Search
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?
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Ant-Man and the Wasp (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Large and Small on screen, but just ends up middling.
So, for the first time we divided last night at the cinema. I went off to watch “Ant-Man and the Wasp” and my wife – not a Marvel fan – went to see “Mamma Mia! Here We Go Again” (for the THIRD time!). Incidentally, Mamma Mia 2 seems to be the movie phenomenon of the summer, taking over from “The Greatest Showman” as the movie phenomenon of the winter. It’s been out three weeks now and the shows are still selling out, with people (mostly groups of women) being turned away at the ticket desk. I can see this one running in theatres until October, when they bring out a sing-a-long edition and it carries on running ‘til Christmas. Extraordinary.
But, let’s turn from big things to small things. In a prologue we see a young Dr Hank Pym (Michael Douglas) and wife Janet (Michelle Pfeiffer) torn apart as Janet miniturises herself into the “quantum realm” to save the world from nuclear disaster. But in the present day Hank thinks there might be a way to find and retrieve Janet with the help of their superhero daughter Hope (“The Wasp”, played by Evangeline Lilly). (“What the f*** have you been thinking about instead for the last 30 years while I’ve been sat here avoiding neutrons”, would be the imagined response from Janet, but we don’t go there!).
But Scott Lang (aka “Ant Man”, Paul Rudd), having also been to the quantum realm, holds a key part of the puzzle. To add to their problems, a strange ghost-like girl called Ava has her own reasons for retrieving the lost soul, but in ways that will tear Janet limb from limb. Can Hank, Hope and Scott succeed, while dodging both The Ghost, the FBI and other criminal forces intent on seizing Pym’s technology?
I must admit that I’d somewhat forgotten how “Ant Man” ended three years ago, which together with the one film missing from my Marvel-watching canon being “Captain America: Civil War” left me somewhat confused by why we start the film with our hero Lang under two-year’s house arrest. But much fun is had with Lang’s curfew and the frustration of FBI agent Jimmy Woo (Randall Park) in trying to catch him breaking the rules.
For we are again at the comedic end of the Marvel universe. However the comedy is extremely uneven this time and doesn’t sit particularly well with the dramatic and emotional elements of the film. It’s certainly nowhere near the consistently funny content of the surprisingly good “Thor: Ragnarok”. Some of Rudd’s lines just smell of “trying too hard”.
Adding comedic value is Michael Peña returning here as Scott’s partner Luis. His motor-mouth routine after taking a truth drug (“not a truth drug”!) was hilarious, with the rest of the cast miming his words in flashback.
It has to be said though that there are some truly great sight-gags, to rival the Thomas the Tank Engine scenes in the first film. The expanding salt-cellar; the expanding / contracting car and building moments; and the “skateboard” scenes. But all – and I mean ALL – of these scenes were universally spoiled by the trailer, such that the reaction to them was “oh, that’s that bit then”. NEVER has there been a better case for a teaser trailer that basically said “Ant Man’s back; here’s ONE wow-factor visual”. It’s just criminal. Interestingly, re the trailer, there was also at least one scene (the “you go high, I’ll go low” one, which I thought was very funny) that didn’t make the cut I saw.
Acting wise you can’t fault the cast with Lilly just great as “The Wasp”. If I was her, I would have said “OK… I’ll do the film, but I get to keep the suit!”. That would be her age monitoring device for years to come…. “Does the zip still do up at the back? Do my impossibly pert breasts still align with these impossibly well-moulded contours?”. It’s also great to see Michael Douglas and Laurence Fishburne going head-to-head in the acting stakes. Walton Goggins again crops up as a believable bad-guy, a performance I really enjoyed, but the star turn for me in the whole film was a career-making performance by Hannah John-Kamen as Ava/The Ghost: she’s previously only had small supporting roles in “Tomb Raider” and “Ready Player One”. Looking like a Star Wars sand-person in her outfit she removes her mask to reveal a stunningly piercing gaze and great screen presence. One to watch for the future.
Directed by original “Ant Man” director Peyton Reed, it’s a perfectly entertaining watch for a summer night, but it is uneven in tone, perhaps the result of the team of five credited with the writing. Ask me in two months’ time to tell you anything about it and I will probably struggle. It’s a “meh” sort of film for me.
But, let’s turn from big things to small things. In a prologue we see a young Dr Hank Pym (Michael Douglas) and wife Janet (Michelle Pfeiffer) torn apart as Janet miniturises herself into the “quantum realm” to save the world from nuclear disaster. But in the present day Hank thinks there might be a way to find and retrieve Janet with the help of their superhero daughter Hope (“The Wasp”, played by Evangeline Lilly). (“What the f*** have you been thinking about instead for the last 30 years while I’ve been sat here avoiding neutrons”, would be the imagined response from Janet, but we don’t go there!).
But Scott Lang (aka “Ant Man”, Paul Rudd), having also been to the quantum realm, holds a key part of the puzzle. To add to their problems, a strange ghost-like girl called Ava has her own reasons for retrieving the lost soul, but in ways that will tear Janet limb from limb. Can Hank, Hope and Scott succeed, while dodging both The Ghost, the FBI and other criminal forces intent on seizing Pym’s technology?
I must admit that I’d somewhat forgotten how “Ant Man” ended three years ago, which together with the one film missing from my Marvel-watching canon being “Captain America: Civil War” left me somewhat confused by why we start the film with our hero Lang under two-year’s house arrest. But much fun is had with Lang’s curfew and the frustration of FBI agent Jimmy Woo (Randall Park) in trying to catch him breaking the rules.
For we are again at the comedic end of the Marvel universe. However the comedy is extremely uneven this time and doesn’t sit particularly well with the dramatic and emotional elements of the film. It’s certainly nowhere near the consistently funny content of the surprisingly good “Thor: Ragnarok”. Some of Rudd’s lines just smell of “trying too hard”.
Adding comedic value is Michael Peña returning here as Scott’s partner Luis. His motor-mouth routine after taking a truth drug (“not a truth drug”!) was hilarious, with the rest of the cast miming his words in flashback.
It has to be said though that there are some truly great sight-gags, to rival the Thomas the Tank Engine scenes in the first film. The expanding salt-cellar; the expanding / contracting car and building moments; and the “skateboard” scenes. But all – and I mean ALL – of these scenes were universally spoiled by the trailer, such that the reaction to them was “oh, that’s that bit then”. NEVER has there been a better case for a teaser trailer that basically said “Ant Man’s back; here’s ONE wow-factor visual”. It’s just criminal. Interestingly, re the trailer, there was also at least one scene (the “you go high, I’ll go low” one, which I thought was very funny) that didn’t make the cut I saw.
Acting wise you can’t fault the cast with Lilly just great as “The Wasp”. If I was her, I would have said “OK… I’ll do the film, but I get to keep the suit!”. That would be her age monitoring device for years to come…. “Does the zip still do up at the back? Do my impossibly pert breasts still align with these impossibly well-moulded contours?”. It’s also great to see Michael Douglas and Laurence Fishburne going head-to-head in the acting stakes. Walton Goggins again crops up as a believable bad-guy, a performance I really enjoyed, but the star turn for me in the whole film was a career-making performance by Hannah John-Kamen as Ava/The Ghost: she’s previously only had small supporting roles in “Tomb Raider” and “Ready Player One”. Looking like a Star Wars sand-person in her outfit she removes her mask to reveal a stunningly piercing gaze and great screen presence. One to watch for the future.
Directed by original “Ant Man” director Peyton Reed, it’s a perfectly entertaining watch for a summer night, but it is uneven in tone, perhaps the result of the team of five credited with the writing. Ask me in two months’ time to tell you anything about it and I will probably struggle. It’s a “meh” sort of film for me.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated What to Expect When You're Expecting (2012) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
First off, a disclaimer: I have not read the book What to Expect When You’re Expecting; nor do I have any kids of my own. That being said….
This film shows you five different stories that are not all connected, but they do intersect each other’s paths several times. The stories follow different scenarios that you can expect when you, as a couple, are expecting a baby. These five stories are the easy pregnancy, the difficult on the woman’s body pregnancy, the difficult on the relationship pregnancy, the miscarriage and the adoption.
The film has a stellar lineup for the cast. Cameron Diaz (There’s Something About Mary, Bad Teacher) plays celebrity Jules who is on a Dancing-with-the-Stars-esque show, who ends up in a relationship with her dance partner Evan, played by Matthew Morrison (Glee, Music and Lyrics). Elizabeth Banks (Zack and Miri, The Hunger Games) is Wendy, the owner of a baby store and author of a baby’s book who has been desperately trying to get pregnant with her husband Gary played by Ben Falcone (Bridesmaids). Anna Kendrick (Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, Up In The Air) is Rosie, the owner of a food truck who has a one-night stand with high school crush Marco, played by Chace Crawford (The Covenant, Gossip Girl). Jennifer Lopez (American Idol, Out of Sight) is Holly, a photographer who is attempting to go the Brangelina route by adopting a baby from Ethiopia with her husband Alex, played by Rodrigo Santoro (300, I Love You Phillip Morris). Lastly, we have Skyler who is portrayed by Brooklyn Decker (Just Go With It, Battleship). She is a stay-at-home wife married to retired NASCAR driver Ramsey, who is played by Dennis Quaid (The Day After Tomorrow, Vantage Point).
Aside from the main cast, there is also a great supporting cast with the likes of Chris Rock (Grown Ups, Death At A Funeral), Joe Manganiello (True Blood), Thomas Lennon (Reno 911, I Love You, Man), Rebel Wilson (Bridesmaids) and many more.
Based on the trailers for What to Expect When You’re Expecting, the movie looked to be a very promising comedy. I am sad to say, I was very disappointed. The trailers make it look like “The Dudes Group” is a main focus of the story, but it is only a reprieve from the main story lines. This is a shame because for me, “The Dudes Group” had the funniest moments in the movie. The rest of the film, while heart-warming at moments, seemed to lack any real attempt to make a connection with the audience. To me, the relationships just seemed unreal.
This is not to say that there are not those out there who will not enjoy the film. The ladies behind me in the theatre seemed to be laughing the whole time, but it just wasn’t my cup of tea. I once heard my editor (Gareth Von Kallenbach) say that this was a great idea, but it may have been better presented as a TV show. I have to say that I agree whole-heartedly. It would have made a great weekly sitcom, probably with the series centered on “The Dudes Group” (as I said, funniest moments in the movies). But it looks like there may be something along these lines on the horizon any way with the upcoming NBC comedy: Guys With Kids.
This film shows you five different stories that are not all connected, but they do intersect each other’s paths several times. The stories follow different scenarios that you can expect when you, as a couple, are expecting a baby. These five stories are the easy pregnancy, the difficult on the woman’s body pregnancy, the difficult on the relationship pregnancy, the miscarriage and the adoption.
The film has a stellar lineup for the cast. Cameron Diaz (There’s Something About Mary, Bad Teacher) plays celebrity Jules who is on a Dancing-with-the-Stars-esque show, who ends up in a relationship with her dance partner Evan, played by Matthew Morrison (Glee, Music and Lyrics). Elizabeth Banks (Zack and Miri, The Hunger Games) is Wendy, the owner of a baby store and author of a baby’s book who has been desperately trying to get pregnant with her husband Gary played by Ben Falcone (Bridesmaids). Anna Kendrick (Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, Up In The Air) is Rosie, the owner of a food truck who has a one-night stand with high school crush Marco, played by Chace Crawford (The Covenant, Gossip Girl). Jennifer Lopez (American Idol, Out of Sight) is Holly, a photographer who is attempting to go the Brangelina route by adopting a baby from Ethiopia with her husband Alex, played by Rodrigo Santoro (300, I Love You Phillip Morris). Lastly, we have Skyler who is portrayed by Brooklyn Decker (Just Go With It, Battleship). She is a stay-at-home wife married to retired NASCAR driver Ramsey, who is played by Dennis Quaid (The Day After Tomorrow, Vantage Point).
Aside from the main cast, there is also a great supporting cast with the likes of Chris Rock (Grown Ups, Death At A Funeral), Joe Manganiello (True Blood), Thomas Lennon (Reno 911, I Love You, Man), Rebel Wilson (Bridesmaids) and many more.
Based on the trailers for What to Expect When You’re Expecting, the movie looked to be a very promising comedy. I am sad to say, I was very disappointed. The trailers make it look like “The Dudes Group” is a main focus of the story, but it is only a reprieve from the main story lines. This is a shame because for me, “The Dudes Group” had the funniest moments in the movie. The rest of the film, while heart-warming at moments, seemed to lack any real attempt to make a connection with the audience. To me, the relationships just seemed unreal.
This is not to say that there are not those out there who will not enjoy the film. The ladies behind me in the theatre seemed to be laughing the whole time, but it just wasn’t my cup of tea. I once heard my editor (Gareth Von Kallenbach) say that this was a great idea, but it may have been better presented as a TV show. I have to say that I agree whole-heartedly. It would have made a great weekly sitcom, probably with the series centered on “The Dudes Group” (as I said, funniest moments in the movies). But it looks like there may be something along these lines on the horizon any way with the upcoming NBC comedy: Guys With Kids.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Hostage (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
Chief of Police Jeff Talley (Bruce Willis) is a man filled with turmoil. A former S.W.A.T. officer and top hostage negotiator for the Los Angeles Police Department, Talley now toils away in a quite California town where crime is light and very infrequent. The change in locales was made necessary for Jeff in the aftermath of a hostage negotiation where things did not go accordingly leaving Jeff with more questions than answers.
As if this is not bad enough, Talley is having difficulties with his wife Jane (Serena Scott Thomas), and his daughter Amanda (Rumer Willis), who is not happy with their relocation to the quiet locale or the strain that is amongst her parents as it is clear that they still love each other very much.
The quiet town is disrupted when a robbery of a successful locale business man goes horribly wrong and ends up with a dead police officer and three hostages being held in a high tech, high security home.
Jeff responds to the incident and soon finds himself dealing with the three young men who are clearly in over their head and very dangerous due to the instability of the situation. Jeff decides to call in the Sheriff’s office as he believe his police force is not suited for this sort of situation and essentially decides to wash his hands of the situation and go home.
While driving home, Jeff is carjacked by a group of individuals who show Jeff that they have taken his wife and daughter hostage and instruct him not to let anyone in or out of the house where the hostage crisis is taking place. Jeff is also instructed to not deviate in any way from his instructions under pain of immediate death for his wife and daughter. His only communication with his new handlers will be via a cell phone, and he is to resume control of the negotiations.
It is learned that there is something in the house that the people holding Jeff’s family need and are willing to resort to very extreme measure to get it.
It is at this point that the very, very gripping and entertaining setup to the film begins to slide, as the second half of the film does not come close to matching the quality of the opening segments.
There are some very good cat and mouse moments as the men in the house start to argue amongst themselves, and interact with the family inside the house. The supporting performances are solid especially those of Jennifer (Michelle Horn), who plays the daughter held captive by the trio and the eerie performance of Ben Foster as the twisted Hostage taker Mars.
Sadly the film decides to turn to a series of brutal images and sequences rather than continue to develop the characters and work the story. The characters often embark on some inane courses of action and do things that not only contradict what we know about their characters but also fly into the lapse of logic as people in their situations would never do. I would love to expand on this by referencing a segment of the film but in the interest of not spoiling the film, I will explain it as when characters are told not to do something, why would they repeatedly do it, and then continue to do so without any consequences?
It is the continued lack of common sense and the and the very over the top and lazy finale to the film that sinks what could have and should have been a much better movie as the film is clearly sunk by the awful final 40 minutes of the show. Willis does a solid job with his role but the last act of the script let him down as even a star of his magnitude and talents cant make up for the films numerous shortcomings.
As if this is not bad enough, Talley is having difficulties with his wife Jane (Serena Scott Thomas), and his daughter Amanda (Rumer Willis), who is not happy with their relocation to the quiet locale or the strain that is amongst her parents as it is clear that they still love each other very much.
The quiet town is disrupted when a robbery of a successful locale business man goes horribly wrong and ends up with a dead police officer and three hostages being held in a high tech, high security home.
Jeff responds to the incident and soon finds himself dealing with the three young men who are clearly in over their head and very dangerous due to the instability of the situation. Jeff decides to call in the Sheriff’s office as he believe his police force is not suited for this sort of situation and essentially decides to wash his hands of the situation and go home.
While driving home, Jeff is carjacked by a group of individuals who show Jeff that they have taken his wife and daughter hostage and instruct him not to let anyone in or out of the house where the hostage crisis is taking place. Jeff is also instructed to not deviate in any way from his instructions under pain of immediate death for his wife and daughter. His only communication with his new handlers will be via a cell phone, and he is to resume control of the negotiations.
It is learned that there is something in the house that the people holding Jeff’s family need and are willing to resort to very extreme measure to get it.
It is at this point that the very, very gripping and entertaining setup to the film begins to slide, as the second half of the film does not come close to matching the quality of the opening segments.
There are some very good cat and mouse moments as the men in the house start to argue amongst themselves, and interact with the family inside the house. The supporting performances are solid especially those of Jennifer (Michelle Horn), who plays the daughter held captive by the trio and the eerie performance of Ben Foster as the twisted Hostage taker Mars.
Sadly the film decides to turn to a series of brutal images and sequences rather than continue to develop the characters and work the story. The characters often embark on some inane courses of action and do things that not only contradict what we know about their characters but also fly into the lapse of logic as people in their situations would never do. I would love to expand on this by referencing a segment of the film but in the interest of not spoiling the film, I will explain it as when characters are told not to do something, why would they repeatedly do it, and then continue to do so without any consequences?
It is the continued lack of common sense and the and the very over the top and lazy finale to the film that sinks what could have and should have been a much better movie as the film is clearly sunk by the awful final 40 minutes of the show. Willis does a solid job with his role but the last act of the script let him down as even a star of his magnitude and talents cant make up for the films numerous shortcomings.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Military Wives (2020) in Movies
Mar 9, 2020
Based on true events, Military Wives tells the story of how the very first military wives charity group came to be formed. That initial group was soon followed by more Military Wives groups, with some of the earlier ones even starring in 2011 BBC reality show 'The Choir', led by Gareth Malone. The Military Wives choirs have continued to grow since then and now comprise of 2000 women, located at over 70 military bases around the world, producing hit singles and albums as they go from strength to strength. The movie is directed by Peter Cattaneo, who directed The Full Monty, and the trailer really does have that traditional feel-good British comedy vibe which we seem to churn out year after year in an attempt to be "this years Full Monty". I wasn't sure if this was going to be for me, but after I found myself thoroughly enjoying Fisherman's Friends last year, I went in with an open mind.
At a UK army base, soldiers are preparing to leave for another tour in Afghanistan. As they say goodbye, we're given a chance to be introduced to the wives and families who will remain in the houses located on the base while the soldiers are away. Straight away, we get real insight into the lives of these women - trying to maintain some kind of normality, while constantly living in fear of the phone call or the knock at the door that might come at any time and turn their lives upside down. The women all vary in their experience of army life - from young, newly married wives to wives who are old hands at moving from base to base and country to country, coping without their husband for long periods of time.
Kate (Kristin Scott Thomas) is married to the regiment's colonel and assumes that she is therefore superior to all the other women on the base - jumping the queue in the small on-site grocery store and generally looking down her nose at the others. Lisa (Sharon Horgan) is much more laid back than Kate, happy to just go with the flow. She has been charged with pastoral care for the wives while their partners are away, and is more than happy just to organise the odd coffee morning or a few glasses of wine rather than anything more productive and engaging for the group. With her husband away, and having to deal with a past tragedy that we learn more about as the story unfolds, Kate decides to try and poke her nose in and organise Lisa and the other wives. Consequently, Kate and Lisa clash... regularly.
After unsuccessfully trying out knitting as a suggested activity, one of the wives suggests singing. Unfortunately though, none of the women appear to be very good at singing and the bickering between Kate and Lisa doesn't really help improve them either. While Kate reads up on vocal warm-ups and learning how to conduct a choir, Lisa digs out her old electronic keyboard and is happy just to have the group try and sing along to a few old pop songs.
Military Wives does manage to follow that traditional Full Monty template I described earlier - with a mismatched bunch of inexperienced singers who eventually manage to get it together enough to be able to perform their own song at the Royal Albert Hall. However, I did feel that the emotion and the drama surrounding these women, who could lose their husband/wife at any moment, really brought something different to the movie, something which I don't feel the trailer accurately portrays. The comedy and the feel-good factor that these trailers like to put across was a lot more subtle, and as a result I enjoyed it far more than I was expecting to.
At a UK army base, soldiers are preparing to leave for another tour in Afghanistan. As they say goodbye, we're given a chance to be introduced to the wives and families who will remain in the houses located on the base while the soldiers are away. Straight away, we get real insight into the lives of these women - trying to maintain some kind of normality, while constantly living in fear of the phone call or the knock at the door that might come at any time and turn their lives upside down. The women all vary in their experience of army life - from young, newly married wives to wives who are old hands at moving from base to base and country to country, coping without their husband for long periods of time.
Kate (Kristin Scott Thomas) is married to the regiment's colonel and assumes that she is therefore superior to all the other women on the base - jumping the queue in the small on-site grocery store and generally looking down her nose at the others. Lisa (Sharon Horgan) is much more laid back than Kate, happy to just go with the flow. She has been charged with pastoral care for the wives while their partners are away, and is more than happy just to organise the odd coffee morning or a few glasses of wine rather than anything more productive and engaging for the group. With her husband away, and having to deal with a past tragedy that we learn more about as the story unfolds, Kate decides to try and poke her nose in and organise Lisa and the other wives. Consequently, Kate and Lisa clash... regularly.
After unsuccessfully trying out knitting as a suggested activity, one of the wives suggests singing. Unfortunately though, none of the women appear to be very good at singing and the bickering between Kate and Lisa doesn't really help improve them either. While Kate reads up on vocal warm-ups and learning how to conduct a choir, Lisa digs out her old electronic keyboard and is happy just to have the group try and sing along to a few old pop songs.
Military Wives does manage to follow that traditional Full Monty template I described earlier - with a mismatched bunch of inexperienced singers who eventually manage to get it together enough to be able to perform their own song at the Royal Albert Hall. However, I did feel that the emotion and the drama surrounding these women, who could lose their husband/wife at any moment, really brought something different to the movie, something which I don't feel the trailer accurately portrays. The comedy and the feel-good factor that these trailers like to put across was a lot more subtle, and as a result I enjoyed it far more than I was expecting to.
Expositor's Bible & Strong's
Book and Reference
App
"Where the word of a king is, there is power" (Ecclesiastes 8:4). You have just found the best tool...
Holy Bible KJV Version
Book and Reference
App
"Where the word of a king is, there is power" (Ecclesiastes 8:4). You have just found the best tool...
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Military Wives (2020) in Movies
Feb 17, 2020
Even having just seen the trailer I knew I would cry at this, it's classic tear-fodder.
On-base life can be difficult for the wives and partners of soldiers serving abroad. Lisa has inherited the job of organising the wives while everyone is deployed but it's not an activity she's keen on, she'd rather just make it through to the other side and have her husband back. Luckily [though it seems anything but] for her Kate wants to take on a role in those duties, she's a veteran wide and has a very proper way of looking at how they should conduct themselves. The two women take an instant dislike for the other's attitude making life stressful in the social circle.
This doesn't change once they pick an activity the group are all interested in and they struggle to find a rhythm together. Can the pair separate their differences for the wellbeing of the group and each other?
Military Wives is something that we seem to be able to churn out consistently over here. You want an emotionally uplifting (while devastating) drama? The Brits have got you covered. I cried over Wild Rose, Finding Your Feet, Fisherman's Friends and Juliet, Naked, all have that similar quality to them that makes them a surprisingly comforting watch.
At the centre we focus on Kate and Lisa, both women are looking to forget and just get through it all for different reasons. The two are chalk and cheese and Kristin Scott Thomas and Sharon Horgan thrive in their roles against one another. You can feel the agony they both suffer with and yet it's quite difficult to sympathise with either when for most of the film they are quite dislikable.
Even when we see Lisa interact with the other wives she's still grumpy and brash, it fits with what the character is going through on the inside but challenging to like. The same goes for Kate, her position afforded to her by her husband's position and her take charge attitude reminds me of that one person who always wants it their way, and that feeling instantly overrides everything else that's happening.
That's not to say that you don't feel for them, you definitely do towards the end, but getting there is a struggle.
We have a lot of peripheral characters who come in for both drama and comedy, they're all handled nicely for the most part and the nature of the story means that they can come and go quite easily without many issues. The emotion from Amy James-Kelly as Sarah was great but there's a point where it really feels like a scene is cut n the middle as the tone changes, Laura Checkley as Maz was very funny and Gaby French as Jess comes in with humour and impact in her choir lead. There was just one notable oddity and that was the character of Dawn played by Roxy Faridany. The shy and quiet member of the choir gets brought up a couple of times and yet doesn't feature in any of the foreground scenes properly. This again felt like we were missing scenes where she featured more. Bringing in the soldier contingent we have Jason Flemyng (I love him, he needs to be in more things) who is the base commander (I'm not up on my ranks so I apologise if I got it wrong) and though it's not a large role it's a funny one. The look on his face in the scene under the bridge was a picture. He fits into the cast nicely and it was a good balance of screen time within the story.
Military Wives is a story of personal struggle and friendship at its core, and as expected I spent a significant amount of time with tears streaming down my face. It handles the grieving and coping struggles in a respectful way and the interactions between characters felt very real. The uncertainty, the hatred, the feat and horror, it was all there in the actors' performances. The film takes a long time to get to what you might say is the pay off, but the journey is well thought out and it comes together for a charming and emotional watch.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/02/military-wives-movie-review.html
On-base life can be difficult for the wives and partners of soldiers serving abroad. Lisa has inherited the job of organising the wives while everyone is deployed but it's not an activity she's keen on, she'd rather just make it through to the other side and have her husband back. Luckily [though it seems anything but] for her Kate wants to take on a role in those duties, she's a veteran wide and has a very proper way of looking at how they should conduct themselves. The two women take an instant dislike for the other's attitude making life stressful in the social circle.
This doesn't change once they pick an activity the group are all interested in and they struggle to find a rhythm together. Can the pair separate their differences for the wellbeing of the group and each other?
Military Wives is something that we seem to be able to churn out consistently over here. You want an emotionally uplifting (while devastating) drama? The Brits have got you covered. I cried over Wild Rose, Finding Your Feet, Fisherman's Friends and Juliet, Naked, all have that similar quality to them that makes them a surprisingly comforting watch.
At the centre we focus on Kate and Lisa, both women are looking to forget and just get through it all for different reasons. The two are chalk and cheese and Kristin Scott Thomas and Sharon Horgan thrive in their roles against one another. You can feel the agony they both suffer with and yet it's quite difficult to sympathise with either when for most of the film they are quite dislikable.
Even when we see Lisa interact with the other wives she's still grumpy and brash, it fits with what the character is going through on the inside but challenging to like. The same goes for Kate, her position afforded to her by her husband's position and her take charge attitude reminds me of that one person who always wants it their way, and that feeling instantly overrides everything else that's happening.
That's not to say that you don't feel for them, you definitely do towards the end, but getting there is a struggle.
We have a lot of peripheral characters who come in for both drama and comedy, they're all handled nicely for the most part and the nature of the story means that they can come and go quite easily without many issues. The emotion from Amy James-Kelly as Sarah was great but there's a point where it really feels like a scene is cut n the middle as the tone changes, Laura Checkley as Maz was very funny and Gaby French as Jess comes in with humour and impact in her choir lead. There was just one notable oddity and that was the character of Dawn played by Roxy Faridany. The shy and quiet member of the choir gets brought up a couple of times and yet doesn't feature in any of the foreground scenes properly. This again felt like we were missing scenes where she featured more. Bringing in the soldier contingent we have Jason Flemyng (I love him, he needs to be in more things) who is the base commander (I'm not up on my ranks so I apologise if I got it wrong) and though it's not a large role it's a funny one. The look on his face in the scene under the bridge was a picture. He fits into the cast nicely and it was a good balance of screen time within the story.
Military Wives is a story of personal struggle and friendship at its core, and as expected I spent a significant amount of time with tears streaming down my face. It handles the grieving and coping struggles in a respectful way and the interactions between characters felt very real. The uncertainty, the hatred, the feat and horror, it was all there in the actors' performances. The film takes a long time to get to what you might say is the pay off, but the journey is well thought out and it comes together for a charming and emotional watch.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/02/military-wives-movie-review.html
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated 1917 (2020) in Movies
Jan 12, 2020
Cinematography (1 more)
Visceral and enormously tense movie experience
Visceral, brilliant and a far from relaxing evening at the movies.
It's already won Best Film at the Golden Globes, and seems set for Oscar glory too. Is Sam Mendes's WW1 epic any good?
"The Man is the Mission" - The similarities with the storyline of Spielberg's "Saving Private Ryan" are evident. Lance Corporal Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) has a brother serving in another battalion of 1,600 men under the command of Colonel Mackenzie (Benedict Cumberbatch). The problem is that they are walking into a trap and are about to be slaughtered when they go over the top at dawn. General Erinmore (Colin Firth) picks Blake and his mate Lance Corporal Will Schofield (George MacKay) to run a dangerous mission to cross no-mans land, break through the German lines and get the message to Mackenzie to call the attack off.
Famously, the movie uses the "Rope" / "Birdman" technique of appearing to film the action as a single continuous take. This adds enormously to the tension as the duo proceed into danger. Aside from a chance meeting with a French foster mother (Claire Duburcq), the tension is maintained at 110% for the film's duration. Which makes for an exhausting watch! Congratulations by the way to Ms Duburcq for bagging the one female role in the whole movie! This is the anti-dote to the female-heavy movies of 2019!
This is a movie you MUST go to see in the cinema. A star of the show is Roger Deakins' cinematography which is just glorious to look at. The hell-holes (literally) of no-mans land are one thing, but then we get the sweeping landscapes of the green french countryside (actually Wiltshire, just a few miles from where I live!). But the really jaw-dropping cinematography for me came in a flare-lit ruined French town. The effect of a raging fire in the distance and the constantly shifting shadows of the ruins is truly spectacular.
All of this is helped by a great score by Thomas Newman, particularly at this moment in the film. The music suits the action perfectly, which is all you can ask for from a score.
I first noticed George MacKay in one of the lead roles in the Proclaimers musical "Sunshine on Leith" and then again in "Pride": both relatively low-key British films. Here he is catapulted onto the global blockbuster stage, and has nowhere to hide being on-screen literally for the whole running time (and he is running!). He doesn't disappoint: the performance is a stellar one and he holds the drama together.
He's got good support though: small but important supporting roles come from not only Firth and Cumberbatch but also Daniel ("Line of Duty") Mays; Andrew ("Kneel!") Scott; Adrian ("Killing Eve") Scarborough and Richard Madden. But my favourite was a quietly strong (no pun intended) from Mark Strong as a friendly captain with good advice for our hero.
Is the single-shot idea a gimmick? Perhaps. But it is extremely effective at maintaining the momentum. Perhaps to a degree it is a bit of a distraction, since I was constantly looking for the cuts (and very clever they are too). But it is undeniably a marvelous piece of film-making. The choreography involved with getting all of those actors and extras moving in unison for the length of some of those takes would make even Busby Berkeley sweat!
There are also some truly extraordinary action shots: a barn scene (and its dramatic aftermath) is one of the most incredible bits of film-making I've seen not just this year (that's not saying much!) but also last year.
The movie is not for the faint-hearted, with some truly gruesome scenes that stick in the mind afterwards. The illustrious Mrs Movie Man spent most of the movie with her hands over her eyes! But in general, this feels authentic. My own grandfather spent 3 days and nights lying wounded in the French mud, before being rescued... by the Germans. War is hell, and the film reflects that.
Director Sam Mendes - also a Golden Globe winner - only goes a bit Hollywood at one point: a musical interlude where an exhausted Schofield creeps into camp (what? no guards?) and listens to a wistful acappella. The realism felt like it went from 10/10 to 7/10.
This is a top-class piece of movie-making and deserves all its award success. I went in with a bit of an "Oscar-bait" attitude; the one-take gimmick peaking my interest but also stoking my cynicism. Was this to be just a technically fabulous movie that would win the awards but not really entertain? But my cynicism was unfounded. It's a gripping watch and a truly memorable movie.
See it. See it at the cinema. And see it at a cinema with as big a screen and with as great a sound system as possible!
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review on One Mann's Movies at https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/12/one-manns-movies-film-review-1917-2019/ )
"The Man is the Mission" - The similarities with the storyline of Spielberg's "Saving Private Ryan" are evident. Lance Corporal Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) has a brother serving in another battalion of 1,600 men under the command of Colonel Mackenzie (Benedict Cumberbatch). The problem is that they are walking into a trap and are about to be slaughtered when they go over the top at dawn. General Erinmore (Colin Firth) picks Blake and his mate Lance Corporal Will Schofield (George MacKay) to run a dangerous mission to cross no-mans land, break through the German lines and get the message to Mackenzie to call the attack off.
Famously, the movie uses the "Rope" / "Birdman" technique of appearing to film the action as a single continuous take. This adds enormously to the tension as the duo proceed into danger. Aside from a chance meeting with a French foster mother (Claire Duburcq), the tension is maintained at 110% for the film's duration. Which makes for an exhausting watch! Congratulations by the way to Ms Duburcq for bagging the one female role in the whole movie! This is the anti-dote to the female-heavy movies of 2019!
This is a movie you MUST go to see in the cinema. A star of the show is Roger Deakins' cinematography which is just glorious to look at. The hell-holes (literally) of no-mans land are one thing, but then we get the sweeping landscapes of the green french countryside (actually Wiltshire, just a few miles from where I live!). But the really jaw-dropping cinematography for me came in a flare-lit ruined French town. The effect of a raging fire in the distance and the constantly shifting shadows of the ruins is truly spectacular.
All of this is helped by a great score by Thomas Newman, particularly at this moment in the film. The music suits the action perfectly, which is all you can ask for from a score.
I first noticed George MacKay in one of the lead roles in the Proclaimers musical "Sunshine on Leith" and then again in "Pride": both relatively low-key British films. Here he is catapulted onto the global blockbuster stage, and has nowhere to hide being on-screen literally for the whole running time (and he is running!). He doesn't disappoint: the performance is a stellar one and he holds the drama together.
He's got good support though: small but important supporting roles come from not only Firth and Cumberbatch but also Daniel ("Line of Duty") Mays; Andrew ("Kneel!") Scott; Adrian ("Killing Eve") Scarborough and Richard Madden. But my favourite was a quietly strong (no pun intended) from Mark Strong as a friendly captain with good advice for our hero.
Is the single-shot idea a gimmick? Perhaps. But it is extremely effective at maintaining the momentum. Perhaps to a degree it is a bit of a distraction, since I was constantly looking for the cuts (and very clever they are too). But it is undeniably a marvelous piece of film-making. The choreography involved with getting all of those actors and extras moving in unison for the length of some of those takes would make even Busby Berkeley sweat!
There are also some truly extraordinary action shots: a barn scene (and its dramatic aftermath) is one of the most incredible bits of film-making I've seen not just this year (that's not saying much!) but also last year.
The movie is not for the faint-hearted, with some truly gruesome scenes that stick in the mind afterwards. The illustrious Mrs Movie Man spent most of the movie with her hands over her eyes! But in general, this feels authentic. My own grandfather spent 3 days and nights lying wounded in the French mud, before being rescued... by the Germans. War is hell, and the film reflects that.
Director Sam Mendes - also a Golden Globe winner - only goes a bit Hollywood at one point: a musical interlude where an exhausted Schofield creeps into camp (what? no guards?) and listens to a wistful acappella. The realism felt like it went from 10/10 to 7/10.
This is a top-class piece of movie-making and deserves all its award success. I went in with a bit of an "Oscar-bait" attitude; the one-take gimmick peaking my interest but also stoking my cynicism. Was this to be just a technically fabulous movie that would win the awards but not really entertain? But my cynicism was unfounded. It's a gripping watch and a truly memorable movie.
See it. See it at the cinema. And see it at a cinema with as big a screen and with as great a sound system as possible!
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review on One Mann's Movies at https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/12/one-manns-movies-film-review-1917-2019/ )
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Nov 10, 2019
Joachim Phoenix - Oscar winning performance? (1 more)
Look and feel of the film - technically brilliant
A loser's tale.
“Joker” has managed to stir up a whirlwind of controversy, centring partly around the level of violence included but also on the use of “that song” on the soundtrack. But putting aside that flurry of commentary, what of the film itself?
Man, this is a dark film! It’s as much of an anti-superhero film as this year’s “Brightburn“. The Batman legacy has addressed the mental state of the protagonists before (both that of the hero and the villains). Here we have a real study of how a mentally unstable no-hoper can be pushed over the edge by bigotry, carelessness and government cut-backs.
Indeed, there is something alarmingly prescient about the movie’s plot line, watching this as we (in the UK) are in the month of possible (or as Boris Johnson would say, definite) Brexit madness! “Is it me, or is it getting crazier out there?” Arthur Fleck muses to his social worker (Sharon Washington). And a rant by Arthur late on goes “Everybody just yells and screams at each other. Nobody’s civil anymore. Nobody thinks what it’s like to be the other guy. You think men like Thomas Wayne ever think what it’s like to be someone like me? To be somebody but themselves? They don’t. They think that we’ll just sit there and take it, like good little boys! That we won’t werewolf and go wild!” Chilling words as we possibly face a very bumpy October and November in the UK.
After reviewing “Judy” I wouldn’t be the least surprised if I’d just seen the Best Actress award bagged (by Renée Zellweger). Now, with “Joker”, surely Joachim Phoenix might bag his first (and well overdue in my book) Oscar. Although nominated before (for “Gladiator”, “Walk the Line” and “The Master”) he’s never won. Here Phoenix’s physical transformation into Arthur Fleck is SIMPLY EXTRAORDINARY. And the way he captures the (medically) induced fits of helpless laughter, ending in a sort of choking fit, is brilliant and replicated to a ‘T’ on multiple occasions.
I loved “You Were Never Really Here“, primarily due to Phoenix’s pitch-perfect performance. And “Joker” reminded me very much of Lynne Ramsey‘s film: a disturbed loner, looking after his elderly mother; with violence meted out to wrong-doers. Joe is almost the yin to Arthur Fleck’s yang: Joe is an invisible man who is very much present; Arthur is a very visible man who thinks he is invisible. There’s even comment by Fleck towards the end of the film that sometimes he thinks he’s ‘not really there at all’! (A deliberate ‘in’ joke in reference to that film?)
After some pretty piss-poor “pension grabs” in recent years, culminating in the appalling career- nadir of “Dirty Grandpa” in 2016, Robert De Niro comes good with a fine performance as the idolised but thoughtless and cruel talk-show host Murray Franklin. It’s very much a supporting role, but delivered with great aplomb.
Also great again is “Deadpool 2“‘s Zazie Beetz (a great trivia answer for an actor with three ‘z’s’ in the name). This angle of the story is deviously clever, and Zazie handles the various twists and turns brilliantly.
Movie violence needs to be taken in context to both the film’s story and to the movie’s certificate. For those expecting a light and fluffy “Avengers” style of movie, they might be shocked by what they see. True that the film definitely pushes the boundaries of what I think is acceptable in a UK15-certificate film. … I suspect there were HEATED discussions at the BBFC after this screening! The violence though seems comparable to some other 15’s I’ve seen: a DIY-store drill scene in “The Equalizer” comes to mind.
A particularly brutal scene is reminiscent of a climactic scene in “Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood“, such that Quentin Tarantino might have just cause to appeal his ‘UK18’ certificate.
You might argue about the level of violence that SHOULD be shown in a 15 certificate film. But I think the violence portrayed – given this is in the known context an origin story for a psychopathic killer – is appropriate. I personally found the Heath Ledger‘s Joker’s “pencil trick” scene in “The Dark Knight” more disturbing, given it was a 12 certificate.
I have less sympathy for the inclusion of “Rock and Roll Part 2” on the soundtrack. The fact that a convicted paedophile (I refuse to say his name) is profiting from the ticket sales is galling. This is almost deliberately courting controversy. There has been some view that this is a “traditional” chant song at US football matches (as “The Hey Song”). But most (all?) teams have now recognized the connection and stopped its use. At least here the director and producers should have more of a ‘world view’ on this.
Where “Hangover” director Todd Phillips does recover some of this respect is in the quality of the script (co-written with Scott Silver) and the direction. It’s misdirection without mis-direction! Some of the twists in the plot (no spoilers here!) I did not see coming, and certain aspects of the story (again no spoilers!) are left brilliantly (and chillingly) vague.
Sure, it borrows heavily in story-line and mood from Martin Scorsese‘s “Taxi Driver”. And I was also reminded of 1993’s Joel Schumacher flick “Falling Down” where Michael Douglas is an ordinary man pushed to the edge and beyond by a series of life’s trials. But if you want to criticise a film for “not being 100% original” then let’s start at the top of the 2019 IMDB listings and keep going! I’ve also seen comment from some that criticises the somewhat clunky overlay of the Batman back-story into the script. I also understand that view but I didn’t personally share it.
Elsewhere I would not be surprised if the movie gets garlanded with technical Oscar nominations aplenty come January. The cinematography, by Phillips-regular Lawrence Sher, is exquisite in setting the grimy 70’s tone. (I loved the retro Warner Brothers logo too). And both video and sound editing is top-notch. Not forgetting a sonorous cello-heavy soundtrack that perfectly suits the mood. Want to put a bet on which film might top the “number of Oscar nominations” list? This might not be a bad choice.
Dark and brooding, with a slow-burn start, this is a proper drama that might make action superhero fans fidgety. But I simply loved it, and would love to carve out the time to give it a re-watch. The Phoenix performance is extraordinary. Will this make my Top 10 of the year? Fingers to head, and pull the trigger…. it’s a no-brainer.
Man, this is a dark film! It’s as much of an anti-superhero film as this year’s “Brightburn“. The Batman legacy has addressed the mental state of the protagonists before (both that of the hero and the villains). Here we have a real study of how a mentally unstable no-hoper can be pushed over the edge by bigotry, carelessness and government cut-backs.
Indeed, there is something alarmingly prescient about the movie’s plot line, watching this as we (in the UK) are in the month of possible (or as Boris Johnson would say, definite) Brexit madness! “Is it me, or is it getting crazier out there?” Arthur Fleck muses to his social worker (Sharon Washington). And a rant by Arthur late on goes “Everybody just yells and screams at each other. Nobody’s civil anymore. Nobody thinks what it’s like to be the other guy. You think men like Thomas Wayne ever think what it’s like to be someone like me? To be somebody but themselves? They don’t. They think that we’ll just sit there and take it, like good little boys! That we won’t werewolf and go wild!” Chilling words as we possibly face a very bumpy October and November in the UK.
After reviewing “Judy” I wouldn’t be the least surprised if I’d just seen the Best Actress award bagged (by Renée Zellweger). Now, with “Joker”, surely Joachim Phoenix might bag his first (and well overdue in my book) Oscar. Although nominated before (for “Gladiator”, “Walk the Line” and “The Master”) he’s never won. Here Phoenix’s physical transformation into Arthur Fleck is SIMPLY EXTRAORDINARY. And the way he captures the (medically) induced fits of helpless laughter, ending in a sort of choking fit, is brilliant and replicated to a ‘T’ on multiple occasions.
I loved “You Were Never Really Here“, primarily due to Phoenix’s pitch-perfect performance. And “Joker” reminded me very much of Lynne Ramsey‘s film: a disturbed loner, looking after his elderly mother; with violence meted out to wrong-doers. Joe is almost the yin to Arthur Fleck’s yang: Joe is an invisible man who is very much present; Arthur is a very visible man who thinks he is invisible. There’s even comment by Fleck towards the end of the film that sometimes he thinks he’s ‘not really there at all’! (A deliberate ‘in’ joke in reference to that film?)
After some pretty piss-poor “pension grabs” in recent years, culminating in the appalling career- nadir of “Dirty Grandpa” in 2016, Robert De Niro comes good with a fine performance as the idolised but thoughtless and cruel talk-show host Murray Franklin. It’s very much a supporting role, but delivered with great aplomb.
Also great again is “Deadpool 2“‘s Zazie Beetz (a great trivia answer for an actor with three ‘z’s’ in the name). This angle of the story is deviously clever, and Zazie handles the various twists and turns brilliantly.
Movie violence needs to be taken in context to both the film’s story and to the movie’s certificate. For those expecting a light and fluffy “Avengers” style of movie, they might be shocked by what they see. True that the film definitely pushes the boundaries of what I think is acceptable in a UK15-certificate film. … I suspect there were HEATED discussions at the BBFC after this screening! The violence though seems comparable to some other 15’s I’ve seen: a DIY-store drill scene in “The Equalizer” comes to mind.
A particularly brutal scene is reminiscent of a climactic scene in “Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood“, such that Quentin Tarantino might have just cause to appeal his ‘UK18’ certificate.
You might argue about the level of violence that SHOULD be shown in a 15 certificate film. But I think the violence portrayed – given this is in the known context an origin story for a psychopathic killer – is appropriate. I personally found the Heath Ledger‘s Joker’s “pencil trick” scene in “The Dark Knight” more disturbing, given it was a 12 certificate.
I have less sympathy for the inclusion of “Rock and Roll Part 2” on the soundtrack. The fact that a convicted paedophile (I refuse to say his name) is profiting from the ticket sales is galling. This is almost deliberately courting controversy. There has been some view that this is a “traditional” chant song at US football matches (as “The Hey Song”). But most (all?) teams have now recognized the connection and stopped its use. At least here the director and producers should have more of a ‘world view’ on this.
Where “Hangover” director Todd Phillips does recover some of this respect is in the quality of the script (co-written with Scott Silver) and the direction. It’s misdirection without mis-direction! Some of the twists in the plot (no spoilers here!) I did not see coming, and certain aspects of the story (again no spoilers!) are left brilliantly (and chillingly) vague.
Sure, it borrows heavily in story-line and mood from Martin Scorsese‘s “Taxi Driver”. And I was also reminded of 1993’s Joel Schumacher flick “Falling Down” where Michael Douglas is an ordinary man pushed to the edge and beyond by a series of life’s trials. But if you want to criticise a film for “not being 100% original” then let’s start at the top of the 2019 IMDB listings and keep going! I’ve also seen comment from some that criticises the somewhat clunky overlay of the Batman back-story into the script. I also understand that view but I didn’t personally share it.
Elsewhere I would not be surprised if the movie gets garlanded with technical Oscar nominations aplenty come January. The cinematography, by Phillips-regular Lawrence Sher, is exquisite in setting the grimy 70’s tone. (I loved the retro Warner Brothers logo too). And both video and sound editing is top-notch. Not forgetting a sonorous cello-heavy soundtrack that perfectly suits the mood. Want to put a bet on which film might top the “number of Oscar nominations” list? This might not be a bad choice.
Dark and brooding, with a slow-burn start, this is a proper drama that might make action superhero fans fidgety. But I simply loved it, and would love to carve out the time to give it a re-watch. The Phoenix performance is extraordinary. Will this make my Top 10 of the year? Fingers to head, and pull the trigger…. it’s a no-brainer.
