Search
Search results
Ross (3284 KP) rated Perfect Death in Books
Sep 28, 2018
Contains spoilers, click to show
I have debated with myself over a rating for this, the third in the "DI Luc Callanach" series of Edinburgh police procedurals. While the overall story is definitely a 4 star, verging on 5, certain aspects of the dialogue in this one were a little jarring at times, and the plot hinged on a couple of very out of character decisions on the part of the murderer.
As with the previous two books, we join the story at the start of two independent investigations, which inevitably expand and take up the whole team's efforts (it's almost as if there was no crime in the city before these came along as no other cases seem to be mentioned or worked on!). We have the apparent death by misadventure of a young girl on the hills around Arthur's Seat, and the apparent suicide of former DCI Begbie.
Both cases are interesting and very different, the former being a more typical murder investigation, the latter being more focused on police corruption and the Glasgow gangland (I do enjoy the fact that any nasty gangsters in these Edinburgh-based stories have to be based in Glasgow, almost like they are sponsored by the Edinburgh tourist board, or someone with an anti-East Coast agenda).
While the murder investigation is decent, a number of clangers really spoiled it for me. We have a young man who appears to be poisoning people after having ingratiated themselves into their lives and the lives of their loved ones under different false names. However, as is so often the case in these stories, the killer is made too clever to be caught (at least too clever to be caught in under 300 pages!), and so the slightest mistake or piece of luck is what the investigation hinges on. Here it transpires that, while the killer has used false names in every interaction, in one of them he seems to have for some reason used the name of someone who leads the police directly to his backstory and hence uncovering his real identity. This piece of Batman vs Superman ("Your Mom was called Martha?!") level plot pivot was just so jarring and so out of character for this supposedly clever murderer. And yet without it there was pretty much no way of the murderer being found. For a secret poisoner to then start waving a gun around was also a bit hard to accept.
And also, all characters seem to be very well spoken. We have a young man who grew up in care homes from the age of 5, a Glasgow gangster and his henchmen and numerous bad sorts along the way and all are very well spoken, to the point that none of them have a voice and are just ... there. And, of course everyone refers to the police in the same way as the police refer to themselves - I cannot imagine anyone referring to a policeman as "DI something" or ""your DCI said this". It just totally jars and again comes across as the author simply inserting their voice into the mouths of characters that they could not be bothered to properly consider.
This brings me on to the dialogue gripe. I have always struggled to accept the formality in the way fictional detectives speak to members of the public. I get that interviews etc have to be carried out in a certain way, but at one point DCI Turner is speaking to a 17 year old boy about the death of his mother and she says "I cannot leave someone who might be a danger to themselves without establishing first-hand contact". This just struck me as the author inserting a piece of research into dialogue rather than considering how that point would be addressed in a human conversation. Similarly, at one point a DC refers to one of the victims as "she" and Callanach snapped at her "We use victims' names not pronouns", which just struck me as an odd thing to say, and at several times throughout the book he himself refers to victims with pronouns.
And finally, while there was never a great deal of swearing in the first two books, it was believable swearing. Here we have the occasional use of "frigging" instead of the other "f" word, which I cannot think I have ever heard a Scottish person say, unless singing along to the Sex Pistols sea shanty.
Overall, I give this book 4 stars for the plot, 3 stars for the writing, then averaged out and rounded down for the annoying little things.
A definite step down from the second book, and a more slapdash feel to it.
As with the previous two books, we join the story at the start of two independent investigations, which inevitably expand and take up the whole team's efforts (it's almost as if there was no crime in the city before these came along as no other cases seem to be mentioned or worked on!). We have the apparent death by misadventure of a young girl on the hills around Arthur's Seat, and the apparent suicide of former DCI Begbie.
Both cases are interesting and very different, the former being a more typical murder investigation, the latter being more focused on police corruption and the Glasgow gangland (I do enjoy the fact that any nasty gangsters in these Edinburgh-based stories have to be based in Glasgow, almost like they are sponsored by the Edinburgh tourist board, or someone with an anti-East Coast agenda).
While the murder investigation is decent, a number of clangers really spoiled it for me. We have a young man who appears to be poisoning people after having ingratiated themselves into their lives and the lives of their loved ones under different false names. However, as is so often the case in these stories, the killer is made too clever to be caught (at least too clever to be caught in under 300 pages!), and so the slightest mistake or piece of luck is what the investigation hinges on. Here it transpires that, while the killer has used false names in every interaction, in one of them he seems to have for some reason used the name of someone who leads the police directly to his backstory and hence uncovering his real identity. This piece of Batman vs Superman ("Your Mom was called Martha?!") level plot pivot was just so jarring and so out of character for this supposedly clever murderer. And yet without it there was pretty much no way of the murderer being found. For a secret poisoner to then start waving a gun around was also a bit hard to accept.
And also, all characters seem to be very well spoken. We have a young man who grew up in care homes from the age of 5, a Glasgow gangster and his henchmen and numerous bad sorts along the way and all are very well spoken, to the point that none of them have a voice and are just ... there. And, of course everyone refers to the police in the same way as the police refer to themselves - I cannot imagine anyone referring to a policeman as "DI something" or ""your DCI said this". It just totally jars and again comes across as the author simply inserting their voice into the mouths of characters that they could not be bothered to properly consider.
This brings me on to the dialogue gripe. I have always struggled to accept the formality in the way fictional detectives speak to members of the public. I get that interviews etc have to be carried out in a certain way, but at one point DCI Turner is speaking to a 17 year old boy about the death of his mother and she says "I cannot leave someone who might be a danger to themselves without establishing first-hand contact". This just struck me as the author inserting a piece of research into dialogue rather than considering how that point would be addressed in a human conversation. Similarly, at one point a DC refers to one of the victims as "she" and Callanach snapped at her "We use victims' names not pronouns", which just struck me as an odd thing to say, and at several times throughout the book he himself refers to victims with pronouns.
And finally, while there was never a great deal of swearing in the first two books, it was believable swearing. Here we have the occasional use of "frigging" instead of the other "f" word, which I cannot think I have ever heard a Scottish person say, unless singing along to the Sex Pistols sea shanty.
Overall, I give this book 4 stars for the plot, 3 stars for the writing, then averaged out and rounded down for the annoying little things.
A definite step down from the second book, and a more slapdash feel to it.
Darren (1599 KP) rated A Lonely Place to Die (2011) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Story: A Lonely Place to Die starts as we three climbers Rob (Newman), Ed (Speleers) and Alison (George) showing just how extreme their love for climber is when we see them avoid disaster following an accident. Returning to their holiday trip the friends meet up with fellow climbers Jenny (Magowan) and Alex (Sweeney) to prepare for the biggest climb of their trip.
Heading out on the next day of climbing the friends find a mysterious breathing pipe where they discover a young girl Anna (Boyd) locked in a hole in the ground. Deciding to do the right thing they split up to get help with Alison and Rob heading to Devil’s Drop to get to the village quicker while the rest take Anna for a safe place to wait for rescue.
When one of their own is killed the remaining friends find themselves being hunted down by Mr Kidd (Harris) & Mr Mcrae (McCole) who are after Anna, the friends have to use all their climbing and survival skills to escape this deadly situation.
A Lonely Place to Die is a thriller that goes on to keep the storyline twists coming, the idea of finding a girl trapped in the woods and being hunted down is an easy story and would easily have been enough but adding in the idea of kidnapping hand over works really well. This does mean the introduction too all of the original characters comes off almost pointless because most of them are just disposable but it does get saved with the final act tension. This is one I do feel people will enjoy and with this many twists it never actually gets confusing.
Actor Review
Melissa George: Allison is the experienced climber on a climbing holiday with friends, we see how she can handle herself in the extreme conditions early on but when we see her and her friends find a young girl in the middle of the forest she must find a way out of the mountain range to save the girl. Melissa is always a strong lead in film but I was never sure of her accent in this one.
Ed Speleers: Ed is the least experienced member of the friends that Allison has bought along on the trip, he is reckless but we see how he will do the right thing when needed. Ed is a solid supporting choice but lacks that final moment.
Sean Harris: Mr Kidd is one of the two men hunting the friends down, he is very psychotic as we see him happily watch people die. This is a very good villain because we see his greed and complete lack of care showing through. Sean is good in this role where we see just how twisted his character gets.
Karel Roden: Darko is dealing with Mr Kidd, he is a victim as it is Anna that has been kidnapped for a ransom. He has come prepared to get revenge on the people involved. Karel is good in this role as we see his change as we learn his real position in the situation.
Support Cast: A Lonely Place to Die has a good supporting cast that all do their jobs to make this an edge of your seat ride.
Director Review: Julian Gilbey –
Action: A Lonely Place to Die has a lot of survival action with chasing, climbing and gun fights happening.
Crime: A Lonely Place to Die puts us in the middle of the kidnapping so we actually feel like the one of the climbers stuck in the middle.
Thriller: A Lonely Place to Die keeps us on edge through the whole film as we wonder who will make it out alive.
Settings: A Lonely Place to Die has the first half in the middle of the Scottish Highlands with no means on communication while being chased really does work and the festival finale is a good close for the chaos.
Special Effects: A Lonely Place to Die has good effects when needed but isn’t a film that turns to them.
Suggestion: A Lonely Place to Die is one I think people should watch, I think it is intense thriller with nicely handled twists. (Watch)
Best Part: The twists.
Worst Part: A few loose ends at the end.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Budget: $4 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 39 Minutes
Tagline: Out there, there’s nowhere to hide
Overall: Enjoyable thriller that keeps us on edge throughout.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/08/06/melissa-george-weekend-a-lonely-place-to-die-2011/
Heading out on the next day of climbing the friends find a mysterious breathing pipe where they discover a young girl Anna (Boyd) locked in a hole in the ground. Deciding to do the right thing they split up to get help with Alison and Rob heading to Devil’s Drop to get to the village quicker while the rest take Anna for a safe place to wait for rescue.
When one of their own is killed the remaining friends find themselves being hunted down by Mr Kidd (Harris) & Mr Mcrae (McCole) who are after Anna, the friends have to use all their climbing and survival skills to escape this deadly situation.
A Lonely Place to Die is a thriller that goes on to keep the storyline twists coming, the idea of finding a girl trapped in the woods and being hunted down is an easy story and would easily have been enough but adding in the idea of kidnapping hand over works really well. This does mean the introduction too all of the original characters comes off almost pointless because most of them are just disposable but it does get saved with the final act tension. This is one I do feel people will enjoy and with this many twists it never actually gets confusing.
Actor Review
Melissa George: Allison is the experienced climber on a climbing holiday with friends, we see how she can handle herself in the extreme conditions early on but when we see her and her friends find a young girl in the middle of the forest she must find a way out of the mountain range to save the girl. Melissa is always a strong lead in film but I was never sure of her accent in this one.
Ed Speleers: Ed is the least experienced member of the friends that Allison has bought along on the trip, he is reckless but we see how he will do the right thing when needed. Ed is a solid supporting choice but lacks that final moment.
Sean Harris: Mr Kidd is one of the two men hunting the friends down, he is very psychotic as we see him happily watch people die. This is a very good villain because we see his greed and complete lack of care showing through. Sean is good in this role where we see just how twisted his character gets.
Karel Roden: Darko is dealing with Mr Kidd, he is a victim as it is Anna that has been kidnapped for a ransom. He has come prepared to get revenge on the people involved. Karel is good in this role as we see his change as we learn his real position in the situation.
Support Cast: A Lonely Place to Die has a good supporting cast that all do their jobs to make this an edge of your seat ride.
Director Review: Julian Gilbey –
Action: A Lonely Place to Die has a lot of survival action with chasing, climbing and gun fights happening.
Crime: A Lonely Place to Die puts us in the middle of the kidnapping so we actually feel like the one of the climbers stuck in the middle.
Thriller: A Lonely Place to Die keeps us on edge through the whole film as we wonder who will make it out alive.
Settings: A Lonely Place to Die has the first half in the middle of the Scottish Highlands with no means on communication while being chased really does work and the festival finale is a good close for the chaos.
Special Effects: A Lonely Place to Die has good effects when needed but isn’t a film that turns to them.
Suggestion: A Lonely Place to Die is one I think people should watch, I think it is intense thriller with nicely handled twists. (Watch)
Best Part: The twists.
Worst Part: A few loose ends at the end.
Believability: No
Chances of Tears: No
Chances of Sequel: No
Post Credits Scene: No
Oscar Chances: No
Budget: $4 Million
Runtime: 1 Hour 39 Minutes
Tagline: Out there, there’s nowhere to hide
Overall: Enjoyable thriller that keeps us on edge throughout.
https://moviesreview101.com/2016/08/06/melissa-george-weekend-a-lonely-place-to-die-2011/
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Lost At Christmas (2020) in Movies
Nov 23, 2020
'Tis the season for Christmas cliche and Lost At Christmas certainly fits the bill... but stay tuned for a "pleasant" surprise?
When life changes very suddenly for two strangers they need to make their way back to their normal lives, but it's Christmas, and the simple journey home becomes something of an epic adventure across the Scottish Highlands.
I have realised that many years ago I found myself in a very similar situation to the one in this film, though thankfully I wasn't the one travelling anywhere. I have never really considered how difficult it might be to do this sort of journey... I'm fairly certain that I wouldn't do what this duo do... but you never know! So quite how believable this scenario is I can't say, but it does allow for the expected drama.
There's a great Doctor Who contingent in the cast and I loved Sylvester McCoy and Frazer Hines as Ernie and Frank. They're a fantastic little double act and McCoy definitely helped areas of the film that struggled. Jen, played by Natalie Clark, was quite a likeable character and I enjoyed the performance, but it was difficult to get anything more out of it once she was paired with our leading man. Rob, played by Kenny Boyle, was the chalk to Jen's cheese, he's gruff and mean but doesn't really have the redeemable qualities these characters have in reserve that make you root for them at the end of the film, coupled with the bland performance I found myself hoping that another stray singleton was going to appear and sweep Jen off her feet.
In my notes I tried to do some maths... maths in a film review?! I know! It baffled me too. There felt like discrepancies in Rob's timeline with his girlfriend when you compare their initial interaction and his reveal to Jen later on. It may just be me overthinking it, but when it came up my reaction was confusion, these things are easily foiled by vagueness but... *shrug*.
There's some beautiful scenery involved throughout the film but when you mix it with the obligatory Christmas film shenanigans you're not getting to enjoy a lot of it. Even its use in the opening titles wasn't great. The main backdrop of the pub is fun, though there are some issues with the use of space. Some shots make it seem expansive and some claustrophobic, and there's one shot in particular that made me audibly groan. Nearly everyone is in it, adults talking, teens (about four foot away from the rest of the cast) kissing... no... no kissing teens are putting themselves in that position, especially not these two. There would have been plenty of opportunity to have them in the back of this shot had the camera had a different angle.
The thing I think we should acknowledge about this film though is that it has some balls. Whenever I discuss romcoms and Christmas movies there are always a handful of scenarios that make me say "wouldn't it be great if these films did [insert realistic scenario here]?" Lost At Christmas went for it! Yeah... so it turns out... I want the cliche! Real-life sucks and actually, I'd rather bitch about things being unrealistic than see something that is much more likely to happen. Well done for doing it, but to quote my notes... "F*** THIS FILM!"
Lost At Christmas has so much potential in it. Let's take a look at my scale... You have bad Christmas films, very few fall into this category because they usually drop down so far that they get pushed back up the scale to "so bad they're good". Right next to "so bad they're good" is a general level for Hallmark-esque schmaltz (NOTE: this isn't to say that Hallmark movies won't break out into other areas, this is just a general descriptor for films that are pretty consistent in their watchability and themes... AKA: quality Sunday holiday fodder.) Then of course we have the Christmas classic level, that holds things like Home Alone, Klaus, Love Actually and Die Hard. Lost At Christmas is somewhere in the snowdrift between bad and schmaltz. With a bit more glitz and a few changes I could easily see this film being a hop, skip and a jump over the other side of Hallmark schmaltz as something you don't just watch because it started on the TV and you can't change the channel because you're holding down wrapping paper with one hand and have a spiral of sellotape in the other.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/11/lost-at-christmas-movie-review.html
When life changes very suddenly for two strangers they need to make their way back to their normal lives, but it's Christmas, and the simple journey home becomes something of an epic adventure across the Scottish Highlands.
I have realised that many years ago I found myself in a very similar situation to the one in this film, though thankfully I wasn't the one travelling anywhere. I have never really considered how difficult it might be to do this sort of journey... I'm fairly certain that I wouldn't do what this duo do... but you never know! So quite how believable this scenario is I can't say, but it does allow for the expected drama.
There's a great Doctor Who contingent in the cast and I loved Sylvester McCoy and Frazer Hines as Ernie and Frank. They're a fantastic little double act and McCoy definitely helped areas of the film that struggled. Jen, played by Natalie Clark, was quite a likeable character and I enjoyed the performance, but it was difficult to get anything more out of it once she was paired with our leading man. Rob, played by Kenny Boyle, was the chalk to Jen's cheese, he's gruff and mean but doesn't really have the redeemable qualities these characters have in reserve that make you root for them at the end of the film, coupled with the bland performance I found myself hoping that another stray singleton was going to appear and sweep Jen off her feet.
In my notes I tried to do some maths... maths in a film review?! I know! It baffled me too. There felt like discrepancies in Rob's timeline with his girlfriend when you compare their initial interaction and his reveal to Jen later on. It may just be me overthinking it, but when it came up my reaction was confusion, these things are easily foiled by vagueness but... *shrug*.
There's some beautiful scenery involved throughout the film but when you mix it with the obligatory Christmas film shenanigans you're not getting to enjoy a lot of it. Even its use in the opening titles wasn't great. The main backdrop of the pub is fun, though there are some issues with the use of space. Some shots make it seem expansive and some claustrophobic, and there's one shot in particular that made me audibly groan. Nearly everyone is in it, adults talking, teens (about four foot away from the rest of the cast) kissing... no... no kissing teens are putting themselves in that position, especially not these two. There would have been plenty of opportunity to have them in the back of this shot had the camera had a different angle.
The thing I think we should acknowledge about this film though is that it has some balls. Whenever I discuss romcoms and Christmas movies there are always a handful of scenarios that make me say "wouldn't it be great if these films did [insert realistic scenario here]?" Lost At Christmas went for it! Yeah... so it turns out... I want the cliche! Real-life sucks and actually, I'd rather bitch about things being unrealistic than see something that is much more likely to happen. Well done for doing it, but to quote my notes... "F*** THIS FILM!"
Lost At Christmas has so much potential in it. Let's take a look at my scale... You have bad Christmas films, very few fall into this category because they usually drop down so far that they get pushed back up the scale to "so bad they're good". Right next to "so bad they're good" is a general level for Hallmark-esque schmaltz (NOTE: this isn't to say that Hallmark movies won't break out into other areas, this is just a general descriptor for films that are pretty consistent in their watchability and themes... AKA: quality Sunday holiday fodder.) Then of course we have the Christmas classic level, that holds things like Home Alone, Klaus, Love Actually and Die Hard. Lost At Christmas is somewhere in the snowdrift between bad and schmaltz. With a bit more glitz and a few changes I could easily see this film being a hop, skip and a jump over the other side of Hallmark schmaltz as something you don't just watch because it started on the TV and you can't change the channel because you're holding down wrapping paper with one hand and have a spiral of sellotape in the other.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/11/lost-at-christmas-movie-review.html
JT (287 KP) rated Skyfall (2012) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
I wondered recently who my favourite Bond is? Do I enjoy the comical quips of Roger Moore or the smooth suave debonair approach of Sean Connery. But everytime I think about it, I keep coming full circle to Daniel Craig, in particularly Skyfall.
After the somewhat disappointment of Quantum of Solace Oscar winning director Sam Mendes has taken Bond 23 and given it a grittier more emotional look while paying homage to some of the past Bond classics. The opening credits are an explosive introduction as we see Bond give chase through a Turkish bazaar which includes an impressive motor bike pursuit and a brilliantly choreographed fist fight on top of a moving train.
After being shot Bond is seen falling to his certain death and the film explodes into its trademark opening credits, complete with Adele’s powerful voice, a song that really evokes everything Bond. When 007 finally returns from the grave having spent time away partaking in scorpion drinking games, post shag Heineken’s and ultimately ’enjoying death’ he comes back to find that MI6 has moved deep into subterranean London after an attack on MI6.
He’s unshaven, disheveled and is a shadow of the former agent, not even able to shoot straight or do a succession of chin-ups without collapsing. Skyfall scratches deep beneath the emotional undertones of both Bond and M as their pasts are dragged up for all to see. Judi Dench in her seventh Bond outing gets a much bigger slice of the action, she is without question the main Bond girl here. Joined by Naomie Harris and Bérénice Marlohe who both take a relative back seat.
The Bond franchise has always had a rich tradition of producing menacing and iconic villains, Bloefeld, Scaramanga and Goldfinger to name a few, but the introduction of Javier Bardem will now have a place in Bond folk-law as one of the best modern day baddies.
His entrance was perfect, with Bond tied to a chair Bardem’s Silva (himself a former agent) entered from an elevator at the far side of the room, and in one take slowly walked forward as he produced a monologue about rats in a barrel, proceeding to taunt 007 about his own past and the connections that they both have with M.
The last few films have also lacked any real gadgetry in terms of Q branch, something which after being around for so long was definitely missing. Ben Wishaw’s appearance as a much younger Q, “you’ve still got spots” points out 007, was a much needed injection as he hands out Bond his new Walter PPK and radio transmitter (they don’t go in for exploding pens anymore).
It’s simple stuff but it was great to see that character back where he belongs.
There is subtle humour throughout and light hearted moments, Bond himself throwing a few winks here and there as Roger Moore used to do so well back in the day. The action of course is another high point, believable or not it’s stunning but then this is what we have come to expect from one of the longest running franchises in film history.
The locations and cinematography were sublime, from the depths of the London underground to the Scottish highlands in the film’s pulsating climax; Skyfall brought Bond back to Britain. The scenes set in Shanghai where also exceptional, the highlight for me, the neon lit skyscraper fight in which Bond fails to hang onto the information he needs, quite literally.
Ralph Fiennes bureaucratic Mallory is another casting masterstroke, Albert Finney ads some touching moments of his own, while MI6 agent Eve who after shooting 007 by mistake and takes a back seat from active duty will no doubt please many fans with her new role.
Skyfall, of which I was not sure what on earth the title meant at the time is all the more clear in the third act. Bond chooses to revisit his child hood home and use that against Silva in a make shift home defense that even MacAulay Culkin would be proud of. It is fantastically shot and is the perfect ending to a film that has been top draw all the way through.
Some comparisons have been drawn to this and The Dark Knight in that the main characters are lost and then re-born in some way, both have a past that haunts them as well as dead parents. Mendes and the writers have taken this film down a darker route but an emotive one as well and that is credit to them, it all made sense and the story flowed well.
Skyfall is nothing short of a triumph and has given Bond fans everything they could have asked for and so much more.
After the somewhat disappointment of Quantum of Solace Oscar winning director Sam Mendes has taken Bond 23 and given it a grittier more emotional look while paying homage to some of the past Bond classics. The opening credits are an explosive introduction as we see Bond give chase through a Turkish bazaar which includes an impressive motor bike pursuit and a brilliantly choreographed fist fight on top of a moving train.
After being shot Bond is seen falling to his certain death and the film explodes into its trademark opening credits, complete with Adele’s powerful voice, a song that really evokes everything Bond. When 007 finally returns from the grave having spent time away partaking in scorpion drinking games, post shag Heineken’s and ultimately ’enjoying death’ he comes back to find that MI6 has moved deep into subterranean London after an attack on MI6.
He’s unshaven, disheveled and is a shadow of the former agent, not even able to shoot straight or do a succession of chin-ups without collapsing. Skyfall scratches deep beneath the emotional undertones of both Bond and M as their pasts are dragged up for all to see. Judi Dench in her seventh Bond outing gets a much bigger slice of the action, she is without question the main Bond girl here. Joined by Naomie Harris and Bérénice Marlohe who both take a relative back seat.
The Bond franchise has always had a rich tradition of producing menacing and iconic villains, Bloefeld, Scaramanga and Goldfinger to name a few, but the introduction of Javier Bardem will now have a place in Bond folk-law as one of the best modern day baddies.
His entrance was perfect, with Bond tied to a chair Bardem’s Silva (himself a former agent) entered from an elevator at the far side of the room, and in one take slowly walked forward as he produced a monologue about rats in a barrel, proceeding to taunt 007 about his own past and the connections that they both have with M.
The last few films have also lacked any real gadgetry in terms of Q branch, something which after being around for so long was definitely missing. Ben Wishaw’s appearance as a much younger Q, “you’ve still got spots” points out 007, was a much needed injection as he hands out Bond his new Walter PPK and radio transmitter (they don’t go in for exploding pens anymore).
It’s simple stuff but it was great to see that character back where he belongs.
There is subtle humour throughout and light hearted moments, Bond himself throwing a few winks here and there as Roger Moore used to do so well back in the day. The action of course is another high point, believable or not it’s stunning but then this is what we have come to expect from one of the longest running franchises in film history.
The locations and cinematography were sublime, from the depths of the London underground to the Scottish highlands in the film’s pulsating climax; Skyfall brought Bond back to Britain. The scenes set in Shanghai where also exceptional, the highlight for me, the neon lit skyscraper fight in which Bond fails to hang onto the information he needs, quite literally.
Ralph Fiennes bureaucratic Mallory is another casting masterstroke, Albert Finney ads some touching moments of his own, while MI6 agent Eve who after shooting 007 by mistake and takes a back seat from active duty will no doubt please many fans with her new role.
Skyfall, of which I was not sure what on earth the title meant at the time is all the more clear in the third act. Bond chooses to revisit his child hood home and use that against Silva in a make shift home defense that even MacAulay Culkin would be proud of. It is fantastically shot and is the perfect ending to a film that has been top draw all the way through.
Some comparisons have been drawn to this and The Dark Knight in that the main characters are lost and then re-born in some way, both have a past that haunts them as well as dead parents. Mendes and the writers have taken this film down a darker route but an emotive one as well and that is credit to them, it all made sense and the story flowed well.
Skyfall is nothing short of a triumph and has given Bond fans everything they could have asked for and so much more.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated X-Men: First Class (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
When the “X-Men:The Last Stand” failed to score big with critics and audiences in 2006, many fans began to wonder if they would ever see their favorite mutant superhero team on screen anytime soon. Despite mixed reviews, 2009’s standalone film “Wolverine“, did sufficient box office numbers to warrant a sequel which is currently in development, indicating that the likely future of the series was with standalone character films.
Then 20th Century Fox decided to tell a team-based origin story that focuses on the early days of the X-Men and how they became the team that they are today. This is a bit of a controversial move as it involves recasting several roles to play younger versions of beloved characters.
The result is X-Men: First Class which stars Scottish actor James McAvoy as Charles Xavier, a brilliant young academic who hides his unique and amazing telepathic gifts from the world. When a chance encounter proves to Charles that there are others in the world who share his gifts he dedicates his studies to unlocking the mysteries of genetic mutations and their possibilities.
At the same time a young man named Eric Lehnsherr (Michael Fassbender), has embarked on a path of destruction and revenge against those who wronged and tormented him and his family during the Nazi occupation of their native Poland. Eric’s main target is man who now calls himself Sebastian Shaw (Kevin Bacon), who has surrounded himself with a team of skilled mutants and is manipulating US and Russia to the brink of nuclear war, for his own evil purposes.
When CIA Agent MacTaggart (Rose Byrne), learns of Shaw’s plans, she recruits Xavier, not knowing that he and his friend Raven (Jennifer Lawrence) are mutants themselves, with the hopes of understanding their new enemy and mounting a proper defense.
When the truth of his true nature is revealed, Charles teems with MacTaggart and scientist Hank McCoy (Nicholas Hoult), to locate and recruit other gifted individuals to their cause. Fate steps in when Erik and Charles meet and eventually become friends over there mutual pursuit of Shaw. Despite a great deal of understanding between the two individuals, Eric is intent upon killing Shaw. He warns his new friend not to trust humans, as his time under Nazi control taught him that it’s only a matter of time until he and his fellow mutants are targeted for extinction by the world. Despite this the Eric and Charles recruit and train a team to prepare to face Shaw and his followers, with the fate of the world hanging in the balance.
The film starts off well and it was very enjoyable to see a deeper side of the characters. From young Charles hitting on women in bars and making jokes about losing his full head of hair to the deadly side of Eric and his abilities as well as the early relationship between the iconic characters. Somewhere along the way the film loses its initial momentum as the plot of the film takes a while to get going. As good as the cast is, they need something to do and after numerous debates and a few training and recruitment segments the film became somewhat boring. There simply was not a lot of action to sustain the plot.
Kevin Bacon was an interesting choice for the villain. He did a good job, although watching him strut around I kept expecting him to break into dance at any moment. Another issue I had was that some of the supporting characters were basically throwaway as I cared little about their stories and outcomes. Only the characters of Raven, Eric, and Charles held any real interest for me and watching their interplay with one another was one of the strong points of the film.
As the film move toward the finale there were several things about it that did not work for me starting with the makeup for The Beast. Complete with spectacles it was almost a laughable look that brought to mind Jason Bateman in “Teen Wolf 2“. The fact that the character was annoying as well did very little to help.
The biggest issue I had with the film was that after all this buildup the finale was actually very ho-hum and while it did contain some visually nice moments, I do not feel the action balanced with the storytelling, certainly not to the extent that audiences expect from nor require of a summer blockbuster.
There are a couple of moments in the film that will certainly be questioned by fans of the series as well as scenes which conflict with information from the earlier films in the series. It seems certain elements of continuity have been omitted for creative license. I will not spoil those here but suffice it to say that if my wife, who is a casual fan of the series, was able to note conflicts and discrepancies between this film and a previous film, then certainly hard-core fans may have some real issues.
The film does a good job with explaining the origin and nature of the characters, but fails to provide an adventure worthy of the effort and instead plays out in a very underwhelming fashion. Director Matthew Vaughn proved himself highly adept with adventure films when he produced “Kick Ass“, and other action-oriented films. He is clearly a fan of comics and action and I would love to have seen what could’ve resulted had he been given carte blanche with the film.
In the end, “X-Men: First Class“, for me was more entertaining than the previous ensemble films, but fails to live up to its potential and severely lacks enough action to sustain the early momentum of the film.
Then 20th Century Fox decided to tell a team-based origin story that focuses on the early days of the X-Men and how they became the team that they are today. This is a bit of a controversial move as it involves recasting several roles to play younger versions of beloved characters.
The result is X-Men: First Class which stars Scottish actor James McAvoy as Charles Xavier, a brilliant young academic who hides his unique and amazing telepathic gifts from the world. When a chance encounter proves to Charles that there are others in the world who share his gifts he dedicates his studies to unlocking the mysteries of genetic mutations and their possibilities.
At the same time a young man named Eric Lehnsherr (Michael Fassbender), has embarked on a path of destruction and revenge against those who wronged and tormented him and his family during the Nazi occupation of their native Poland. Eric’s main target is man who now calls himself Sebastian Shaw (Kevin Bacon), who has surrounded himself with a team of skilled mutants and is manipulating US and Russia to the brink of nuclear war, for his own evil purposes.
When CIA Agent MacTaggart (Rose Byrne), learns of Shaw’s plans, she recruits Xavier, not knowing that he and his friend Raven (Jennifer Lawrence) are mutants themselves, with the hopes of understanding their new enemy and mounting a proper defense.
When the truth of his true nature is revealed, Charles teems with MacTaggart and scientist Hank McCoy (Nicholas Hoult), to locate and recruit other gifted individuals to their cause. Fate steps in when Erik and Charles meet and eventually become friends over there mutual pursuit of Shaw. Despite a great deal of understanding between the two individuals, Eric is intent upon killing Shaw. He warns his new friend not to trust humans, as his time under Nazi control taught him that it’s only a matter of time until he and his fellow mutants are targeted for extinction by the world. Despite this the Eric and Charles recruit and train a team to prepare to face Shaw and his followers, with the fate of the world hanging in the balance.
The film starts off well and it was very enjoyable to see a deeper side of the characters. From young Charles hitting on women in bars and making jokes about losing his full head of hair to the deadly side of Eric and his abilities as well as the early relationship between the iconic characters. Somewhere along the way the film loses its initial momentum as the plot of the film takes a while to get going. As good as the cast is, they need something to do and after numerous debates and a few training and recruitment segments the film became somewhat boring. There simply was not a lot of action to sustain the plot.
Kevin Bacon was an interesting choice for the villain. He did a good job, although watching him strut around I kept expecting him to break into dance at any moment. Another issue I had was that some of the supporting characters were basically throwaway as I cared little about their stories and outcomes. Only the characters of Raven, Eric, and Charles held any real interest for me and watching their interplay with one another was one of the strong points of the film.
As the film move toward the finale there were several things about it that did not work for me starting with the makeup for The Beast. Complete with spectacles it was almost a laughable look that brought to mind Jason Bateman in “Teen Wolf 2“. The fact that the character was annoying as well did very little to help.
The biggest issue I had with the film was that after all this buildup the finale was actually very ho-hum and while it did contain some visually nice moments, I do not feel the action balanced with the storytelling, certainly not to the extent that audiences expect from nor require of a summer blockbuster.
There are a couple of moments in the film that will certainly be questioned by fans of the series as well as scenes which conflict with information from the earlier films in the series. It seems certain elements of continuity have been omitted for creative license. I will not spoil those here but suffice it to say that if my wife, who is a casual fan of the series, was able to note conflicts and discrepancies between this film and a previous film, then certainly hard-core fans may have some real issues.
The film does a good job with explaining the origin and nature of the characters, but fails to provide an adventure worthy of the effort and instead plays out in a very underwhelming fashion. Director Matthew Vaughn proved himself highly adept with adventure films when he produced “Kick Ass“, and other action-oriented films. He is clearly a fan of comics and action and I would love to have seen what could’ve resulted had he been given carte blanche with the film.
In the end, “X-Men: First Class“, for me was more entertaining than the previous ensemble films, but fails to live up to its potential and severely lacks enough action to sustain the early momentum of the film.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated T2 Trainspotting (2017) in Movies
Jul 12, 2019
The first time I saw Trainspotting was my senior year of high school. At the time, I knew that I wanted to get involved in film, and I really did for about ¾ of a year after I graduated. I looked at movies for their artistry and cinematography even at a young age. I was a band geek, so music was also things I would love about movies. I was deep for a 17-year-old, or so I thought any way. But I explain this to you so you don’t think that I loved this movie simply because of the drug use or humor it presented. I have always been of the mind to find something I like about a movie, watch it for what it is, and try to just find the enjoyment value (I know, weird coming from a film reviewer). I didn’t even have to try for Trainspotting. It was the complete package, and ground breaking. It also introduced me to Ewan McGregor, who is one of my favorite actors. I loved the movie so much, I bought Irvine Welsh’s book that the movie was based on of the same title, Trainspotting, which I highly recommend simply for the fact that it’s written in phonetic Scottish. I never picked up Porno, the literary sequel to Trainspotting, but I hear it is bizarre and will need to pick it up, but not because of this movie. I’ll explain in a moment.
Naturally, when the announcement was made for a second Trainspotting movie, I was both excited and terrified at the same time. The first was so good, why did Hollywood need to ruin it with a sequel that has a bigger budget. What was promising was that it was announced that the entire cast of characters (that survived from the first film) would be back, including Diane (Kelly MacDonald). But it’s been 20 years. Typically, when you see sequels come out even after only 10 years, the whole film seems a contrite, forced replication of the first. Hell, look at all the criticism for the Hangover films being exactly that, and they were only a few years apart. Whether the script feels forced just for the sake of a sequel, or the actors are trying too hard to be the character they played many years prior, it never quite works. So, as we neared the release date, I was getting more and more weary of seeing the film. Then, the trailer dropped.
Damn the trailer looked good. And I will tell you, the movie did not fall into the trap of forced sequels. The main cast came back and played the characters perfectly. Not as they were, but as the people they grew to be over the 20-year period. The plot was fun and pointless, with all of the same charm as its predecessor. I saw the movie with fellow SKNR staffer Joshua Aja, and we had a pretty good conversation following the film. We both came to the same conclusion, that neither of us could remember the last time we saw a film that just that good.
So now to the actual meat of the review itself. What was the movie about? Well, I won’t give away too much, but I will give you a quick recap of the events leading up to this film. Basically, do you remember the end of Trainspotting? Renton (Ewan McGregor), Spud (Ewen Bremner), Sick Boy (Jonny Lee Miller), and Begbie (Robert Carlyle) had successfully pulled off a heist, and Renton was making off with the money while everyone slept, except Spud of course who saw Renton leaving but didn’t say anything. As a result, Renton left Spud’s share of the cash for him in a locker. Okay; all caught up.
T2 Trainspotting picks up 20 years later. Renton comes back to Scotland because his mother passed away, he ends up reuniting with Spud, and eventually Sick Boy, who we now know by his real name, Simon. Begbie is in prison because, well… he’s Begbie, but he doesn’t stay there long. Tempers fly, old feelings flare, and not every reunited moment is met with glee. But soon enough, Renton, Simon and Spud are drawn into old habits, though not old drugs, and start to build money up to open a ‘sauna’ (read: undercover brothel) for Simon’s girlfriend, Veronika (Angela Nedyalkova). It’s not long before Begbie shows up and starts mucking things up leading to a suspenseful conclusion between Renton, Simon and Begbie.
That’s all I can say. There was an excellent use of the history from the first film, and of course we get another fantastic ‘Choose Life’ speech from Renton. The soundtrack, while not quite as good as the first, still holds its own very well. And be sure to look for the Bowie tribute, since it was he who helped Danny Boyle obtain a lot of music rights on the cheap for the first film. And, you will find Spud’s writings throughout the movie to be lifted, verbatim, from the Trainspotting by Irvine Welsh. But what’s interesting, is that there is not a lot that relates this film to the literary sequel, Porno. Much of the plot of this film is taken from, or at least inspired by, parts of the book that were not used in the first film. That combined with some new writing and storytelling from Irvine Welsh and John Hodge.
Bottom line: if you liked the Trainspotting even in the slightest, you will absolutely enjoy T2 Trainspotting. A phenomenal job by cast, crew, and writers, and an excellent soundtrack will leave you wanting a trilogy. This is only the third film I have given a perfect score to in my 7 years of reviewing films, and it is well deserved. Go see this movie.
Naturally, when the announcement was made for a second Trainspotting movie, I was both excited and terrified at the same time. The first was so good, why did Hollywood need to ruin it with a sequel that has a bigger budget. What was promising was that it was announced that the entire cast of characters (that survived from the first film) would be back, including Diane (Kelly MacDonald). But it’s been 20 years. Typically, when you see sequels come out even after only 10 years, the whole film seems a contrite, forced replication of the first. Hell, look at all the criticism for the Hangover films being exactly that, and they were only a few years apart. Whether the script feels forced just for the sake of a sequel, or the actors are trying too hard to be the character they played many years prior, it never quite works. So, as we neared the release date, I was getting more and more weary of seeing the film. Then, the trailer dropped.
Damn the trailer looked good. And I will tell you, the movie did not fall into the trap of forced sequels. The main cast came back and played the characters perfectly. Not as they were, but as the people they grew to be over the 20-year period. The plot was fun and pointless, with all of the same charm as its predecessor. I saw the movie with fellow SKNR staffer Joshua Aja, and we had a pretty good conversation following the film. We both came to the same conclusion, that neither of us could remember the last time we saw a film that just that good.
So now to the actual meat of the review itself. What was the movie about? Well, I won’t give away too much, but I will give you a quick recap of the events leading up to this film. Basically, do you remember the end of Trainspotting? Renton (Ewan McGregor), Spud (Ewen Bremner), Sick Boy (Jonny Lee Miller), and Begbie (Robert Carlyle) had successfully pulled off a heist, and Renton was making off with the money while everyone slept, except Spud of course who saw Renton leaving but didn’t say anything. As a result, Renton left Spud’s share of the cash for him in a locker. Okay; all caught up.
T2 Trainspotting picks up 20 years later. Renton comes back to Scotland because his mother passed away, he ends up reuniting with Spud, and eventually Sick Boy, who we now know by his real name, Simon. Begbie is in prison because, well… he’s Begbie, but he doesn’t stay there long. Tempers fly, old feelings flare, and not every reunited moment is met with glee. But soon enough, Renton, Simon and Spud are drawn into old habits, though not old drugs, and start to build money up to open a ‘sauna’ (read: undercover brothel) for Simon’s girlfriend, Veronika (Angela Nedyalkova). It’s not long before Begbie shows up and starts mucking things up leading to a suspenseful conclusion between Renton, Simon and Begbie.
That’s all I can say. There was an excellent use of the history from the first film, and of course we get another fantastic ‘Choose Life’ speech from Renton. The soundtrack, while not quite as good as the first, still holds its own very well. And be sure to look for the Bowie tribute, since it was he who helped Danny Boyle obtain a lot of music rights on the cheap for the first film. And, you will find Spud’s writings throughout the movie to be lifted, verbatim, from the Trainspotting by Irvine Welsh. But what’s interesting, is that there is not a lot that relates this film to the literary sequel, Porno. Much of the plot of this film is taken from, or at least inspired by, parts of the book that were not used in the first film. That combined with some new writing and storytelling from Irvine Welsh and John Hodge.
Bottom line: if you liked the Trainspotting even in the slightest, you will absolutely enjoy T2 Trainspotting. A phenomenal job by cast, crew, and writers, and an excellent soundtrack will leave you wanting a trilogy. This is only the third film I have given a perfect score to in my 7 years of reviewing films, and it is well deserved. Go see this movie.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Dolittle (2020) in Movies
Feb 23, 2020
A complete mess, but kids will probably love it.
With the words of Mark Kermode's review ringing in my ears ("It's shockingly poor... and that's the same in any language") I was bracing myself when I went to see this latest incarnation of Hugh Lofting's famous animal-chatting character. And I have to agree that it is a shocking mess of a film, given $175 million was poured into this thing. But, and I say this cautiously without first-hand empirical evidence, I *think* this is a movie that kids in the 6 to 10 age range might fall in love with.
Doctor Doolittle (Robert Downey Jnr) - famed animal doctor, with the unique ability to communicate with any animal - is now holed up in his animal sanctuary, a recluse. His beloved wife - adventurer Lily - was lost at sea (in a cartoon sequence that could have just used the same clip from "Frozen"). He's lost the will to practice; and almost lost the will to live.
Impinging on his morose life come two humans: Tommy Stubbings (Harry Collett), a reluctant hunter with a wounded squirrel, and Lady Rose (Carmel Laniado), daughter of the Queen of England. (We'll quietly ignore the coincidence that, after what looks like several years of mourning, these two independently pitch up at Chez Doolittle within ten minutes of each other!).
For the Queen (the omnipresent Jessie Buckley) is dying, and noone (other than us viewers, let in on the deal) suspect foul play might be at work in the form of Lord Thomas Badgley (the ever-reliable Jim Broadbent) and the Queen's old leech-loving doctor Blair Müdfly (a moustache-twiddling Michael Sheen).
Doolittle must engage in a perilous journey to find the only cure that will save both the Queen and his animal sanctuary - the fruit of the tree on a missing island that his long lost love was searching for.
Let's start with the most obvious point first up. Robert Downey Jnr's Welsh accent is quite the most terrible, most preposterous, most unintelligible, most offensive (to the Welsh) attempt at an accent in a mainstream film in movie history. And that's really saying something when you have Laurence Olivier's Jewish father from "The Jazz Singer" and Russell Crowe's English cum Irish cum Scottish cum Yugoslavian "Robin Hood" in the list. Why? Just why? Was it to distance this version from Rex Harrison's? (Since most younger movie goers will be going "Rex who?" at this point, this seems unlikely). It's a wholly curious decision.
It turns RDj's presence in the movie from being an asset to a liability.
The movie has had a tortuous history. Filmed in 2018 at enormous expense, the film completely bombed at test screenings so they brought in more script writers to make it funnier and did extensive additional filming.
I actually disagree with the general view that the film is unfunny. For there are a few points in the movie where I laughed out loud. A fly's miraculous, if temporary, escape was one such moment. The duck laying an egg in fright, another.
However, these seem to stand out starkly in isolation as 'the funny bits they inserted'. Much of the rest of the movie's comedy falls painfully flat.
In terms of the acting, there are the obvious visual talents on show of Michael Sheen (doing a great English accent for a Welshman.... #irony), Jim Broadbent, Jessie Buckley, Joanna Page (blink and you'll miss her) and Antonio Banderas, as the swashbuckling pirate king cum father-in-law.
But the end titles are an amazing array of "Ah!" moments as the vocal performances are revealed: Emma Thompson as the parrot; Rami Malek as the gorilla; John Cena as the polar bear; Kumail Nanjiani at the ostrich; Octavia Spencer at the duck; Tom Holland as the dog; Selena Gomez as the giraffe; Marion Cotillade as the fox, Frances de la Tour as a flatulent dragon and Ralph Fiennes as an evil tiger with mummy issues. It's a gift for future contestants on "Pointless"!
There are a lot of poe-faced critics throwing brick-bats at this movie, and to a degree it's deserved. They lavished $175 million on it, and it looked like it was going to be a thumping loss. (However, against all the odds, at the time of writing it has grossed north of $184 million. And it only opened yesterday in China. So although not stellar in the world of blockbuster movies it's not going to be a studio-killer like "Heaven's Gate").
And I suspect there's a good reason for that latent salvation. I think kids are loving this movie, driving repeat viewings and unexpected word of mouth. It is certainly a family friendly experience. There are no truly terrifying scenes that will haunt young children. A dragon-induced death, not seen on screen, is - notwithstanding the intro Frozen-esque cartoon sequence - the only obvious one in the movie and is (as above) played for laughs. There are fantastical sets and landscapes. Performing whales. A happy-ending (albeit not the one I was cynically expecting). And an extended dragon-farting scene, and what kids are not going to love that!!
Directed by Stephen Gaghan ("Syriana", but better known as a writer than a director) it's a jumbled messy bear of a movie but is in no way an unpleasant watch. I would take a grandkid along to watch this again. It even has some nuggets of gold hidden within its matted coat.
As this is primarily one for the kids, I'm giving the movie two ratings: 4/10 for adults and 8/10 for kids... the Smashbomb rating is the mean of these.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review on One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/22/doolittle-2019/ . Thanks).
Doctor Doolittle (Robert Downey Jnr) - famed animal doctor, with the unique ability to communicate with any animal - is now holed up in his animal sanctuary, a recluse. His beloved wife - adventurer Lily - was lost at sea (in a cartoon sequence that could have just used the same clip from "Frozen"). He's lost the will to practice; and almost lost the will to live.
Impinging on his morose life come two humans: Tommy Stubbings (Harry Collett), a reluctant hunter with a wounded squirrel, and Lady Rose (Carmel Laniado), daughter of the Queen of England. (We'll quietly ignore the coincidence that, after what looks like several years of mourning, these two independently pitch up at Chez Doolittle within ten minutes of each other!).
For the Queen (the omnipresent Jessie Buckley) is dying, and noone (other than us viewers, let in on the deal) suspect foul play might be at work in the form of Lord Thomas Badgley (the ever-reliable Jim Broadbent) and the Queen's old leech-loving doctor Blair Müdfly (a moustache-twiddling Michael Sheen).
Doolittle must engage in a perilous journey to find the only cure that will save both the Queen and his animal sanctuary - the fruit of the tree on a missing island that his long lost love was searching for.
Let's start with the most obvious point first up. Robert Downey Jnr's Welsh accent is quite the most terrible, most preposterous, most unintelligible, most offensive (to the Welsh) attempt at an accent in a mainstream film in movie history. And that's really saying something when you have Laurence Olivier's Jewish father from "The Jazz Singer" and Russell Crowe's English cum Irish cum Scottish cum Yugoslavian "Robin Hood" in the list. Why? Just why? Was it to distance this version from Rex Harrison's? (Since most younger movie goers will be going "Rex who?" at this point, this seems unlikely). It's a wholly curious decision.
It turns RDj's presence in the movie from being an asset to a liability.
The movie has had a tortuous history. Filmed in 2018 at enormous expense, the film completely bombed at test screenings so they brought in more script writers to make it funnier and did extensive additional filming.
I actually disagree with the general view that the film is unfunny. For there are a few points in the movie where I laughed out loud. A fly's miraculous, if temporary, escape was one such moment. The duck laying an egg in fright, another.
However, these seem to stand out starkly in isolation as 'the funny bits they inserted'. Much of the rest of the movie's comedy falls painfully flat.
In terms of the acting, there are the obvious visual talents on show of Michael Sheen (doing a great English accent for a Welshman.... #irony), Jim Broadbent, Jessie Buckley, Joanna Page (blink and you'll miss her) and Antonio Banderas, as the swashbuckling pirate king cum father-in-law.
But the end titles are an amazing array of "Ah!" moments as the vocal performances are revealed: Emma Thompson as the parrot; Rami Malek as the gorilla; John Cena as the polar bear; Kumail Nanjiani at the ostrich; Octavia Spencer at the duck; Tom Holland as the dog; Selena Gomez as the giraffe; Marion Cotillade as the fox, Frances de la Tour as a flatulent dragon and Ralph Fiennes as an evil tiger with mummy issues. It's a gift for future contestants on "Pointless"!
There are a lot of poe-faced critics throwing brick-bats at this movie, and to a degree it's deserved. They lavished $175 million on it, and it looked like it was going to be a thumping loss. (However, against all the odds, at the time of writing it has grossed north of $184 million. And it only opened yesterday in China. So although not stellar in the world of blockbuster movies it's not going to be a studio-killer like "Heaven's Gate").
And I suspect there's a good reason for that latent salvation. I think kids are loving this movie, driving repeat viewings and unexpected word of mouth. It is certainly a family friendly experience. There are no truly terrifying scenes that will haunt young children. A dragon-induced death, not seen on screen, is - notwithstanding the intro Frozen-esque cartoon sequence - the only obvious one in the movie and is (as above) played for laughs. There are fantastical sets and landscapes. Performing whales. A happy-ending (albeit not the one I was cynically expecting). And an extended dragon-farting scene, and what kids are not going to love that!!
Directed by Stephen Gaghan ("Syriana", but better known as a writer than a director) it's a jumbled messy bear of a movie but is in no way an unpleasant watch. I would take a grandkid along to watch this again. It even has some nuggets of gold hidden within its matted coat.
As this is primarily one for the kids, I'm giving the movie two ratings: 4/10 for adults and 8/10 for kids... the Smashbomb rating is the mean of these.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review on One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/22/doolittle-2019/ . Thanks).
Eilidh G Clark (177 KP) rated The Panopticon in Books
May 13, 2017
This is my all time favouurite book.
Jenny Fagan stated in an interview in 2013 that prior to writing the novel The Panopticon (2012) she had one question, ‘is it possible to achieve autonomy?’ Fagan explores this question throughout her novel with the character of Anais Hendrix. I would also suggest that the author is metaphorically exploring whether Scotland can achieve autonomy as an independent nation. Autonomy, in relation to the individual, is self-governance- or being able to decide for oneself
At the beginning of the novel, the fifteen-year old Anais is governed by the state. In contemporary British society, a child under the age of sixteen, regardless of her social situation is, by law, governed by an adult/s. Anais has lived her life in the care system with the exception of a short period in which she lived with an adopted mother. It is for this reason that she is able to see society from outside of the family unit. By creating the motherless child, Fagan presents Anais as the ‘other’ from both a societal perspective- ‘communities dinnae like no-ones,’ and from the viewpoint of the protagonist, ‘What they really want is me dead,’ (TP, p.23). Without a family, and through a lack of legitimate information regarding her birth mother, Anais believes that she was created in a lab:
I’M AN experiment. I always have been, It’s a given, a liberty, a fact. They watch me. Not just in school or social-work reviews, courts or police cells – they watch everywhere. […] They’re there when I stare too long or too clearly, without flinching. […] They watch me, I know it, and I can’t find anywhere any more – where they can’t see, (TP, Prologue).
Note that in the above quotation, the protagonist describes her assumed identity as a ‘liberty’. Liberty, in this case, means freedom from the oppressive nature of the family. Although Anais desires the nurturing aspect of the family, ‘I just want my mum,’ (Tp, p.269), her lack of family exposes her to the nature of contemporary society as a constant monitoring of civilians. In the above quotation, the repetition of ‘they’ suggests that she feels outside of the norm. The most important aspect of the above quote however, is that it is told from the protagonist’s thoughts. While Fagan gives Anais a certain amount of autonomy through both the first-person narrator, and the vernacular, the reliability of the narrator is increased by presenting the characters inner thoughts. While this limited autonomy is important, full autonomy is restricted by age. Bever suggests that ‘the capacity for individuals to become autonomous seems radically dependent on the contingent historical circumstances and societies into which they are born. Anais’ awareness of herself as the ‘other’ allows her an insight into the oppressive role of society, which is normally hindered in childhood due to the role of the family and it’s teaching of norms and values.
The sense of otherness can also be looked at in regard to Scotland and its role within the UK. The UK is a family of four countries under one state. Regardless of Scotland’s devolution, it has still to comply with a large amount of UK policies. Scotland has different values and goals to that of the UK making it ‘other’. With a different cultural identity to its neighbours, many Scottish citizens are seeking independence to protect its dwindling identity, whilst for others, independence is political.
Anais’ awareness of social control causes her a feeling of shrinking. This, according to her social workers is an identity problem:
Fifty odd moves, three different names, born in a nuthouse to a nobody that was never seen again. Identity problem? I dinnae have an identity problem – I dinnae have an identity, (TP, p.99).
Anais’ reaction in the above statement describes her lack of knowledge of her ancestry. I would argue that her identity is forced upon her from the fifty-one times that she has moved home, the care system, the solitary time in which she was adopted, the relationships she has had - both female and male, her friends but more importantly, from the unreliable account of her birth from the monk in the metal institution. The lack of family does not alter the fact that she is alive, and that all the fragments of her past make up an identity. For Anais, ‘Families are overrated […] ‘I umnay fooled. Not by families,’(TP, p.63-64). Like Anais, Scotland’s identity is ambiguous. Independence will allow Scotland political autonomy, however, within a global economy, Scotland still has limited autonomy. As culturally ‘other’ however, Scotland has already achieved autonomy with or without a state through its language, its people and its traditions.
Fagan demonstrates the difficulty of total autonomy though Anais and the birthday game, a game in which she creates her own identity. When she turns sixteen years of age, Anais is free from societal care and flees from her imprisonment, ‘I am Frances Jones from Paris. I am not a face on a missing-person poster, I am not a number or a statistic in a file. I have no-one watching me, […] I−begin today,’ (TP, p.323-324). ‘I’ suggests singularity and is still opposite to ‘them’ or ‘we’. Autonomy is therefore, ambiguous; Anais is still living within the same system under a false identity, she is therefore, segregated from everyone that she knows. Moreover, by changing Anais’ name to a name that ‘means freedom.’ (TP, p.323), Fagan is pointing out the difference between freedom and autonomy. Freedom is an emotive word, and there are two concepts of freedom – freedom from, which in Anais’ situation means freedom from the system of observation. Freedom to, however, is more problematic as Anais can never be free from the neoliberal system of rules and law – as Scotland would see in the case of independence. I would therefore conclude that Anais/Scotland has always has limited autonomy through cultural identity and history. I believe autonomy can only reside within the system through cultural and individual imagination and not out with it.
What does this mean for Scotland? If Scotland is part of the global community, can it become an autonomous nation? Is there a solution or should Anais/Scotland accept that cultural autonomy is imagined or self-contained. Can a collective identity and imagination change the political system? Finally, can culture survive without independence?
Bibliography
Crupp, Tyler, ‘Autonomy and Contemporary Political Theory’, in Encyclopaedia of Political Theory, ed. Mark Bevor (London: Sage Publications, 2010)
Fagan, Jenni, The Panopticon (London: Windmill Books, 2013), p.6.
Windmill Books. (2013). Granta Best Young British Novelist Jenni Fagan, . accessed 22 November 2015. Published on Apr 16, 2013
At the beginning of the novel, the fifteen-year old Anais is governed by the state. In contemporary British society, a child under the age of sixteen, regardless of her social situation is, by law, governed by an adult/s. Anais has lived her life in the care system with the exception of a short period in which she lived with an adopted mother. It is for this reason that she is able to see society from outside of the family unit. By creating the motherless child, Fagan presents Anais as the ‘other’ from both a societal perspective- ‘communities dinnae like no-ones,’ and from the viewpoint of the protagonist, ‘What they really want is me dead,’ (TP, p.23). Without a family, and through a lack of legitimate information regarding her birth mother, Anais believes that she was created in a lab:
I’M AN experiment. I always have been, It’s a given, a liberty, a fact. They watch me. Not just in school or social-work reviews, courts or police cells – they watch everywhere. […] They’re there when I stare too long or too clearly, without flinching. […] They watch me, I know it, and I can’t find anywhere any more – where they can’t see, (TP, Prologue).
Note that in the above quotation, the protagonist describes her assumed identity as a ‘liberty’. Liberty, in this case, means freedom from the oppressive nature of the family. Although Anais desires the nurturing aspect of the family, ‘I just want my mum,’ (Tp, p.269), her lack of family exposes her to the nature of contemporary society as a constant monitoring of civilians. In the above quotation, the repetition of ‘they’ suggests that she feels outside of the norm. The most important aspect of the above quote however, is that it is told from the protagonist’s thoughts. While Fagan gives Anais a certain amount of autonomy through both the first-person narrator, and the vernacular, the reliability of the narrator is increased by presenting the characters inner thoughts. While this limited autonomy is important, full autonomy is restricted by age. Bever suggests that ‘the capacity for individuals to become autonomous seems radically dependent on the contingent historical circumstances and societies into which they are born. Anais’ awareness of herself as the ‘other’ allows her an insight into the oppressive role of society, which is normally hindered in childhood due to the role of the family and it’s teaching of norms and values.
The sense of otherness can also be looked at in regard to Scotland and its role within the UK. The UK is a family of four countries under one state. Regardless of Scotland’s devolution, it has still to comply with a large amount of UK policies. Scotland has different values and goals to that of the UK making it ‘other’. With a different cultural identity to its neighbours, many Scottish citizens are seeking independence to protect its dwindling identity, whilst for others, independence is political.
Anais’ awareness of social control causes her a feeling of shrinking. This, according to her social workers is an identity problem:
Fifty odd moves, three different names, born in a nuthouse to a nobody that was never seen again. Identity problem? I dinnae have an identity problem – I dinnae have an identity, (TP, p.99).
Anais’ reaction in the above statement describes her lack of knowledge of her ancestry. I would argue that her identity is forced upon her from the fifty-one times that she has moved home, the care system, the solitary time in which she was adopted, the relationships she has had - both female and male, her friends but more importantly, from the unreliable account of her birth from the monk in the metal institution. The lack of family does not alter the fact that she is alive, and that all the fragments of her past make up an identity. For Anais, ‘Families are overrated […] ‘I umnay fooled. Not by families,’(TP, p.63-64). Like Anais, Scotland’s identity is ambiguous. Independence will allow Scotland political autonomy, however, within a global economy, Scotland still has limited autonomy. As culturally ‘other’ however, Scotland has already achieved autonomy with or without a state through its language, its people and its traditions.
Fagan demonstrates the difficulty of total autonomy though Anais and the birthday game, a game in which she creates her own identity. When she turns sixteen years of age, Anais is free from societal care and flees from her imprisonment, ‘I am Frances Jones from Paris. I am not a face on a missing-person poster, I am not a number or a statistic in a file. I have no-one watching me, […] I−begin today,’ (TP, p.323-324). ‘I’ suggests singularity and is still opposite to ‘them’ or ‘we’. Autonomy is therefore, ambiguous; Anais is still living within the same system under a false identity, she is therefore, segregated from everyone that she knows. Moreover, by changing Anais’ name to a name that ‘means freedom.’ (TP, p.323), Fagan is pointing out the difference between freedom and autonomy. Freedom is an emotive word, and there are two concepts of freedom – freedom from, which in Anais’ situation means freedom from the system of observation. Freedom to, however, is more problematic as Anais can never be free from the neoliberal system of rules and law – as Scotland would see in the case of independence. I would therefore conclude that Anais/Scotland has always has limited autonomy through cultural identity and history. I believe autonomy can only reside within the system through cultural and individual imagination and not out with it.
What does this mean for Scotland? If Scotland is part of the global community, can it become an autonomous nation? Is there a solution or should Anais/Scotland accept that cultural autonomy is imagined or self-contained. Can a collective identity and imagination change the political system? Finally, can culture survive without independence?
Bibliography
Crupp, Tyler, ‘Autonomy and Contemporary Political Theory’, in Encyclopaedia of Political Theory, ed. Mark Bevor (London: Sage Publications, 2010)
Fagan, Jenni, The Panopticon (London: Windmill Books, 2013), p.6.
Windmill Books. (2013). Granta Best Young British Novelist Jenni Fagan, . accessed 22 November 2015. Published on Apr 16, 2013
Versusyours (757 KP) rated The Karate Kid, Part III (1989) in Movies
Nov 7, 2019 (Updated Nov 7, 2019)
War on bonsai and sporting decency
Contains spoilers, click to show
I remember this film from a trip to the cinema on its release in 1989 and I recall fly kicking my way out of the cinema and into the mean Scottish streets. I am now at an age where fly kicking would be an effort in itself I decided to review it from my older and more critical eye.
It begins with a return to Part 1 to re-establish the bad blood Daniel (Ralph Macchio) and his aging sidekick Mr Miyagi (Pat Morita) have with John “I saw things in Vietnam” Kreese. This part I couldn’t let slide with me this viewing as the attempted punches by Kreese to contact Mr. Miyagi were as expected as Xmas day falling on the 25th of December each year. One failed attempt was followed by the same type of punch and the same outcome of bloody and smashed knuckles and an insurance claim for the car owners. After this we return to the present and a skulking and hobo like Kreese seeks the refuge of his ponytailed, rich and so 80s stereotyped “you know he is evil due to his involvement in toxic waste” comrade from the past Terry Silver.
Possibly due to giving him his shampoo and conditioner in Vietnam to maintain his ponytail or his heroics in battle, this remains unknown at this time.
What about Daniel and Miyagi you may ask well they are in for an unwelcome surprise when the housing complex they live in has been earmarked for redevelopment. To make matters worse unbeknown to Daniel his Uncle is ill and his mum must have been too busy with this to let Daniel know he is homeless as well as heartbroken after his holiday romance turned sour. Great use of a sentence to end a previous films love interest and subsequent relationship, one of films greatest tricks. At least he has a wad of money for college in his pocket to repair his broken heart. Spoiler alert neither the wad of money and the broken heart are the same for long.
So as it stands not much karate from Daniel but the use of Mr. Miyagi’s subtle use of Daniel as a glorified maid still exists as they branch out in the cutting world of Bonsai. Remember that college money well now its rent and utilities money after luckily realising there are no more Bonsai shops in the street and even luckier there is a pottery shop with a young lady for Daniel to obsess over and fight for her honour as he shows a propensity for in the previous films. The fact that she has a boyfriend only spurs Daniel on like the initial film in the series and makes her more desirable in his lusting eyes.
Enter the 80s Dragon it a supped up Zach Morris Karate Bad Boy, Mike Barnes who is wearing black to dictate his evil intentions. This guy could spell trouble for Daniel as he has links to Silver and thus the plot to ruin Daniels life and happiness for winning a local karate competition the year before takes seed. As someone who has played sports the format of the All Valley Karate Championship, which has been inexplicably changes to allow the defending Champion to only fight in the final where his battle wary and exhausted opponent will be easy prey for a crane kicking Daniel, makes no sense. Maybe Daniel is sick of being typecast as The Karate Kid but this area of the story annoyed me more than a grown man should as initially Daniel can’t even be bothered to sign up for this one fight but after some lying and coercion and some innocent Bonsai paying the price for The Karateless Kid.
More pressure from Barnes and his goons and more Bonsai casualties before Daniel and Mr. Miyagi are split between the tournament and after Daniel decided he will fight that 10 minutes if his life for another sweet trophy. With his training regime disguised as housework and child labour now running low, Miyagi wont train Daniel and thus pushing him into Silvers ponytailed clutches. The once meek and defensive Daniel learns that attack is more effective than Miyagi’s training and with another wooden victim (a repeating plot line in this film) being pummelled and the wax punched off it, Daniel is ready to be the badass he always threatened to be. A night out ends in a broken nose of a Silver bribed punk, Daniel questions who he has become and changes his mind about the tournament once more, only for Silver to admit his true intentions to ruin Daniel as a human being and to avenge John Kreese who is not dead as first explained but high on revenge and the smoking of broken kids karate trophies. They give the new and improved Daniel a beating until appearance of Mr. Miyagi, who may or may not be stalking Daniel, who uses his small but deadly side step and legs to defeat the 3 grown men with ease. There is nothing like a good beating to mend a relationship and together the Bonsai Brothers are back and for the umpteenth time Daniel IS going to defend his title and we all hoped that Barnes would make it through the many rounds to get to the final. Hollywood prevails and after relaxing and watching his potential opponents tiring and having their face smashed in, Daniel like and later day Elvis gets on the stage for a quick round of his greatest hits. In Karate Kid tradition Daniel is good and Cobra Kai are bad, he has honour they are sneaky, they will cheat Daniel wont. Daniel wins as usual and takes his hollow victory and Cobra Kai is no more or until the invention of YouTube at least.
Overall this film fondly remembered until I watched it again. The lack of new ideas left me disappointed and broken like the cliff Bonsai and like that tree I will heal and grow but I will be left with the scars of the better and simple life I used to live. The inclusion of Glen Medeiros on the soundtrack was almost enough to save it and keep it respectable but alas it was not to be, this film is the 80s ponytail of memories; best left cut off.
It begins with a return to Part 1 to re-establish the bad blood Daniel (Ralph Macchio) and his aging sidekick Mr Miyagi (Pat Morita) have with John “I saw things in Vietnam” Kreese. This part I couldn’t let slide with me this viewing as the attempted punches by Kreese to contact Mr. Miyagi were as expected as Xmas day falling on the 25th of December each year. One failed attempt was followed by the same type of punch and the same outcome of bloody and smashed knuckles and an insurance claim for the car owners. After this we return to the present and a skulking and hobo like Kreese seeks the refuge of his ponytailed, rich and so 80s stereotyped “you know he is evil due to his involvement in toxic waste” comrade from the past Terry Silver.
Possibly due to giving him his shampoo and conditioner in Vietnam to maintain his ponytail or his heroics in battle, this remains unknown at this time.
What about Daniel and Miyagi you may ask well they are in for an unwelcome surprise when the housing complex they live in has been earmarked for redevelopment. To make matters worse unbeknown to Daniel his Uncle is ill and his mum must have been too busy with this to let Daniel know he is homeless as well as heartbroken after his holiday romance turned sour. Great use of a sentence to end a previous films love interest and subsequent relationship, one of films greatest tricks. At least he has a wad of money for college in his pocket to repair his broken heart. Spoiler alert neither the wad of money and the broken heart are the same for long.
So as it stands not much karate from Daniel but the use of Mr. Miyagi’s subtle use of Daniel as a glorified maid still exists as they branch out in the cutting world of Bonsai. Remember that college money well now its rent and utilities money after luckily realising there are no more Bonsai shops in the street and even luckier there is a pottery shop with a young lady for Daniel to obsess over and fight for her honour as he shows a propensity for in the previous films. The fact that she has a boyfriend only spurs Daniel on like the initial film in the series and makes her more desirable in his lusting eyes.
Enter the 80s Dragon it a supped up Zach Morris Karate Bad Boy, Mike Barnes who is wearing black to dictate his evil intentions. This guy could spell trouble for Daniel as he has links to Silver and thus the plot to ruin Daniels life and happiness for winning a local karate competition the year before takes seed. As someone who has played sports the format of the All Valley Karate Championship, which has been inexplicably changes to allow the defending Champion to only fight in the final where his battle wary and exhausted opponent will be easy prey for a crane kicking Daniel, makes no sense. Maybe Daniel is sick of being typecast as The Karate Kid but this area of the story annoyed me more than a grown man should as initially Daniel can’t even be bothered to sign up for this one fight but after some lying and coercion and some innocent Bonsai paying the price for The Karateless Kid.
More pressure from Barnes and his goons and more Bonsai casualties before Daniel and Mr. Miyagi are split between the tournament and after Daniel decided he will fight that 10 minutes if his life for another sweet trophy. With his training regime disguised as housework and child labour now running low, Miyagi wont train Daniel and thus pushing him into Silvers ponytailed clutches. The once meek and defensive Daniel learns that attack is more effective than Miyagi’s training and with another wooden victim (a repeating plot line in this film) being pummelled and the wax punched off it, Daniel is ready to be the badass he always threatened to be. A night out ends in a broken nose of a Silver bribed punk, Daniel questions who he has become and changes his mind about the tournament once more, only for Silver to admit his true intentions to ruin Daniel as a human being and to avenge John Kreese who is not dead as first explained but high on revenge and the smoking of broken kids karate trophies. They give the new and improved Daniel a beating until appearance of Mr. Miyagi, who may or may not be stalking Daniel, who uses his small but deadly side step and legs to defeat the 3 grown men with ease. There is nothing like a good beating to mend a relationship and together the Bonsai Brothers are back and for the umpteenth time Daniel IS going to defend his title and we all hoped that Barnes would make it through the many rounds to get to the final. Hollywood prevails and after relaxing and watching his potential opponents tiring and having their face smashed in, Daniel like and later day Elvis gets on the stage for a quick round of his greatest hits. In Karate Kid tradition Daniel is good and Cobra Kai are bad, he has honour they are sneaky, they will cheat Daniel wont. Daniel wins as usual and takes his hollow victory and Cobra Kai is no more or until the invention of YouTube at least.
Overall this film fondly remembered until I watched it again. The lack of new ideas left me disappointed and broken like the cliff Bonsai and like that tree I will heal and grow but I will be left with the scars of the better and simple life I used to live. The inclusion of Glen Medeiros on the soundtrack was almost enough to save it and keep it respectable but alas it was not to be, this film is the 80s ponytail of memories; best left cut off.