, struggled to fully land any of their three big-screen outings.
The ‘go-to’ of many of these efforts was to “go abroad”: take the well-loved characters and put them into a ‘bigger’ and stranger pool. So “People Just Do Nothing: Big in Japan” was following a well-trodden path here. It’s a tribute to the team and their TV-series director Jack Clough, in his feature debut, that they pretty much pull it off.
I’d like to agree with Kevin Maher of “The Times” that the movie is full of “Japanese stereotypes… drunken businessmen, passive giggling women etc”. But having travelled extensively on business in Japan, it seems pretty close to the mark with its observations to me! More importantly, the film never seems to be particularly derogatory or disrespectful of the culture. For example, they take their shoes off too much!
Key to its box office success will be whether or not it can attract an audience outside of its niche TV fan-bases. As a member of that sub-group, I really wasn’t expecting to enjoy this one, but I actually did. It was good fun, and if you want a good laugh at the cinema – a pretty rare thing – then I’d recommend this one, even if – like me – you haven’t seen the original TV show.
(For the full graphical review, please check out onemannsmovies on the web, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks!)
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Ghost Stories (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
For years, mankind has pondered over the existence of ghosts, demons and the paranormal. Many have claimed to have experienced it firsthand, while others dedicate their lives and careers to debunking those experiences. It seems to be a question that no one has been able to answer or prove one way or the other, and this fear of the unknown has been the basis of a number of popular horror stories.
Based on the stage play of the same name, ‘Ghost Stories’ follows skeptic Professor Phillip Goodman’s (Nyman) investigation of three unsolved cases, each one detailing a different haunting. After meeting with his idol and fellow skeptic Charles Cameron, and feeling deflated when he begins to question his lifelong skepticism, Goodman meets with former night watchman Tony Matthews (Whitehouse), teenager Simon Rifkind (Lawther), and businessman Mike Priddle (Freeman) to learn about their firsthand experiences with the supernatural. The film is split into three segments, allowing each character to explain their case through the use of flashbacks where we get to see exactly what happened to the characters.
Throughout these flashbacks, Nyman and Dyson have utilised a number of popular horror techniques that will make you jump out of your seat, or hide behind your hands. There’s a serious feeling of unease throughout the entire film, and you have no idea what’s going to happen next. Even as an avid fan of the genre, I found myself genuinely terrified during a large portion of the film. ‘Ghost Stories’ knows exactly how to pace a horror film, and how to leave an audience uncomfortable yet unable to look away from the screen. Whilst the jump scare is inevitable, the film doesn’t overuse these and instead finds ways to build tension and fear, which actually heightens the experience because you find yourself trying to predict when something’s going to pop out at you. It leaves you on edge for the entire ninety minutes, which in my mind, is exactly what a horror film should do.
The stories told by each of the men are gripping, and the actors all do exceptional jobs of portraying their characters. Each of the men interviewed by Goodman are very different in their class backgrounds, beliefs and personalities, but are united in their adamancy that they did experience hauntings and that they left them completely shaken up afterwards. This reinforces the idea that the supernatural can target anyone, and leave anyone feeling helpless. Particular praise has to be given to Alex Lawther; after seeing him in season 3 of ‘Black Mirror’ I had high hopes, and he delivered. He’s certainly one to watch and I look forward to seeing what he gets up to next.
‘Ghost Stories’ is incredibly British in nature, mixing the right amount of dry humour and satire into what is an utterly terrifying experience overall. Other critics have said it’s the best British horror film in years, and I couldn’t agree more. It’s an incredibly gripping story that has a lot of twists and turns, and tugs at all of your heartstrings. Alongside the characters, I went through a number of emotions and felt fully invested in their lives. These are all characters that feel familiar, they’re your average human, which throws realism into the mix. Being able to identify with characters in a horror film makes your fear 100 times worse.
This film is best experienced with as little context as possible, if you walk into it completely blind, I believe you’ll get maximum enjoyment out of it. The trailers have done a great job at keeping it as vague as possible, which was a bonus. There’s nothing worse than trailers giving everything away in a few seconds. ‘Ghost Stories’ does have a twist ending, but I thought this was done brilliantly and I personally was unable to predict it. Nyman and Dyson have put so much effort into crafting an intense, thrilling, mysterious story and it’s seriously paid off. I’m now hoping ‘Ghost Stories’ will be returning to the stage soon, because I’ll be first in line for a ticket!
https://jumpcutonline.co.uk/ghost-stories/
Based on the stage play of the same name, ‘Ghost Stories’ follows skeptic Professor Phillip Goodman’s (Nyman) investigation of three unsolved cases, each one detailing a different haunting. After meeting with his idol and fellow skeptic Charles Cameron, and feeling deflated when he begins to question his lifelong skepticism, Goodman meets with former night watchman Tony Matthews (Whitehouse), teenager Simon Rifkind (Lawther), and businessman Mike Priddle (Freeman) to learn about their firsthand experiences with the supernatural. The film is split into three segments, allowing each character to explain their case through the use of flashbacks where we get to see exactly what happened to the characters.
Throughout these flashbacks, Nyman and Dyson have utilised a number of popular horror techniques that will make you jump out of your seat, or hide behind your hands. There’s a serious feeling of unease throughout the entire film, and you have no idea what’s going to happen next. Even as an avid fan of the genre, I found myself genuinely terrified during a large portion of the film. ‘Ghost Stories’ knows exactly how to pace a horror film, and how to leave an audience uncomfortable yet unable to look away from the screen. Whilst the jump scare is inevitable, the film doesn’t overuse these and instead finds ways to build tension and fear, which actually heightens the experience because you find yourself trying to predict when something’s going to pop out at you. It leaves you on edge for the entire ninety minutes, which in my mind, is exactly what a horror film should do.
The stories told by each of the men are gripping, and the actors all do exceptional jobs of portraying their characters. Each of the men interviewed by Goodman are very different in their class backgrounds, beliefs and personalities, but are united in their adamancy that they did experience hauntings and that they left them completely shaken up afterwards. This reinforces the idea that the supernatural can target anyone, and leave anyone feeling helpless. Particular praise has to be given to Alex Lawther; after seeing him in season 3 of ‘Black Mirror’ I had high hopes, and he delivered. He’s certainly one to watch and I look forward to seeing what he gets up to next.
‘Ghost Stories’ is incredibly British in nature, mixing the right amount of dry humour and satire into what is an utterly terrifying experience overall. Other critics have said it’s the best British horror film in years, and I couldn’t agree more. It’s an incredibly gripping story that has a lot of twists and turns, and tugs at all of your heartstrings. Alongside the characters, I went through a number of emotions and felt fully invested in their lives. These are all characters that feel familiar, they’re your average human, which throws realism into the mix. Being able to identify with characters in a horror film makes your fear 100 times worse.
This film is best experienced with as little context as possible, if you walk into it completely blind, I believe you’ll get maximum enjoyment out of it. The trailers have done a great job at keeping it as vague as possible, which was a bonus. There’s nothing worse than trailers giving everything away in a few seconds. ‘Ghost Stories’ does have a twist ending, but I thought this was done brilliantly and I personally was unable to predict it. Nyman and Dyson have put so much effort into crafting an intense, thrilling, mysterious story and it’s seriously paid off. I’m now hoping ‘Ghost Stories’ will be returning to the stage soon, because I’ll be first in line for a ticket!
https://jumpcutonline.co.uk/ghost-stories/
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Vice (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
A patronising mess of a film
If you want to learn how to completely and utterly fail at satire, look no further than Adam McKay’s Vice. It honestly does pain me to say this was one of the worst experiences I’ve ever had in the cinema. As a matter of fact, I was seconds away from walking out at one point. But, like any good critic, I stayed in my seat. I hoped and prayed it would get better… but it didn’t. If anything, it snowballed.
Vice is a ‘comedy’ (I’ve put this in quotation marks because there’s nothing funny about it) biopic about former American Vice President, Dick Cheney. The film attempts to give us further insight into his life, and how he got away with all the horrible things he did whilst in office. On paper, it actually sounds pretty appealing, especially for someone like me who knows very little about the man. On screen, it is an entirely different experience. 24 hours later, I’m still shocked by how appalling it was.
So, what has Vice done to receive such a scathing review from me? First and foremost, the dialogue is horrendously condescending and talks to the audience like they’re complete idiots. I have never seen such a patronising and immature biopic in my entire life. I’m not sure what’s more obnoxious: Cheney himself or the tone of the film. Maybe they’re on par with each other. I was barely half an hour into this when I was already starting to feel angry about the way they addressed things. You can give your audience context without talking down to them. The film did everything it could to seem edgy and like it was giving the audience the finger, but I just sat there cringing the whole time. It failed.
Secondly, the narrative is all over the place. I’m perfectly fine with non-linear stories, provided they actually make sense. Vice doesn’t know whether it’s coming or going, and changes between the past and future constantly. The pacing is an absolute shambles and makes the film feel longer than it actually is. It runs at just over 2 hours, but feels so much longer than that. I have never wanted a film to end so badly. In fact, I was ready to get up and leave when they decided to throw in a fake ending in an attempt to be funny. Yes, that actually happens. No, I didn’t laugh.
Don’t even get me started on the way it sloppily splices random pictures and video clips throughout the film, making me wonder who on earth nominated this for Best Editing. Are they okay? Without spoiling this too much, Vice’s editing is incredibly jarring and decides to patronise the audience even further by giving visual aids to the idioms that are described by the narrator. At one point it even tries to condescendingly explain Guantanamo Bay, which just caused me to facepalm. What were you thinking guys?
Having said all of this, does the film have some redeeming features? Sure. The quality of the acting is good, I enjoyed Christian Bale as Cheney and Amy Adams as his equally awful wife, Lynne. I also enjoyed Steve Carell as Donald Rumsfeld and Sam Rockwell as George W Bush. It is a shame to waste such great talent on a script as weak as this one. If someone had written this better, maybe I would’ve enjoyed it a lot more. Sadly, I’m stuck with this one. I’m baffled by how anyone can consider this to be a well written script. If anyone wants to enlighten me, by all means, try.
If I never have to watch Vice again, I’ll be fine with that. I feel completely let down by McKay, and this hurts more considering I like some of his other films such as Anchorman and Step Brothers. He’s better than this, and I hope he can redeem himself with whatever he creates next.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2019/02/03/a-patronising-mess-of-a-film-my-review-of-vice/
Vice is a ‘comedy’ (I’ve put this in quotation marks because there’s nothing funny about it) biopic about former American Vice President, Dick Cheney. The film attempts to give us further insight into his life, and how he got away with all the horrible things he did whilst in office. On paper, it actually sounds pretty appealing, especially for someone like me who knows very little about the man. On screen, it is an entirely different experience. 24 hours later, I’m still shocked by how appalling it was.
So, what has Vice done to receive such a scathing review from me? First and foremost, the dialogue is horrendously condescending and talks to the audience like they’re complete idiots. I have never seen such a patronising and immature biopic in my entire life. I’m not sure what’s more obnoxious: Cheney himself or the tone of the film. Maybe they’re on par with each other. I was barely half an hour into this when I was already starting to feel angry about the way they addressed things. You can give your audience context without talking down to them. The film did everything it could to seem edgy and like it was giving the audience the finger, but I just sat there cringing the whole time. It failed.
Secondly, the narrative is all over the place. I’m perfectly fine with non-linear stories, provided they actually make sense. Vice doesn’t know whether it’s coming or going, and changes between the past and future constantly. The pacing is an absolute shambles and makes the film feel longer than it actually is. It runs at just over 2 hours, but feels so much longer than that. I have never wanted a film to end so badly. In fact, I was ready to get up and leave when they decided to throw in a fake ending in an attempt to be funny. Yes, that actually happens. No, I didn’t laugh.
Don’t even get me started on the way it sloppily splices random pictures and video clips throughout the film, making me wonder who on earth nominated this for Best Editing. Are they okay? Without spoiling this too much, Vice’s editing is incredibly jarring and decides to patronise the audience even further by giving visual aids to the idioms that are described by the narrator. At one point it even tries to condescendingly explain Guantanamo Bay, which just caused me to facepalm. What were you thinking guys?
Having said all of this, does the film have some redeeming features? Sure. The quality of the acting is good, I enjoyed Christian Bale as Cheney and Amy Adams as his equally awful wife, Lynne. I also enjoyed Steve Carell as Donald Rumsfeld and Sam Rockwell as George W Bush. It is a shame to waste such great talent on a script as weak as this one. If someone had written this better, maybe I would’ve enjoyed it a lot more. Sadly, I’m stuck with this one. I’m baffled by how anyone can consider this to be a well written script. If anyone wants to enlighten me, by all means, try.
If I never have to watch Vice again, I’ll be fine with that. I feel completely let down by McKay, and this hurts more considering I like some of his other films such as Anchorman and Step Brothers. He’s better than this, and I hope he can redeem himself with whatever he creates next.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2019/02/03/a-patronising-mess-of-a-film-my-review-of-vice/