Search
Search results
JUMPCUT ONLINE (77 KP) rated Aladdin (2019) in Movies
Jul 3, 2019
In terms of the Disney live-action remakes, Aladdin falls somewhere in the middle. Not nearly as good as The Jungle Book or Christopher Robin, but not nearly as bad as an Alice In Wonderland. An updated story is just enough to not make it a carbon copy, but they did eliminate a lot of the magic from the original in the places that counted most, the music. Its saving grace is Naomi Scott and Will Smith, who jointly bring superb charisma and carry the film to the very last scene.
Full Review: https://jumpcutonline.co.uk/review-aladdin-2019/
Full Review: https://jumpcutonline.co.uk/review-aladdin-2019/
Awix (3310 KP) rated All the Money in the World (2017) in Movies
Feb 12, 2018 (Updated Feb 12, 2018)
Ear today, gone tomorrow
Classy true-crime drama formerly starring Kevin Spacey. Grandchild of insanely wealthy oil tycoon is kidnapped and held to ransom; tycoon refuses to pay up on principle (said principle being 'I never give money away if I don't have to'); everything gets a bit stressful between tycoon and his ex-daughter-in-law. Body parts end up being put in the post.
Ridley Scott does a very good job of bringing an outlandishly grotesque true story to the screen, although the usual liberties are taken with the chronology of what actually happened. Fine performances from Christopher Plummer and Michelle Williams, amusingly unflattering depiction of Italy in the 70s; laudable general message of how having money can really screw you up and you're better off without it (Scott has an estimated net worth of $140 million, in case you were wondering). A solidly entertaining movie.
Ridley Scott does a very good job of bringing an outlandishly grotesque true story to the screen, although the usual liberties are taken with the chronology of what actually happened. Fine performances from Christopher Plummer and Michelle Williams, amusingly unflattering depiction of Italy in the 70s; laudable general message of how having money can really screw you up and you're better off without it (Scott has an estimated net worth of $140 million, in case you were wondering). A solidly entertaining movie.
Christine A. (965 KP) rated Hark! the Herald Angels Scream: An Anthology in Books
Jan 22, 2019
Anthology of Christmas or winter themed horror stories
I was provided with a complimentary copy of this book so I could give an honest review.
I waited until closer to the holiday to read this book and, with all of the rushing involved with the season, forgot to post my review. The Christmas season may be over, but it is still winter, so grab a cup of hot chocolate and be prepared to be entertained.
Hark! The Herald Angels Scream by Edited by Christopher Golden is an "anthology of all-new short fiction from some of the most talented and original writers of horror today." Included are eighteen stories of Christmas or winter themed horror from authors: Kelley Armstrong, Christopher Golden, Elizabeth Hand, Michael Koryta, Sarah Langan, Joe R. Lansdale, Tim Lebbon, Sarah Lotz, Jonathan Maberry, Josh Malerman, Seanan McGuire, John M. McIlveen, James A. Moore, Sarah Pinborough, Angela Slatter, Scott Smith,Thomas E. Sniegoski, and Jeff Strand.
The cover quickly bring to mind "Tales from the Crypt", a campy, horror anthology television series with a memorable narrator, Crypt Keeper. The stories written could have been been portrayed in any of the episodes. As with "Tales from the Crypt", the stories in "Hark! The Herald Angels Scream" were creepy, funny, chilling, gruesome, dark, and definitely worth your time.
The stories are well written and stand alone.
I waited until closer to the holiday to read this book and, with all of the rushing involved with the season, forgot to post my review. The Christmas season may be over, but it is still winter, so grab a cup of hot chocolate and be prepared to be entertained.
Hark! The Herald Angels Scream by Edited by Christopher Golden is an "anthology of all-new short fiction from some of the most talented and original writers of horror today." Included are eighteen stories of Christmas or winter themed horror from authors: Kelley Armstrong, Christopher Golden, Elizabeth Hand, Michael Koryta, Sarah Langan, Joe R. Lansdale, Tim Lebbon, Sarah Lotz, Jonathan Maberry, Josh Malerman, Seanan McGuire, John M. McIlveen, James A. Moore, Sarah Pinborough, Angela Slatter, Scott Smith,Thomas E. Sniegoski, and Jeff Strand.
The cover quickly bring to mind "Tales from the Crypt", a campy, horror anthology television series with a memorable narrator, Crypt Keeper. The stories written could have been been portrayed in any of the episodes. As with "Tales from the Crypt", the stories in "Hark! The Herald Angels Scream" were creepy, funny, chilling, gruesome, dark, and definitely worth your time.
The stories are well written and stand alone.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated All the Money in the World (2017) in Movies
Feb 14, 2018
Bland with the exception of Christopher Plummer
By now, almost everyone knows about the last minute switch of Christopher Plummer in place of current-pariah Kevin Spacey as pivotal Billionaire J. Paul Getty in Ridley Scott's ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD, so when I checked out Plummer's Oscar nominated turn, I couldn't but help see if I could tell when Scott put in a new scene and where he just "augmented" his scenes with Plummer. And then, a funny thing happened...
I stopped looking at this for I was captivated by Plummer's performance.
A 3 time Oscar nominee (he is the oldest person to win an Academy Award - at the age of 82 - for his Supporting Role in BEGINNERS in 2010), the 88 year old Plummer shows that he can still command a movie for anytime he is on screen this film crackles and becomes interesting.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the rest of the film.
Telling the story of the kidnapping of Getty's grandson, and the "richest man in the world's" refusal to pay the ransom, ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD stars Charlie Plummer (no relation) as John Paul Getty III (the kidnapped grandson), Mark Wahlberg as "fixer" Fletcher Chase, who was told by Getty to get his grandson back for "the lowest possible cost", Romain Duris as one of the kidnappers and the great Michelle Williams as the mother of the kidnapped boy - and the daughter-in-law of Getty, Gail Harris. Each one of these performances are good, but not great. Doing what needs to be done in what they are given to do but nothing more.
I think the problem with this film is one of focus. It spends about 50% of the time with William's character - and this is fine, but then it jumps to the kidnapped son, to "the fixer", to "the kidnapper", to the grandson and back to the mother, so no real through-line, continuity or strong character development can occur, with the exception of Christopher Plummer's J. Paul Getty. To be fair to Williams, C. Plummer has the showier role and she is just asked to be the center of this tale, the world in which all else revolves and that, ultimately, makes her character somewhat bland.
I place the blame for this on Screenwriter David Scarpa (based on the book by John Pearson) and Director Scott. I think their reach exceeded their grasp on this one. If they could have focused more on one of the characters - instead of spreading things out - perhaps this film would have become more interesting and less bland. It stays on one note - despite jumping to different people in vastly different situations - throughout it's 2 hour and 15 minute time frame.
All in all, a missed opportunity. It is a decent film that had the potential to be VERY good. The only one who was VERY good was Christopher Plummer - and certainly his performance is worth the price of admission.
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (OfMarquis)
I stopped looking at this for I was captivated by Plummer's performance.
A 3 time Oscar nominee (he is the oldest person to win an Academy Award - at the age of 82 - for his Supporting Role in BEGINNERS in 2010), the 88 year old Plummer shows that he can still command a movie for anytime he is on screen this film crackles and becomes interesting.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the rest of the film.
Telling the story of the kidnapping of Getty's grandson, and the "richest man in the world's" refusal to pay the ransom, ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD stars Charlie Plummer (no relation) as John Paul Getty III (the kidnapped grandson), Mark Wahlberg as "fixer" Fletcher Chase, who was told by Getty to get his grandson back for "the lowest possible cost", Romain Duris as one of the kidnappers and the great Michelle Williams as the mother of the kidnapped boy - and the daughter-in-law of Getty, Gail Harris. Each one of these performances are good, but not great. Doing what needs to be done in what they are given to do but nothing more.
I think the problem with this film is one of focus. It spends about 50% of the time with William's character - and this is fine, but then it jumps to the kidnapped son, to "the fixer", to "the kidnapper", to the grandson and back to the mother, so no real through-line, continuity or strong character development can occur, with the exception of Christopher Plummer's J. Paul Getty. To be fair to Williams, C. Plummer has the showier role and she is just asked to be the center of this tale, the world in which all else revolves and that, ultimately, makes her character somewhat bland.
I place the blame for this on Screenwriter David Scarpa (based on the book by John Pearson) and Director Scott. I think their reach exceeded their grasp on this one. If they could have focused more on one of the characters - instead of spreading things out - perhaps this film would have become more interesting and less bland. It stays on one note - despite jumping to different people in vastly different situations - throughout it's 2 hour and 15 minute time frame.
All in all, a missed opportunity. It is a decent film that had the potential to be VERY good. The only one who was VERY good was Christopher Plummer - and certainly his performance is worth the price of admission.
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (OfMarquis)
John David Washington recommended Man on Fire (2004) in Movies (curated)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated All the Money in the World (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
You can’t take it with you.
The big talking point of this Ridley Scott film is not of course the film itself but the fact that the disgraced Kevin Spacey (“Baby Driver“) was ‘airbrushed’ out of the movie, replaced by the legend that is Christopher Plummer. With that background, and the fact that the re-shoot only took 9 days (NINE DAYS!!!!), I must admit to having been a tad scornful when Plummer was nominated for a Best Supporting Actor Oscar. “Oh” I thought “…it’s Judi Dench’s minimalistic performance in ‘Shakespeare In Love’ all over again”.
But actually on watching the film I take it all back. Plummer’s role is not, like Dench’s, a mere eight minutes of screen time, but extensive and pivotal. Not only was his nomination richly deserved (his performance is cold, eerie and magnificent!) but Ridley Scott deserved an award for getting so much great footage in the can in such a short space of time.
The film tells the true story of the feckless John Paul Getty III (Charlie Plummer, no relation), grandson to the richest man in the world John Paul Getty I. While in the Piazza Farnese in Rome, JPGIII is kidnapped and a $17 million reward is sought for his release. Whilst claiming to love his offspring, the tycoon is basically a ‘tight git’ and the film concerns the battle of the young heir’s mother Gail (Michelle Williams, “Manchester By The Sea”; “The Greatest Showman”) to persuade JPG1 and his right-hand negotiator Fletcher Chase (Mark Wahlberg, “Patriot’s Day”, “Deep Water Horizon“) to shake the money tree* and get JPGIII released.
*To be fair, JPGIII hasn’t exactly helped his case as it emerges he had previously joked about getting himself kidnapped to get his grandfather’s ransom money!
As I didn’t remember the historical outcome of this, I was in a suitable amount of suspense as to where it would go. It is clear though, from the wiki version of the story, that the ending was significantly ‘sexed-up’ for the movie.
Ridley Scott sensibly balances the views of the Getty’s with the views of the kidnappers, with a semi-sympathetic Italian (Romain Duris) being the focus of those scenes in rural Calabria.
But it’s the scenes with Plummer that really engage. The man as portrayed is an enigma, eccentrically washing his own clothes to save a few pennies and always (ALWAYS) trying to get 20% more on even the most personal of decisions. It makes me really intrigued to see Spacey’s portrayal now… I wonder if the alternate cut might make it onto the Blu-ray? I actually think though that Plummer was the better choice for this: I could see Spacey bringing far too much of Frank Underwood to the role.
Elsewhere in the cast, I think Michelle Williams and Mark Wahlberg are both solid without ever being spectacular and it’s nice to see the talented Andrew Buchan (“The Mercy“; “Broadchurch”) in a more memorable big screen outing as JPG2: his drug-addled son (and JPG3’s father).
Overall, it’s an interesting watch and had me sufficiently engaged to want to watch it again. But without Plummer’s role it wouldn’t really amount to nearly as much.
But actually on watching the film I take it all back. Plummer’s role is not, like Dench’s, a mere eight minutes of screen time, but extensive and pivotal. Not only was his nomination richly deserved (his performance is cold, eerie and magnificent!) but Ridley Scott deserved an award for getting so much great footage in the can in such a short space of time.
The film tells the true story of the feckless John Paul Getty III (Charlie Plummer, no relation), grandson to the richest man in the world John Paul Getty I. While in the Piazza Farnese in Rome, JPGIII is kidnapped and a $17 million reward is sought for his release. Whilst claiming to love his offspring, the tycoon is basically a ‘tight git’ and the film concerns the battle of the young heir’s mother Gail (Michelle Williams, “Manchester By The Sea”; “The Greatest Showman”) to persuade JPG1 and his right-hand negotiator Fletcher Chase (Mark Wahlberg, “Patriot’s Day”, “Deep Water Horizon“) to shake the money tree* and get JPGIII released.
*To be fair, JPGIII hasn’t exactly helped his case as it emerges he had previously joked about getting himself kidnapped to get his grandfather’s ransom money!
As I didn’t remember the historical outcome of this, I was in a suitable amount of suspense as to where it would go. It is clear though, from the wiki version of the story, that the ending was significantly ‘sexed-up’ for the movie.
Ridley Scott sensibly balances the views of the Getty’s with the views of the kidnappers, with a semi-sympathetic Italian (Romain Duris) being the focus of those scenes in rural Calabria.
But it’s the scenes with Plummer that really engage. The man as portrayed is an enigma, eccentrically washing his own clothes to save a few pennies and always (ALWAYS) trying to get 20% more on even the most personal of decisions. It makes me really intrigued to see Spacey’s portrayal now… I wonder if the alternate cut might make it onto the Blu-ray? I actually think though that Plummer was the better choice for this: I could see Spacey bringing far too much of Frank Underwood to the role.
Elsewhere in the cast, I think Michelle Williams and Mark Wahlberg are both solid without ever being spectacular and it’s nice to see the talented Andrew Buchan (“The Mercy“; “Broadchurch”) in a more memorable big screen outing as JPG2: his drug-addled son (and JPG3’s father).
Overall, it’s an interesting watch and had me sufficiently engaged to want to watch it again. But without Plummer’s role it wouldn’t really amount to nearly as much.
Joe Goodhart (27 KP) rated X-Force, Volume 3: Not Forgotten in Books
Nov 30, 2020
After a brief hiatus, I resumed reading the X-FORCE TPBs, jumping with the third volume of Craig Kyle & Christopher Yost's dark run of X-FORCE.
This trade made up the "Not Forgotten" story arc, which sees the return of Kimura, bringing with her a whole boatload of hateful hurtin' for Laura (X-23). It is also saw some well-deserved (!) hostility on Wolverine's part toward Cry-clops for the casualties suffered in the team's hunt for Hope Summers as well as Laura being kidnapped. And, like the little b he has been all his life (sorry, not a fan of Scott Summers, but it's totally cool if you are), he just says "I know" when Wolverine tells him that it will death for him if either of the two students die. Wow!
Varied opinions on the art (again). I have always been fond of Clayton Crain's art style, especially his attention to facial details, so his art on the first two issues of the trade was outstanding! He brought a darkness mixed with creepiness to the way he drew the Leper Queen. WIN!
And that brings us to the art for the remaining three issues in the trade. I also like Mike Choi's facial details on the characters he draws. However, his attention to women's breasts and his intent to make all the women under his pencils to be well-endowed is a bit uncomfortable, especially in regard to Laura (who is supposed to be age 16, as stated by Domino in Issue 20. No need for it to be as such, to be honest.
Even more offensive was the way Rahne Sinclair, in wolf-form, was rendered like an extra in a hip-hop video (!). Come on, Rahne has always had a tiny form, never rendered like this EVER! Tho' I am sure a more than fair amount of 'shippers (I assume Rahne has 'shippers) feel differently about that. Jus' sayin'..
<a href="https://ibb.co/csQdiy"><img src="https://thumb.ibb.co/csQdiy/Xforce18_rahnegotback.jpg"; alt="Xforce18 rahnegotback" border="0" /></a>
So, art quibbling aside, the story, still continuing to be written by Yost and Kyle since it's return in 2008, was all aces! There was more than enough adrenaline-fueled excitement contained within, providing a white-knuckled ride, leading directly into the next volume of X-Force, NECROSHA!
I will advise this one, like the previous two volumes, is dark AF! There is very little, if any, humor. There is a higher violence output in this one as well, but it is warranted for sure, when you considered the odds they're up against! That said, if you can handle all that, then I encourage you to pick this one up!
Also, if you are fan of Laura Kinney/X-23, then I also encourage you, as it will give more backstory to her character.
This trade made up the "Not Forgotten" story arc, which sees the return of Kimura, bringing with her a whole boatload of hateful hurtin' for Laura (X-23). It is also saw some well-deserved (!) hostility on Wolverine's part toward Cry-clops for the casualties suffered in the team's hunt for Hope Summers as well as Laura being kidnapped. And, like the little b he has been all his life (sorry, not a fan of Scott Summers, but it's totally cool if you are), he just says "I know" when Wolverine tells him that it will death for him if either of the two students die. Wow!
Varied opinions on the art (again). I have always been fond of Clayton Crain's art style, especially his attention to facial details, so his art on the first two issues of the trade was outstanding! He brought a darkness mixed with creepiness to the way he drew the Leper Queen. WIN!
And that brings us to the art for the remaining three issues in the trade. I also like Mike Choi's facial details on the characters he draws. However, his attention to women's breasts and his intent to make all the women under his pencils to be well-endowed is a bit uncomfortable, especially in regard to Laura (who is supposed to be age 16, as stated by Domino in Issue 20. No need for it to be as such, to be honest.
Even more offensive was the way Rahne Sinclair, in wolf-form, was rendered like an extra in a hip-hop video (!). Come on, Rahne has always had a tiny form, never rendered like this EVER! Tho' I am sure a more than fair amount of 'shippers (I assume Rahne has 'shippers) feel differently about that. Jus' sayin'..
<a href="https://ibb.co/csQdiy"><img src="https://thumb.ibb.co/csQdiy/Xforce18_rahnegotback.jpg"; alt="Xforce18 rahnegotback" border="0" /></a>
So, art quibbling aside, the story, still continuing to be written by Yost and Kyle since it's return in 2008, was all aces! There was more than enough adrenaline-fueled excitement contained within, providing a white-knuckled ride, leading directly into the next volume of X-Force, NECROSHA!
I will advise this one, like the previous two volumes, is dark AF! There is very little, if any, humor. There is a higher violence output in this one as well, but it is warranted for sure, when you considered the odds they're up against! That said, if you can handle all that, then I encourage you to pick this one up!
Also, if you are fan of Laura Kinney/X-23, then I also encourage you, as it will give more backstory to her character.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Darkest Hour (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Not buggering it up.
As Doctor Who repeatedly points out, time is most definitely a tricksy thing. As I think I’ve commented on before, the events of 1940-45 are not in my lifetime but were sufficiently fresh to my parents that they were still actively talked about… so they still appear “current” to me. But I find it astonishing to realize that to a teen viewer this film is equivalent in timeframe to the sinking of the Titanic! #ancienthistory! So I suspect your connection to this film will be strongly affected by your age, and that was definitely reflected in the average age at my showing which must have been at least 60.
It’s 1940 and Western Europe is under siege. Neville Chamberlain (Ronald Pickup, “The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel“) is the Conservative Prime Minister but is voted out of office in an attempt to form a grand coalition government with Labour leader Clement Atlee (David Schofield). Despite appearing a shoe-in for the role, Viscount Halifax (Stephen Dillane) turns it down, thinking that his alternative (and bête noire) would drink from the poisoned chalice and be quickly be out of his (and Chamberlain’s) hair. For that alternative choice is the volatile and unpredictable Churchill (Gary Oldman), grudgingly invited into the job by King George VI (Ben Mendelsohn, “Rogue One“). With the Nazi’s bearing down on the 300,000 encircled troops at Dunkirk, and with calls from his war cabinet to capitulate and seek terms of settlement, this is indeed both Churchill’s, and the country’s, ‘darkest hour’.
Despite the woeful lack of historical knowledge among today’s youngsters, most will be at least aware of the story of Dunkirk, with many having absorbed Christopher Nolan’s film of last summer. This film is almost the matching bookend to that film, showing the terrifying behind-closed-door events that led up to that miracle. For it was terrifying seeing how close Britain came to the brink, and I’m not sure even I really appreciated that before. While this might have been a “thriller” if it had been a fictional story, we well know the outcome of the story: but even with this knowledge I still found the film to be extremely tense and claustrophobic as the net draws in around Churchill’s firmly-held beliefs.
Gary Oldman’s performance is extraordinary, and his award nominations are well-deserved. We have grown so used to some of his more over-the-top Russian portrayals in films like “Air Force One” and last year’s (pretty poor) “The Hitman’s Bodyguard” that it is easy to forget what a nuanced and flexible actor he is. Ever since that “No, surely not!” moment of that first glimpse of the film’s trailer, it has almost been impossible to ‘see’ Oldman behind the brilliant make-up of the character (Kazuhiro Tsuji gets a special credit for it). But his eyes are in there, and there are some extreme close-ups (for example, during a bizarre and tense phone call with Roosevelt (David Strathairn)) when you suddenly see “There you are!”.
The supportive wife – Clemmie (Kristin Scott Thomas) gives Winston (Gary Oldman) a hug.
While I have nothing against Brian Cox as an actor, I far prefer the portrayal of Churchill on show here compared to last year’s “Churchill“: true that that film was set three or four stressful years later, but Cox’s Churchill was portrayed as an incompetent fool, an embarrassment to the establishment that have to work around him. Oldman’s Churchill is irascible, unreasonable, but undeniably a leader and a great orator.
Mirroring “Churchill” though, the action is seen through the eyes of Churchill’s put-upon secretary, here played delightfully by Lily James (“Downton Abbey”, “Baby Driver“) who perfectly looks and sounds the part. The character is more successful than that of Ella Purnell’s Garrett in that she is given more room to develop her character and for the audience to warm to her. Oldman is getting all the kudos, but Lily James really deserves some for her touching and engaging performance here.
Perfectly cast: Lily James as Churchill’s secretary Elizabeth Layton.
Also in Oldman’s shadow is the always marvelous Kristin Scott Thomas (“Four Weddings and a Funeral”, “The English Patient”) as Clemmie Churchill, expressing all the love and frustration associated with being a long-suffering wife to an over-worked husband in the public service.
At the pen is “The Theory of Everything” writer Anthony McCarten, and I’d like to say its a great script but with most of the best lines (“a sheep in sheep’s clothing” – LoL) coming from Winston himself it’s difficult to tell. Some of the scenes can get a bit laborious and at 125 minutes – though not long by any means – the script could still perhaps have had a nip and tuck here and there.
Where some of this time is well spent though is in some sedate shots of London street life, across two separate scenes panning across everyday folk as the stresses of war start to become more evident. This is just one of the areas where director Joe Wright (“Atonement”, “Pride and Prejudice”) shows considerable panache, ably assisted by the cinematography of Bruno Delbonnel (“Inside Llewyn Davis“): a boy closes his telescope-fingers around Churchill’s plane; a bomb’s eye-view of the beleaguered Brigadier Nicholson in Calais; and – very impressively – the smoky imperiousness of the House of Commons set.
An atmospheric chamber: the recreation of the wartime House of Commons is spectacular (with production design by Sarah Greenwood (“Anna Karenina”, “Atonement”)).
And most-importantly Wright delivers what Christopher Nolan couldn’t deliver in “Dunkirk“: a properly CGI’d vista of hundred of small boats crossing the channel to Dunkirk. Now THAT is a scene that Kenneth Branagh could justly have looked in awe at!!!
There are a number of scenes that require disbelief to be suspended though: the biggest one being a tube train ride – very moving and effective I must say – but one that features the longest journey between any two stations on the District Line than has ever been experienced!
One stop on the District Line via Westminster…. via Harrow-on-the-Hill!
So this is a great film for really reliving a knife-edge moment in British history, and is highly recommended particularly for older viewers. If I’m honest though, between “Darkest Hour”, “Churchill” and John Lithgow’s excellent portrayal in “The Crown” I’m all over portrayals of the great man for a few years. Can we please move on now Hollywood?
It’s 1940 and Western Europe is under siege. Neville Chamberlain (Ronald Pickup, “The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel“) is the Conservative Prime Minister but is voted out of office in an attempt to form a grand coalition government with Labour leader Clement Atlee (David Schofield). Despite appearing a shoe-in for the role, Viscount Halifax (Stephen Dillane) turns it down, thinking that his alternative (and bête noire) would drink from the poisoned chalice and be quickly be out of his (and Chamberlain’s) hair. For that alternative choice is the volatile and unpredictable Churchill (Gary Oldman), grudgingly invited into the job by King George VI (Ben Mendelsohn, “Rogue One“). With the Nazi’s bearing down on the 300,000 encircled troops at Dunkirk, and with calls from his war cabinet to capitulate and seek terms of settlement, this is indeed both Churchill’s, and the country’s, ‘darkest hour’.
Despite the woeful lack of historical knowledge among today’s youngsters, most will be at least aware of the story of Dunkirk, with many having absorbed Christopher Nolan’s film of last summer. This film is almost the matching bookend to that film, showing the terrifying behind-closed-door events that led up to that miracle. For it was terrifying seeing how close Britain came to the brink, and I’m not sure even I really appreciated that before. While this might have been a “thriller” if it had been a fictional story, we well know the outcome of the story: but even with this knowledge I still found the film to be extremely tense and claustrophobic as the net draws in around Churchill’s firmly-held beliefs.
Gary Oldman’s performance is extraordinary, and his award nominations are well-deserved. We have grown so used to some of his more over-the-top Russian portrayals in films like “Air Force One” and last year’s (pretty poor) “The Hitman’s Bodyguard” that it is easy to forget what a nuanced and flexible actor he is. Ever since that “No, surely not!” moment of that first glimpse of the film’s trailer, it has almost been impossible to ‘see’ Oldman behind the brilliant make-up of the character (Kazuhiro Tsuji gets a special credit for it). But his eyes are in there, and there are some extreme close-ups (for example, during a bizarre and tense phone call with Roosevelt (David Strathairn)) when you suddenly see “There you are!”.
The supportive wife – Clemmie (Kristin Scott Thomas) gives Winston (Gary Oldman) a hug.
While I have nothing against Brian Cox as an actor, I far prefer the portrayal of Churchill on show here compared to last year’s “Churchill“: true that that film was set three or four stressful years later, but Cox’s Churchill was portrayed as an incompetent fool, an embarrassment to the establishment that have to work around him. Oldman’s Churchill is irascible, unreasonable, but undeniably a leader and a great orator.
Mirroring “Churchill” though, the action is seen through the eyes of Churchill’s put-upon secretary, here played delightfully by Lily James (“Downton Abbey”, “Baby Driver“) who perfectly looks and sounds the part. The character is more successful than that of Ella Purnell’s Garrett in that she is given more room to develop her character and for the audience to warm to her. Oldman is getting all the kudos, but Lily James really deserves some for her touching and engaging performance here.
Perfectly cast: Lily James as Churchill’s secretary Elizabeth Layton.
Also in Oldman’s shadow is the always marvelous Kristin Scott Thomas (“Four Weddings and a Funeral”, “The English Patient”) as Clemmie Churchill, expressing all the love and frustration associated with being a long-suffering wife to an over-worked husband in the public service.
At the pen is “The Theory of Everything” writer Anthony McCarten, and I’d like to say its a great script but with most of the best lines (“a sheep in sheep’s clothing” – LoL) coming from Winston himself it’s difficult to tell. Some of the scenes can get a bit laborious and at 125 minutes – though not long by any means – the script could still perhaps have had a nip and tuck here and there.
Where some of this time is well spent though is in some sedate shots of London street life, across two separate scenes panning across everyday folk as the stresses of war start to become more evident. This is just one of the areas where director Joe Wright (“Atonement”, “Pride and Prejudice”) shows considerable panache, ably assisted by the cinematography of Bruno Delbonnel (“Inside Llewyn Davis“): a boy closes his telescope-fingers around Churchill’s plane; a bomb’s eye-view of the beleaguered Brigadier Nicholson in Calais; and – very impressively – the smoky imperiousness of the House of Commons set.
An atmospheric chamber: the recreation of the wartime House of Commons is spectacular (with production design by Sarah Greenwood (“Anna Karenina”, “Atonement”)).
And most-importantly Wright delivers what Christopher Nolan couldn’t deliver in “Dunkirk“: a properly CGI’d vista of hundred of small boats crossing the channel to Dunkirk. Now THAT is a scene that Kenneth Branagh could justly have looked in awe at!!!
There are a number of scenes that require disbelief to be suspended though: the biggest one being a tube train ride – very moving and effective I must say – but one that features the longest journey between any two stations on the District Line than has ever been experienced!
One stop on the District Line via Westminster…. via Harrow-on-the-Hill!
So this is a great film for really reliving a knife-edge moment in British history, and is highly recommended particularly for older viewers. If I’m honest though, between “Darkest Hour”, “Churchill” and John Lithgow’s excellent portrayal in “The Crown” I’m all over portrayals of the great man for a few years. Can we please move on now Hollywood?
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Valkyrie (2008) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Bringing historical films to the screen can be a challenge for a number of reasons. First, the filmmakers often have to condense events that happened over several weeks and months down to a two to three hour format. Secondly, holding the audience can be tricky especially when it covers an event where the outcome is well known. The final and perhaps most important obstacle is that of casting. For every George C. Scott who nailed the iconic figure of Patton there are countless others that have to be kind, not been up to the task.
Such is the case with the new World War II drama “Valkyrie” which follows a group of Nazi officers who plotted to kill Hitler and end the war. The film stars Tom Cruise as Colonel Claus Von Stauffenberg, a respected officer who is recruited into a conspiracy of high ranking Nazis and other officials who plan to end the war by killing Hitler.
The film concentrates on Von Stauffenberg’s attempt to recruit others into the plan as he attempts to devise the best way for he and his fellow conspirators to carry out their plan and in doing so, keeping suspicions of themselves. This is no easy task as not only must they make sure that only people whom they trust to be likeminded or sympathetic to their objectives can be difficult as the simple mention of their intentions is treason and would result in all of them being put to death.
The plan is named Valkyrie after a policy that was put in place to restore order should anything catastrophic happen. A unit under the command of General Friedrich Fromm (Tom Wilkiknson) would be dispatched to secure vital locales. This is key to Von Stauffenberg’s plan as he realizes that should their plan succeed, they will have to work quickly to round up the S.S. and install a new government before anyone else could. The S.S. would be accused of starting the coup, and with them and Hitler out of the picture it is assumed they will soon have complete control of the country.
As the film unfolds with amazingly very little tension I started to note at how badly out of his league Cruise is especially during his scenes with Terrance Stamp, Bill Nighy and Kenneth Branagh. Director Bryan Singer does a good job establishing the look and tone of the film, but sadly the film never really builds tension. Once again the issues fall on Cruise who is so utterly out of place that you would swear that he was playing himself. The cast refrains from any German accents which was supposedly at the request of Singer, but sadly this only further alienates Cruise from the mostly European cast. His Von Stauffenberg is a very bland character who has a wife and children, but aside from that we learn little about him as a person and how he came to take the steps he did. Many people were unhappy with Hitler and there were many prior attempts on his life, but we learn little more than a desire to preserve Germany. I also would have liked to get more back story on his fellow conspirators as Von Stauffenberg most surely did not act alone in life and in the film.
As it stands the numerous release delays underscore that what was a good idea quickly becomes weighed down by Cruise and a script from Oscar winner Christopher McQuarrie (who wrote the amazing “The Usual Suspects”)that plays a bit too loose with historical events for my taste.
Such is the case with the new World War II drama “Valkyrie” which follows a group of Nazi officers who plotted to kill Hitler and end the war. The film stars Tom Cruise as Colonel Claus Von Stauffenberg, a respected officer who is recruited into a conspiracy of high ranking Nazis and other officials who plan to end the war by killing Hitler.
The film concentrates on Von Stauffenberg’s attempt to recruit others into the plan as he attempts to devise the best way for he and his fellow conspirators to carry out their plan and in doing so, keeping suspicions of themselves. This is no easy task as not only must they make sure that only people whom they trust to be likeminded or sympathetic to their objectives can be difficult as the simple mention of their intentions is treason and would result in all of them being put to death.
The plan is named Valkyrie after a policy that was put in place to restore order should anything catastrophic happen. A unit under the command of General Friedrich Fromm (Tom Wilkiknson) would be dispatched to secure vital locales. This is key to Von Stauffenberg’s plan as he realizes that should their plan succeed, they will have to work quickly to round up the S.S. and install a new government before anyone else could. The S.S. would be accused of starting the coup, and with them and Hitler out of the picture it is assumed they will soon have complete control of the country.
As the film unfolds with amazingly very little tension I started to note at how badly out of his league Cruise is especially during his scenes with Terrance Stamp, Bill Nighy and Kenneth Branagh. Director Bryan Singer does a good job establishing the look and tone of the film, but sadly the film never really builds tension. Once again the issues fall on Cruise who is so utterly out of place that you would swear that he was playing himself. The cast refrains from any German accents which was supposedly at the request of Singer, but sadly this only further alienates Cruise from the mostly European cast. His Von Stauffenberg is a very bland character who has a wife and children, but aside from that we learn little about him as a person and how he came to take the steps he did. Many people were unhappy with Hitler and there were many prior attempts on his life, but we learn little more than a desire to preserve Germany. I also would have liked to get more back story on his fellow conspirators as Von Stauffenberg most surely did not act alone in life and in the film.
As it stands the numerous release delays underscore that what was a good idea quickly becomes weighed down by Cruise and a script from Oscar winner Christopher McQuarrie (who wrote the amazing “The Usual Suspects”)that plays a bit too loose with historical events for my taste.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated In the Heights (2021) in Movies
Jun 21, 2021
Music and lyrics are fantastic (1 more)
Choreography
Lin-Manuel Miranda's high octane musical hits the heights.
"In the Heights" follows the hopes and dreams of a group of ordinary but ambitious Latinx youngsters, living their lives as best they can in the poor neighbourhood of Washington Heights in New York. They all have their own 'El Sueñito' - a little dream - of what they want to achieve.
Positives:
- A "proper" musical, with a large percentage of high-octane song and dance numbers.
-As with "Hamilton", "In the Heights" features some truly clever rap-style lyrics - lyrics so clever that you gasp at the way in which they trip off the singer's tongue. At one point, Carla (Stephanie Beatriz) sings "My mom is Dominican-Cuban, My dad is from Chile and P. R., which means: I'm Chile-...Dominica-Rican! But I always say I'm from Queens!". Glorious stuff.
- The dancing is stupendous. The choreography team is led by Christopher Scott, and he joyfully brings back the large set piece dances that we used to see in movies of old. The Esther Williams style swimming routines even make a spectacular return in a glorious Lido sequence (although I could have personally done without the dislocating contortionist dancers here!).
- The four young people taking the leads are all extremely personable (as well as being very good looking). Anthony Ramos in particular shows real star quality, those mesmeric eyes holding your attention for every moment he's on screen. You get the feeling that Lin-Manuel Miranda (whose superfluous minor role could have usefully ended up on the cutting room floor) was itching to play the lead but was just "too old man"!
- It was also great to see a range of roles for older women as well, with the dramatic sequence with Olga Merediz, the neighbourhood saint and guardian Claudia, being a highpoint in the movie for me.
Negatives:
- When you step back and analyse it, the story is pretty slight. You are distracted from this by all the razzle-dazzle going on, but having a bit more meat on the bone would have been welcome. This is particularly the case, since....
- At 143 minutes, I have to say that the movie outstayed its welcome for me by about 20 or 30 minutes. If the movie had been tightened up a bit and shortened, it would I think have been much improved.
Summary Thoughts on "In the Heights": This is a musical for those people who say "They don't make musicals like that anymore". High octane and full of noise and colour, its a spectacular that doesn't disappoint. The quirkiness of "Crazy Rich Asians" (which Jon M. Chu also directed) is on full display in some of the sequences, which are cleverly filmed. It's a movie that had me periodically grinning, not just at the story or the songs but at the movie craft on show.
Is it a bit of an 'Emperor's New Clothes', given the shallowness of the story? Yes, perhaps. And does it laugh in the face of my 90-minute movie ideal? Definitely. But it's still well worth the price of your movie ticket..... and this IS a movie that demands to be watched on the BIG SCREEN to get the full effect.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/06/21/in-the-heights-lin-manuel-mirandas-high-octane-musical-hits-the-heights/. Thanks).
Positives:
- A "proper" musical, with a large percentage of high-octane song and dance numbers.
-As with "Hamilton", "In the Heights" features some truly clever rap-style lyrics - lyrics so clever that you gasp at the way in which they trip off the singer's tongue. At one point, Carla (Stephanie Beatriz) sings "My mom is Dominican-Cuban, My dad is from Chile and P. R., which means: I'm Chile-...Dominica-Rican! But I always say I'm from Queens!". Glorious stuff.
- The dancing is stupendous. The choreography team is led by Christopher Scott, and he joyfully brings back the large set piece dances that we used to see in movies of old. The Esther Williams style swimming routines even make a spectacular return in a glorious Lido sequence (although I could have personally done without the dislocating contortionist dancers here!).
- The four young people taking the leads are all extremely personable (as well as being very good looking). Anthony Ramos in particular shows real star quality, those mesmeric eyes holding your attention for every moment he's on screen. You get the feeling that Lin-Manuel Miranda (whose superfluous minor role could have usefully ended up on the cutting room floor) was itching to play the lead but was just "too old man"!
- It was also great to see a range of roles for older women as well, with the dramatic sequence with Olga Merediz, the neighbourhood saint and guardian Claudia, being a highpoint in the movie for me.
Negatives:
- When you step back and analyse it, the story is pretty slight. You are distracted from this by all the razzle-dazzle going on, but having a bit more meat on the bone would have been welcome. This is particularly the case, since....
- At 143 minutes, I have to say that the movie outstayed its welcome for me by about 20 or 30 minutes. If the movie had been tightened up a bit and shortened, it would I think have been much improved.
Summary Thoughts on "In the Heights": This is a musical for those people who say "They don't make musicals like that anymore". High octane and full of noise and colour, its a spectacular that doesn't disappoint. The quirkiness of "Crazy Rich Asians" (which Jon M. Chu also directed) is on full display in some of the sequences, which are cleverly filmed. It's a movie that had me periodically grinning, not just at the story or the songs but at the movie craft on show.
Is it a bit of an 'Emperor's New Clothes', given the shallowness of the story? Yes, perhaps. And does it laugh in the face of my 90-minute movie ideal? Definitely. But it's still well worth the price of your movie ticket..... and this IS a movie that demands to be watched on the BIG SCREEN to get the full effect.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/06/21/in-the-heights-lin-manuel-mirandas-high-octane-musical-hits-the-heights/. Thanks).
