Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Flatliners (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
The undiscovered country… which they shouldn’t have returned to.
The movies have depicted the hereafter in varied ways over the years. From the bleached white warehouses of Powell and Pressburger’s “A Matter of Life and Death” in 1946 and Warren Beatty’s “Heaven Can Wait” in 1978 to – for me – the peak of the game: Vincent Ward’s mawkish but gorgeously rendered oil-paint version of heaven in 1998’s “What Dreams May Come”. Joel Schmacher’s 1990’s “Flatliners” saw a set of “brat pack” movie names of the day (including Kevin Bacon, Julia Roberts, William Baldwin and Kiefer Sutherland) as experimenting trainee doctors, cheating death to experience the afterlife and getting more than they bargained for. The depictions of the afterlife were unmemorable: in that I don’t remember them much! (I think there was some sort of spooky tree involved, but that’s about it!)
But the concept was sufficiently enticing – who isn’t a little bit intrigued by the question of “what’s beyond”? – that Cross Creek Pictures thought it worthy of dusting off and giving it another outing in pursuit of dirty lucre. But unfortunately this offering adds little to the property’s reputation.
In this version, the lead role is headed up by Ellen Page (“Inception”) who is a great actress… too good for this stuff. Also in that category is Diego Luna, who really made an impact in “Rogue One” but here has little to work with in terms of backstory. The remaining three doctors – Nina Dobrev as “the sexy one”; James Norton (“War and Peace”) as “the posh boy” and Kiersey Clemons as the “cute but repressed one”, all have even less backstory and struggle to make a great impact.
Still struggling to get the high score on Angry Birds: from left to right Ray (Diego Luna), Sophia (Kiersey Clemons), Marlo (Nina Dobrev), Courtney (Ellen Page) and Jamie (James Norton).
Also putting in an appearance, as the one link from the original film, is Kiefer Sutherland as a senior member of the teaching staff. But he’s not playing the same character (that WOULD have been a bloody miracle!) and although Sutherland adds gravitas he really is given criminally little to do. What was director Niels Arden Oplev (“The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”) thinking?
In terms of the story, it’s pretty much a re-hash of Peter Filardi’s original, with Ben Ripley (“Source Code”) adding a few minor tweaks to the screenplay to update it for the current generation. But I will levy the same criticism of this film as I levied at the recent Stephen King adaptation of “It”: for horror to work well it need to obey some decent ‘rules of physics’ and although most of the scenes work (since a lot of the “action” is sensibly based inside the character’s heads) there are the occasional linkages to the ‘real world’ that generate a “WTF???” response. A seemingly indestructible Mini car (which is also clearly untraceable by the police!) and a knife incident at the dockside are two cases in point.
Is there anything good to say about this film? Well, there are certainly a few tense moments that make the hairs on your neck at least start to stand to attention. But these are few and far between, amongst a sea of movie ‘meh’. It’s certainly not going to be the worst film I see this year, since at least I wasn’t completely bored for the two hours. But I won’t remember this one in a few weeks. As a summary in the form of a “Black Adder” quote, it’s all a bit like a broken pencil….. pointless.
But the concept was sufficiently enticing – who isn’t a little bit intrigued by the question of “what’s beyond”? – that Cross Creek Pictures thought it worthy of dusting off and giving it another outing in pursuit of dirty lucre. But unfortunately this offering adds little to the property’s reputation.
In this version, the lead role is headed up by Ellen Page (“Inception”) who is a great actress… too good for this stuff. Also in that category is Diego Luna, who really made an impact in “Rogue One” but here has little to work with in terms of backstory. The remaining three doctors – Nina Dobrev as “the sexy one”; James Norton (“War and Peace”) as “the posh boy” and Kiersey Clemons as the “cute but repressed one”, all have even less backstory and struggle to make a great impact.
Still struggling to get the high score on Angry Birds: from left to right Ray (Diego Luna), Sophia (Kiersey Clemons), Marlo (Nina Dobrev), Courtney (Ellen Page) and Jamie (James Norton).
Also putting in an appearance, as the one link from the original film, is Kiefer Sutherland as a senior member of the teaching staff. But he’s not playing the same character (that WOULD have been a bloody miracle!) and although Sutherland adds gravitas he really is given criminally little to do. What was director Niels Arden Oplev (“The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”) thinking?
In terms of the story, it’s pretty much a re-hash of Peter Filardi’s original, with Ben Ripley (“Source Code”) adding a few minor tweaks to the screenplay to update it for the current generation. But I will levy the same criticism of this film as I levied at the recent Stephen King adaptation of “It”: for horror to work well it need to obey some decent ‘rules of physics’ and although most of the scenes work (since a lot of the “action” is sensibly based inside the character’s heads) there are the occasional linkages to the ‘real world’ that generate a “WTF???” response. A seemingly indestructible Mini car (which is also clearly untraceable by the police!) and a knife incident at the dockside are two cases in point.
Is there anything good to say about this film? Well, there are certainly a few tense moments that make the hairs on your neck at least start to stand to attention. But these are few and far between, amongst a sea of movie ‘meh’. It’s certainly not going to be the worst film I see this year, since at least I wasn’t completely bored for the two hours. But I won’t remember this one in a few weeks. As a summary in the form of a “Black Adder” quote, it’s all a bit like a broken pencil….. pointless.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Free Fire (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A movie with more than a whiff of cordite about it
As I write this, I’m really struggling to evaluate whether the latest film of Ben Wheatley (“High Rise”) is a masterpiece or just pulp trash. It’s certainly a brave and highly distinctive venture, with that you can’t argue.
Set in Boston in 1978, an arms deal is going down in a deserted warehouse. Brokered by Justine (Brie Larson, “Room”) an IRA team headed by Frank (Michael Smiley, “The World’s End“) with his business guy Chris (Cillian Murphy, “Inception”, “Batman Begins”) are on the buying side. As ‘roadies’ they’ve brought with them a couple of crack-head friends Stevo (Sam Riley, “Brighton Rock”, “Maleficent“) and Bernie (Enzo Cilenti, “The Martian“) who are far from stable.
On the selling side is South African dealer and “international asshole” Vern (Sharlto Copley, “Elysium“), his suave and wisecracking protector Ord (Armie Hammer, “The Man From Uncle”) and Vern’s right hand man Martin (Babou Ceesay, “Eye in the Sky“). What connects all of these individuals is that no-one likes or trusts anyone else.
Unfortunately, one of Vern’s van drivers is John Denver-lover Harry (the excellent Jack Treynor, “Sing Street”) who has very recent personal history with Stevo. The fuse is lit, and when the two meet chaos ensues: in the words of Anchorman’s Ron Burgundy, “That escalated quickly”!
And, for a 90 minute film, that’s basically it. If you think after viewing the trailer “there must be more to the film than this”…. you’re wrong!
However, what there is of it is enormously entertaining. Played ostensibly for laughs, with very very black humour and an F-word and a gunshot in every other sentence, some of the characters – notably those played by Sharlto Copley, Arnie Hammer and Brie Larson – have some hilarious dialogue. The star turn for me though was Jack Treynor who was just so impressive as the ‘lost at sea’ brother in the delightful “Sing Street” and here delivers a stand-out performance as another brother on a mission… this time a mission of vengeance. You are waiting throughout the film for the inevitable showdown between Harry and Stevo – – and when it comes it is both bloody and memorable.
A cracking 70’ soundtrack, put together by the Portishead duo of Geoff Barrow and Ben Salisbury, involves 70’s classics by Credence Clearwater Revival, John Denver and The Real Kids and it’s hammered out at top volume over the action. The downside of this effect is that – for my old ears at least – it sometimes make some of the dialogue hard to follow.
As a policing exercise, the film clearly has merit. In the same manner as Schwarzenegger’s “Running Man” put criminals in an arena to cull them, so this must have reduced the crime rates in both Boston and Belfast no end! While some may not approve of the levels of violence on show, it is all done in a highly cartoonish way: like a “Tom and Jerry” cartoon, or “Home Alone”, everyone seems to get shot multiple times and yet (in the main) is still active and mobile. All of this makes criticism of the performances something of a waste of time, but I would comment that some of the acting is of the “over the top” variety: surprisingly, I found some of Oscar winner Brie Larson’s scenes falling into this category and snapping me out of the narrative at times.
But overall, my evaluation is now done and I am rooting on the side of it being a brash and exhilarating minor masterpiece. Yes, it’s one-dimensional. Yes, it is virtually impossible to feel any empathy with any of the characters, as they are all universally loathsome. But it’s a movie whose flaws are forgivable based on the characterisation and the cracking good script by long-term collaborators Ben Wheatley and Amy Jump.
Tight as it is within its 90 minute running time, I very much doubt you will be bored.
Set in Boston in 1978, an arms deal is going down in a deserted warehouse. Brokered by Justine (Brie Larson, “Room”) an IRA team headed by Frank (Michael Smiley, “The World’s End“) with his business guy Chris (Cillian Murphy, “Inception”, “Batman Begins”) are on the buying side. As ‘roadies’ they’ve brought with them a couple of crack-head friends Stevo (Sam Riley, “Brighton Rock”, “Maleficent“) and Bernie (Enzo Cilenti, “The Martian“) who are far from stable.
On the selling side is South African dealer and “international asshole” Vern (Sharlto Copley, “Elysium“), his suave and wisecracking protector Ord (Armie Hammer, “The Man From Uncle”) and Vern’s right hand man Martin (Babou Ceesay, “Eye in the Sky“). What connects all of these individuals is that no-one likes or trusts anyone else.
Unfortunately, one of Vern’s van drivers is John Denver-lover Harry (the excellent Jack Treynor, “Sing Street”) who has very recent personal history with Stevo. The fuse is lit, and when the two meet chaos ensues: in the words of Anchorman’s Ron Burgundy, “That escalated quickly”!
And, for a 90 minute film, that’s basically it. If you think after viewing the trailer “there must be more to the film than this”…. you’re wrong!
However, what there is of it is enormously entertaining. Played ostensibly for laughs, with very very black humour and an F-word and a gunshot in every other sentence, some of the characters – notably those played by Sharlto Copley, Arnie Hammer and Brie Larson – have some hilarious dialogue. The star turn for me though was Jack Treynor who was just so impressive as the ‘lost at sea’ brother in the delightful “Sing Street” and here delivers a stand-out performance as another brother on a mission… this time a mission of vengeance. You are waiting throughout the film for the inevitable showdown between Harry and Stevo – – and when it comes it is both bloody and memorable.
A cracking 70’ soundtrack, put together by the Portishead duo of Geoff Barrow and Ben Salisbury, involves 70’s classics by Credence Clearwater Revival, John Denver and The Real Kids and it’s hammered out at top volume over the action. The downside of this effect is that – for my old ears at least – it sometimes make some of the dialogue hard to follow.
As a policing exercise, the film clearly has merit. In the same manner as Schwarzenegger’s “Running Man” put criminals in an arena to cull them, so this must have reduced the crime rates in both Boston and Belfast no end! While some may not approve of the levels of violence on show, it is all done in a highly cartoonish way: like a “Tom and Jerry” cartoon, or “Home Alone”, everyone seems to get shot multiple times and yet (in the main) is still active and mobile. All of this makes criticism of the performances something of a waste of time, but I would comment that some of the acting is of the “over the top” variety: surprisingly, I found some of Oscar winner Brie Larson’s scenes falling into this category and snapping me out of the narrative at times.
But overall, my evaluation is now done and I am rooting on the side of it being a brash and exhilarating minor masterpiece. Yes, it’s one-dimensional. Yes, it is virtually impossible to feel any empathy with any of the characters, as they are all universally loathsome. But it’s a movie whose flaws are forgivable based on the characterisation and the cracking good script by long-term collaborators Ben Wheatley and Amy Jump.
Tight as it is within its 90 minute running time, I very much doubt you will be bored.
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) rated Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales (2017) in Movies
May 27, 2017
Hilarious (2 more)
Great Cast both old and new
New Pirate legend to give the plot a direction
One of the better installments
The 5th film in the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise, certainly had a lot to live up to and some things to make up for after the previous two films didn’t do as well with the critics. With a few of the original cast returning, and some fresh new faces to join them, Salazar’s Revenge was always going to be intriguing, as the audience members such as myself, wanted to know what new fantastical story this new film would tell, what trouble had Captain Jack Sparrow gotten himself into this time, and what idiotic plan would he come up with to get himself out of it.
The new cast included the young and beautiful Kaya Scodelario (Maze Runner / Skins / Moon) as Carina Smith, alongside the also young Brenton Thwaites (Home and Away / Maleficent / Gods of Egypt) as Henry Turner, the son of Will Turner portrayed by Orlando Bloom, who returns to this instalment as only a minor character, but one that sets the film in motion. Both of these new young performers excel in their roles and deliver a performance that is reminiscent of their predecessors in the franchise. Watching these two was like watching Orlando Bloom and Kiera Knightly in The Curse of the Black Pearl, with moments that reminded more so of their evolved relationship in the Dead Man’s Chest. Though Carina and Henry are not (yet) together throughout the film, you can clearly see that their shared goal to reach a mysterious legend that may or may not be true, in honour of their father’s, brings them closer and closer and time goes by and events begin to unravel.
Our new villain, Captain Salazar, is portrayed by Javier Bardem (No Country For Old Men / Skyfall / The Sea Inside) and brilliantly portrayed at that. He’s menacing and ruthless, and very haunting. His goal is clear and he does not rest until he finds Jack Sparrow. This film franchise has seen plenty of cursed men chasing the drunken idiot Captain all over the world, but Salazar is one thing the others were not….he is not a pirate. In fact he is the exact opposite, he was a naval captain for the Spanish and hunted pirates. This was his life, and this was his curse. His hatred of Jack Sparrow runs deeper than any villain set before him and this is what makes the film an exciting experience.
My only issue that whilst it is hilarious and I continued to laugh, this film seemed to be bursting at the seems with jokes and gags which sometimes felt forced. Trying to live up to the humour of the first film, but instead of always being perfectly timed to the right moments now and then, it seems to be in almost every conversation. This doesn't ruin the film in any aspect, just something I picked up on.
The fifth film is, in my opinion, definitely one of the better of the franchise. It excels in being a hilarious, exciting, action packed fantasy film, which is great for an audience of almost any age. Being a Disney film, it is suitable for children under parental guidance and older audiences from the teenagers to the elderly.
The effects get better with each instalment in the franchise and this film proves it with some beautiful imagery of the seas and the events that take place. The films makeup and set design are also incredible and fantastic to witness, as we see new treasures and new ships that take you to a whole new world, right there in the cinema.
If you’re going to watch this film, which I highly recommend, then do so at the cinema because like most films, your experience with the film will not be the same if you don’t watch it on the big screen. I saw this film in IMAX and it was stunning and incredible and just an absolutely thrilling experience.
Salazar’s Revenge (or Dead Men Tell No Tales, as it’s known in America) is most certainly going to be one of my favourite films of the year.
The new cast included the young and beautiful Kaya Scodelario (Maze Runner / Skins / Moon) as Carina Smith, alongside the also young Brenton Thwaites (Home and Away / Maleficent / Gods of Egypt) as Henry Turner, the son of Will Turner portrayed by Orlando Bloom, who returns to this instalment as only a minor character, but one that sets the film in motion. Both of these new young performers excel in their roles and deliver a performance that is reminiscent of their predecessors in the franchise. Watching these two was like watching Orlando Bloom and Kiera Knightly in The Curse of the Black Pearl, with moments that reminded more so of their evolved relationship in the Dead Man’s Chest. Though Carina and Henry are not (yet) together throughout the film, you can clearly see that their shared goal to reach a mysterious legend that may or may not be true, in honour of their father’s, brings them closer and closer and time goes by and events begin to unravel.
Our new villain, Captain Salazar, is portrayed by Javier Bardem (No Country For Old Men / Skyfall / The Sea Inside) and brilliantly portrayed at that. He’s menacing and ruthless, and very haunting. His goal is clear and he does not rest until he finds Jack Sparrow. This film franchise has seen plenty of cursed men chasing the drunken idiot Captain all over the world, but Salazar is one thing the others were not….he is not a pirate. In fact he is the exact opposite, he was a naval captain for the Spanish and hunted pirates. This was his life, and this was his curse. His hatred of Jack Sparrow runs deeper than any villain set before him and this is what makes the film an exciting experience.
My only issue that whilst it is hilarious and I continued to laugh, this film seemed to be bursting at the seems with jokes and gags which sometimes felt forced. Trying to live up to the humour of the first film, but instead of always being perfectly timed to the right moments now and then, it seems to be in almost every conversation. This doesn't ruin the film in any aspect, just something I picked up on.
The fifth film is, in my opinion, definitely one of the better of the franchise. It excels in being a hilarious, exciting, action packed fantasy film, which is great for an audience of almost any age. Being a Disney film, it is suitable for children under parental guidance and older audiences from the teenagers to the elderly.
The effects get better with each instalment in the franchise and this film proves it with some beautiful imagery of the seas and the events that take place. The films makeup and set design are also incredible and fantastic to witness, as we see new treasures and new ships that take you to a whole new world, right there in the cinema.
If you’re going to watch this film, which I highly recommend, then do so at the cinema because like most films, your experience with the film will not be the same if you don’t watch it on the big screen. I saw this film in IMAX and it was stunning and incredible and just an absolutely thrilling experience.
Salazar’s Revenge (or Dead Men Tell No Tales, as it’s known in America) is most certainly going to be one of my favourite films of the year.
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated The Last Song in Books
Apr 27, 2018
My Summary: Ronnie does not want to spend the summer with her dad. Her dad left them three years ago, and she hasn’t really forgiven him for it. She hated him for it so much, that she refused to take his calls, quit playing the piano, and never read the letters he sent her. What is she going to do all summer stuck with a dad she hates in a small town with nothing but sand on every side of her, no clubs, no friends…
When she finds Will, the cutest volley-ball players slash aquarium volunteer in her back yard helping her protect un-hatched sea turtles from being eaten by raccoons, she judged him as not-her-type. She doesn’t expect to find a friend in a jock-rich-perfect-family boy, nor does she expect that this will be the best—most exciting, most scary, most fun, most painful—summer of her lifetime.
My Review: I’m not really sure where to start here, other than I am so utterly pleased with The Last Song, I cannot begin to find words to describe it.
Ronnie, Jonah (her brother), Her dad Steve, Will… all the characters really, were such real characters. I felt everything they felt, I laughed when they laughed, and I (nearly) cried when they cried.
I hate it when books suffer from "happy-land syndrome—" where everything works out just too perfectly that it seems silly. The Last Song seemed to work perfectly, but it didn’t have that plot-manipulated feel to it. It didn’t feel like Sparks was just trying to move the story along and causing things to line up too perfectly to be realistic—it felt like the story was writing itself, and it was perfect. The pacing didn’t feel rushed or slow. It was not a thriller, but I did find myself sitting on the edge of my seat dying to find out what happens. I read it through in two or three days (which is fast for me right now, what with school the way it is!). There are twists, there are surprises—some beautiful, some painful, but all wonderful.
The writing was contemporary. It was easy reading and it wasn’t Dostoevsky, but it wasn’t bad either. The humor was light and witty and sarcastic, sometimes laugh out loud, and more times than I can count my sister would look up from her homework and say “Haley. What is so funny?” The perspective alternated between several different characters, but it wasn’t disorientating. It was all from third person perspective, but I still felt like I could get inside the character’s head.
The end was perfect. That’s all I can really say about it because any information would totally ruin the story. All the loose ends were tied, all the questions were answered, and the ending was open to the future but closed in a wonderful conclusion. Suffice to say I grinned so wide I couldn’t see, and my cheeks are still sore.
Audio Review: Let’s just say that I almost gave up reading The Last Song when I started listening to the audio. Pepper Binkley read Ronnie’s perspective and had a high pitched voice, she read a little too fast (which is rare. Most of the time readers are way too slow), there was no differentiating between voices of characters so you couldn’t tell who was talking, and she seemed up tight and nervous. Scott Sowers read the various men’s perspectives, and he read alright. He was a little slow and his voice took some getting used to but he was otherwise ok. I did get too frustrated to get far in the audio book though. I ended up quitting and reading the paperback. I recommend reading The Last Song over listening to it.
Content: blissfully clean. There was romance between Will and Ronnie, but no sex. It wasn’t needed, either. I feel like the fact that they didn’t sleep together added to the book rather than took away from it. It was also clean of foul language. There was some mention of God and the Bible, but never did it feel like Sparks was preaching.
Recommendation: Ages 14+
When she finds Will, the cutest volley-ball players slash aquarium volunteer in her back yard helping her protect un-hatched sea turtles from being eaten by raccoons, she judged him as not-her-type. She doesn’t expect to find a friend in a jock-rich-perfect-family boy, nor does she expect that this will be the best—most exciting, most scary, most fun, most painful—summer of her lifetime.
My Review: I’m not really sure where to start here, other than I am so utterly pleased with The Last Song, I cannot begin to find words to describe it.
Ronnie, Jonah (her brother), Her dad Steve, Will… all the characters really, were such real characters. I felt everything they felt, I laughed when they laughed, and I (nearly) cried when they cried.
I hate it when books suffer from "happy-land syndrome—" where everything works out just too perfectly that it seems silly. The Last Song seemed to work perfectly, but it didn’t have that plot-manipulated feel to it. It didn’t feel like Sparks was just trying to move the story along and causing things to line up too perfectly to be realistic—it felt like the story was writing itself, and it was perfect. The pacing didn’t feel rushed or slow. It was not a thriller, but I did find myself sitting on the edge of my seat dying to find out what happens. I read it through in two or three days (which is fast for me right now, what with school the way it is!). There are twists, there are surprises—some beautiful, some painful, but all wonderful.
The writing was contemporary. It was easy reading and it wasn’t Dostoevsky, but it wasn’t bad either. The humor was light and witty and sarcastic, sometimes laugh out loud, and more times than I can count my sister would look up from her homework and say “Haley. What is so funny?” The perspective alternated between several different characters, but it wasn’t disorientating. It was all from third person perspective, but I still felt like I could get inside the character’s head.
The end was perfect. That’s all I can really say about it because any information would totally ruin the story. All the loose ends were tied, all the questions were answered, and the ending was open to the future but closed in a wonderful conclusion. Suffice to say I grinned so wide I couldn’t see, and my cheeks are still sore.
Audio Review: Let’s just say that I almost gave up reading The Last Song when I started listening to the audio. Pepper Binkley read Ronnie’s perspective and had a high pitched voice, she read a little too fast (which is rare. Most of the time readers are way too slow), there was no differentiating between voices of characters so you couldn’t tell who was talking, and she seemed up tight and nervous. Scott Sowers read the various men’s perspectives, and he read alright. He was a little slow and his voice took some getting used to but he was otherwise ok. I did get too frustrated to get far in the audio book though. I ended up quitting and reading the paperback. I recommend reading The Last Song over listening to it.
Content: blissfully clean. There was romance between Will and Ronnie, but no sex. It wasn’t needed, either. I feel like the fact that they didn’t sleep together added to the book rather than took away from it. It was also clean of foul language. There was some mention of God and the Bible, but never did it feel like Sparks was preaching.
Recommendation: Ages 14+
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Mad Max: Fury Road (2015) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Cinematic Redbull
Up until a week ago, I was really looking forward to this film. Mad Max as a series has a criminally underestimated impact on our pop culture psyche thanks to its unique aesthetic. Everyone now knows exactly what they want to do in the event of the apocalypse; strap dustbin lids and S&M gear to our bodies.
Then I remembered that other recent reboot of a beloved 80’s sci-fi film, 2014’s Robocop. Specifically, I remembered that it was absolutely awful, a broken train-wreck of a movie that doesn’t understand and full on resents the original film, and drained all the personality out of a film bursting with it. 2012’s Total Recall shared similar problems, so the question came; would this modern reboot of an 80’s genre classic be the first of its kind to match the quality of the original?
The answer is no. It is far, far better.
The original Mad Max films each had the budget of a school nativity play and relied entirely on the scrapyard aesthetic and charismatic villains rather than action. Fury Road, on the other hand, is the cinematic equivalent of Red Bull; fast paced, frenetic and wild. The action sequences are almost constant, only broken up when the audience’s hearts are about to burst, accompanied by one of the most energetic and brilliant soundtracks I’ve ever heard. In the hands of a lesser filmmaker it would be too much to handle, but Miller makes sure to frame and edit each scene in a way that allows the audience to always follow the action.
Visually, the film is much more in line with Alejandro Jodorowsky’s failed Dune adaptation than anything else, with its deformed mutants, impractical clothes and grungy mechanics. Every image on screen is madder than the last; the audience will probably ask “Why does that guy have a flamethrower guitar?” or “Why is there a fat dude in a business suit with his nipples exposed?” and the film just says “Because you wanted to see it and didn’t know you did.” And it is totally right. Like Big Game, the landscapes are achingly beautiful too, turning a barren desert into a sea of colours.
The plot is utter gibberish; there is absolutely no reason that any series of events would lead to the world looking the way it does and the characters looking and acting the way they do. Most films would be ashamed of this and try to handwave it away or explain it; Fury Road, however, takes the smarter option, and full on embraces the insanity. Characters spout lines like “I have seen the three gates” and “You will ride with silver and chrome” without irony, and it all just works, sweeping the audience up into a world where logic is superfluous as long as what you’re saying is cool.
This wouldn’t work if the acting wasn’t on point, but every single actor is completely game for the madcap lunacy that is the
script. Everyone sings their lines, which might be nonsense but just sound so good. The only weak spot is Tom Hardy as Max himself, who tries to be a calming anchor to contrast everyone else but instead seems like he came out of a different, much more boring film. In fact, Max seems here only so the film can be called Mad Max, because really it is Charlize Theron’s movie; Imperator Furiosa is the true main character and Theron easily gives the most nuanced performance.
Upon seeing this film, I genuinely had to go for a jog to get all of the energy out of me. This film is mad glory from beginning to end, a fireworks show for the eyes and ears. One of the best action films of the year in an already good year for the genre. Certainly a much better reboot than Robocop. Now if you excuse me, I’m going to make a suit of armour out of washing machine parts and ball gags.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/05/19/cinematic-red-bull-mad-max-fury-road-review/
Then I remembered that other recent reboot of a beloved 80’s sci-fi film, 2014’s Robocop. Specifically, I remembered that it was absolutely awful, a broken train-wreck of a movie that doesn’t understand and full on resents the original film, and drained all the personality out of a film bursting with it. 2012’s Total Recall shared similar problems, so the question came; would this modern reboot of an 80’s genre classic be the first of its kind to match the quality of the original?
The answer is no. It is far, far better.
The original Mad Max films each had the budget of a school nativity play and relied entirely on the scrapyard aesthetic and charismatic villains rather than action. Fury Road, on the other hand, is the cinematic equivalent of Red Bull; fast paced, frenetic and wild. The action sequences are almost constant, only broken up when the audience’s hearts are about to burst, accompanied by one of the most energetic and brilliant soundtracks I’ve ever heard. In the hands of a lesser filmmaker it would be too much to handle, but Miller makes sure to frame and edit each scene in a way that allows the audience to always follow the action.
Visually, the film is much more in line with Alejandro Jodorowsky’s failed Dune adaptation than anything else, with its deformed mutants, impractical clothes and grungy mechanics. Every image on screen is madder than the last; the audience will probably ask “Why does that guy have a flamethrower guitar?” or “Why is there a fat dude in a business suit with his nipples exposed?” and the film just says “Because you wanted to see it and didn’t know you did.” And it is totally right. Like Big Game, the landscapes are achingly beautiful too, turning a barren desert into a sea of colours.
The plot is utter gibberish; there is absolutely no reason that any series of events would lead to the world looking the way it does and the characters looking and acting the way they do. Most films would be ashamed of this and try to handwave it away or explain it; Fury Road, however, takes the smarter option, and full on embraces the insanity. Characters spout lines like “I have seen the three gates” and “You will ride with silver and chrome” without irony, and it all just works, sweeping the audience up into a world where logic is superfluous as long as what you’re saying is cool.
This wouldn’t work if the acting wasn’t on point, but every single actor is completely game for the madcap lunacy that is the
script. Everyone sings their lines, which might be nonsense but just sound so good. The only weak spot is Tom Hardy as Max himself, who tries to be a calming anchor to contrast everyone else but instead seems like he came out of a different, much more boring film. In fact, Max seems here only so the film can be called Mad Max, because really it is Charlize Theron’s movie; Imperator Furiosa is the true main character and Theron easily gives the most nuanced performance.
Upon seeing this film, I genuinely had to go for a jog to get all of the energy out of me. This film is mad glory from beginning to end, a fireworks show for the eyes and ears. One of the best action films of the year in an already good year for the genre. Certainly a much better reboot than Robocop. Now if you excuse me, I’m going to make a suit of armour out of washing machine parts and ball gags.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/05/19/cinematic-red-bull-mad-max-fury-road-review/
Margaret A. Young (1 KP) rated Bears vs Babies in Tabletop Games
Nov 3, 2018 (Updated Nov 3, 2018)
Fun family or party game. (1 more)
Perfect for teens
Beasts vs Babies
Although my sons are known for loving their tech, we find table top games a great way to connect as a family. We really enjoy family game nights,but I have also been surprised by how much time my teen age son spends playing table top games when his friends come to visit. Everyone who comes to visit seems to love our game collection and they usually spend more time with card and board games than computers and gaming consoles.
We bought Bears vs. Babies because my sons loved Exploding Kittens which was created by the same people. While being a completely different game, I think this would appeal to anyone who enjoyed Exploding Kittens.
Bears vs Babies comes packaged in a sturdy box which is covered with fake fur. Although this is attractive, we bought a separate case for travel as the box it comes in is a bit bulky for camping and scouting trips, does not lock closed and the fur would get dirty quite easily. However, if you simply want it to keep it on a shelf it is fine, and the unique box does seem nice for a gift item.
Inside the box is the deck of cards, a rule book, another book of frequently asked questions, which I fact contains more rules, and a cloth playing mat. The frequently asked questions book says that you don't need to read it, but you really do. It shouldn't take more than a couple of minutes to read both, so do yourself a favour and have a quick read before starting the game.
This game has been played by my sons and their friends, ranging in ages from 8 - 13. This game is recommended for ages 10+, but I think it could be played with children as young as six with minor assistance, and my youngest was 9 when we got this.
Although the game is called Bears vs Babies, there is really only one bear unless you count a water bear, which isn't a bear at all. I think Beasts vs Babies would be a more accurate name. Some of the beasts you can make include a Grizzly Bear, a Llama, a Velociraptor, a Manatee and an undead looking rabbit. Or at least you can create creatures which look like a sin against nature with these heads. You collect and play other cards to add a body, legs, arms and accessories to your monsters, trying to get as many points as possible. The monsters are pitted against babies whose also look like abominations, though this is clearly intentional.
Game play is pretty simple. You are allowed to actions per turn. So you can add parts to your monsters, play an action card, draw cards or provoke babies. Babies and monsters are divided into three categories, land, sea and air. When a baby is provoked, all the babies of that category attack all monsters of the same category on the table. The one with the most points wins.
As with any game, we add a few personal twists to it. Instead of just calling provoke to start a battle with babies, you can make each player come up with a unique way to provoke them... energy drink in the baby bottles, hide their teddy bears, and so on. Adding sound effects for the winning monster can add to the fun as well.
While I wouldn't say this is game that can keep children or teens entertained for hours, it is something that is chosen regularly, by both my own children and visitors. A round of the game can take perhaps 20 minutes and this is usually played once in a session before moving on to another game. To be fair, the boys do say they prefer Exploding Kittens, And Exploding Kittens does get played more frequently, but this is still a very welcome addition to our games collection and I am well pleased with our purchase.
We bought Bears vs. Babies because my sons loved Exploding Kittens which was created by the same people. While being a completely different game, I think this would appeal to anyone who enjoyed Exploding Kittens.
Bears vs Babies comes packaged in a sturdy box which is covered with fake fur. Although this is attractive, we bought a separate case for travel as the box it comes in is a bit bulky for camping and scouting trips, does not lock closed and the fur would get dirty quite easily. However, if you simply want it to keep it on a shelf it is fine, and the unique box does seem nice for a gift item.
Inside the box is the deck of cards, a rule book, another book of frequently asked questions, which I fact contains more rules, and a cloth playing mat. The frequently asked questions book says that you don't need to read it, but you really do. It shouldn't take more than a couple of minutes to read both, so do yourself a favour and have a quick read before starting the game.
This game has been played by my sons and their friends, ranging in ages from 8 - 13. This game is recommended for ages 10+, but I think it could be played with children as young as six with minor assistance, and my youngest was 9 when we got this.
Although the game is called Bears vs Babies, there is really only one bear unless you count a water bear, which isn't a bear at all. I think Beasts vs Babies would be a more accurate name. Some of the beasts you can make include a Grizzly Bear, a Llama, a Velociraptor, a Manatee and an undead looking rabbit. Or at least you can create creatures which look like a sin against nature with these heads. You collect and play other cards to add a body, legs, arms and accessories to your monsters, trying to get as many points as possible. The monsters are pitted against babies whose also look like abominations, though this is clearly intentional.
Game play is pretty simple. You are allowed to actions per turn. So you can add parts to your monsters, play an action card, draw cards or provoke babies. Babies and monsters are divided into three categories, land, sea and air. When a baby is provoked, all the babies of that category attack all monsters of the same category on the table. The one with the most points wins.
As with any game, we add a few personal twists to it. Instead of just calling provoke to start a battle with babies, you can make each player come up with a unique way to provoke them... energy drink in the baby bottles, hide their teddy bears, and so on. Adding sound effects for the winning monster can add to the fun as well.
While I wouldn't say this is game that can keep children or teens entertained for hours, it is something that is chosen regularly, by both my own children and visitors. A round of the game can take perhaps 20 minutes and this is usually played once in a session before moving on to another game. To be fair, the boys do say they prefer Exploding Kittens, And Exploding Kittens does get played more frequently, but this is still a very welcome addition to our games collection and I am well pleased with our purchase.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Mid90s (2018) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
It doesn’t take much to remember that Jonah Hill (writer and director) had already acted in one of the greatest coming-of-age movies at the age of 24. A cursory glance at Superbad shows it to be a hilarious and quotable movie. But a deeper look at the film reveals the true story. Two high school friends (Hill and Michael Cera) who realize they are drifting apart because of incoming adulthood and that they are powerless to stop it. Keeping that in mind, Hill was quoted during the production of Mid 90s as saying that coming-of-age films are cliché and what he really wanted was to make a skateboarding movie that avoided the 80s “cowabunga” tropes. The result of that focus is Mid 90s.
Sunny Suljic plays 13-year-old Stevie, a quiet and often confused boy looking to escape his bleak and abusive home life by connecting with a group of local skater kids. While Suljic absolutely steals the show with his superb acting, his (mostly no name) costars deserve massive kudos for this endeavor as well. Lucas Hedges (Manchester by the Sea, Three Billboards outside of Ebbing Missouri) plays Stevie’s abusive older brother Ian. Though he is quickly established in the opening shot as the antagonist, his character arc throughout the film is one of the greatest and you find yourself soon empathetic to his plight nearly as much as Stevie’s. The skater gang is comprised of Ray (Na-kel Smith), Fuckshit (Olan Prenatt), 4th Grade (Ryder McLaughlin) and Ruben (Gio Galicia). These four seem apathetically content to take Stevie under their wing after he begins hanging out at their skate shop. During this time they expose Stevie to a world of drinking, smoking, drugs and sex as well as a complex set of personalities that Stevie struggles to understand but tries desperately to emulate. This reverence begins to lead him down a path that worry not only his mother and brother, but also occasionally members of his new social group. The actors playing his newfound friends all bring a beautiful authenticity to their roles. They certainly aren’t playing “themselves”, but their personalities don’t feel concocted or forced.
The original score for the film was done by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross as well as a selection of 1990s Hip Hop. And while the original music by Reznor and Ross accents the film perfectly, the 90s throwback songs struggle to do more than remind the viewer of the period and provide the sporadic nostalgia kick. In fact, most of the 90s nostalgia does little to add to the film. Thus, while the opportunity was there to give us a solid examination and social commentary on 1990s culture, Hill seems to fall short of that concept and instead uses the references as a gimmick to tie in smaller plot points.
In addition to the music, there are a few other elements that add to the hipster vintage nature of the film. It was shot entirely on 16mm and is presented in square 1:1 ratio. While this is certainly an unusual choice as more movies are shifted to wide screen formats and square televisions are no longer produced, it pushes the film closer towards the verité genre that is necessary to keep it within the indie style guide.
Mid 90s, along with Eighth Grade have positioned A24 studios in a fantastic place. They’ve demonstrated their willingness to get behind first time writer/directors and the results have been impressive to say the least. If they can remain on this type of pace I could see how the Academy would take notice come awards season.
So despite his view that they are cliché, Jonah Hill has once again created a poignant and powerful coming-of-age movie and he’s managed to wrap it into just enough skateboarding reality to give us the love letter he was hoping to produce. The film is not without its faults, but it’s not one you should miss.
Sunny Suljic plays 13-year-old Stevie, a quiet and often confused boy looking to escape his bleak and abusive home life by connecting with a group of local skater kids. While Suljic absolutely steals the show with his superb acting, his (mostly no name) costars deserve massive kudos for this endeavor as well. Lucas Hedges (Manchester by the Sea, Three Billboards outside of Ebbing Missouri) plays Stevie’s abusive older brother Ian. Though he is quickly established in the opening shot as the antagonist, his character arc throughout the film is one of the greatest and you find yourself soon empathetic to his plight nearly as much as Stevie’s. The skater gang is comprised of Ray (Na-kel Smith), Fuckshit (Olan Prenatt), 4th Grade (Ryder McLaughlin) and Ruben (Gio Galicia). These four seem apathetically content to take Stevie under their wing after he begins hanging out at their skate shop. During this time they expose Stevie to a world of drinking, smoking, drugs and sex as well as a complex set of personalities that Stevie struggles to understand but tries desperately to emulate. This reverence begins to lead him down a path that worry not only his mother and brother, but also occasionally members of his new social group. The actors playing his newfound friends all bring a beautiful authenticity to their roles. They certainly aren’t playing “themselves”, but their personalities don’t feel concocted or forced.
The original score for the film was done by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross as well as a selection of 1990s Hip Hop. And while the original music by Reznor and Ross accents the film perfectly, the 90s throwback songs struggle to do more than remind the viewer of the period and provide the sporadic nostalgia kick. In fact, most of the 90s nostalgia does little to add to the film. Thus, while the opportunity was there to give us a solid examination and social commentary on 1990s culture, Hill seems to fall short of that concept and instead uses the references as a gimmick to tie in smaller plot points.
In addition to the music, there are a few other elements that add to the hipster vintage nature of the film. It was shot entirely on 16mm and is presented in square 1:1 ratio. While this is certainly an unusual choice as more movies are shifted to wide screen formats and square televisions are no longer produced, it pushes the film closer towards the verité genre that is necessary to keep it within the indie style guide.
Mid 90s, along with Eighth Grade have positioned A24 studios in a fantastic place. They’ve demonstrated their willingness to get behind first time writer/directors and the results have been impressive to say the least. If they can remain on this type of pace I could see how the Academy would take notice come awards season.
So despite his view that they are cliché, Jonah Hill has once again created a poignant and powerful coming-of-age movie and he’s managed to wrap it into just enough skateboarding reality to give us the love letter he was hoping to produce. The film is not without its faults, but it’s not one you should miss.
Night Reader Reviews (683 KP) rated The Devil's Workshop in Books
Jan 10, 2020
Honest Review for Free Copy of Book
The Devil’s Workshop by Donnally Miller is one of the few books that I felt like I had to read twice, and did. Even after that I still feel like I am missing quite a bit of what this book has to offer. If there were ever a book that deserves to be torn apart (and I mean that in the best possible sense) and be studied in depth to have all the hidden meanings exposed this is it. However, I am not the one to do it.
Tom and Katie love each other to the point that when Tom leaves to work on a ship for a while, Katie gives him an extremely special engraved pocket watch to take with him. Little does Tom know, he helped bury the Son of Light shortly before leaving and this has thrown the world into chaos. Katie loses her job at the mansion where she lives and finds herself traveling with a dog and a lovesick man whom she has no affection for on a journey to find Tom. Meanwhile, Tom has lost Katie’s pocket watch, was thrown overboard, and is trying to make his way back to her. Thanks to Deirdre, The Queen of the Witches, the journey these two lovers are on is excruciatingly long and dangerous.
The Indians who live peacefully in the Forest have started to band together in preparation for driving “the white man” back into the sea where they came from. Slaves have also started rebelling all along the Coast and are being hunted by a military who wants them destroyed. Making things even worse Pirates are causing the roads to be unsafe for travelers and Tom finds himself mixed up with them. All the while Deirdre is playing her games with each of the separate groups. The only way to set everything right once more is to create a new Child of Light.
I enjoyed how all the characters seem to cross paths at one point or another in ways that are more natural than forced by the author. All the trials that Tom and Katie are willing to endure in an attempt to see each other again restore a person’s faith in humanity and love. At the same time, the book forces the reader to question just what is love and why will we go to the ends of the Earth for it. What I did not like was that there were a few different times where I would lose track of who was talking or what was going on. I am not sure if this was in any way due to how the book was written or because I was not devoting the amount of attention to the book as it deserves. Even so philosophical books are expected to confuse readers at times and force them to re-evaluate passages, so it in no way changes my opinion of this book.
I would only recommend this book to adult readers. While there is nothing inappropriate for readers in high school, the philosophy would probably be a bit much for them. The casual reader should also be prepared for a long and at times difficult read. Nonetheless, I rate this book to be a perfect 4 out of 4. People who do not realize what kind of book this is would probably put it down during the first few chapters and give it a low rating for being hard to read. Those that realize what they are reading will find that the seemingly random ramblings do make sense if you slow down. There is a wonderful plotline and a beautiful love story (thankfully not a mushy one) that takes place throughout the book if readers are willing to take their time and look.
https://www.facebook.com/nightreaderreviews
Tom and Katie love each other to the point that when Tom leaves to work on a ship for a while, Katie gives him an extremely special engraved pocket watch to take with him. Little does Tom know, he helped bury the Son of Light shortly before leaving and this has thrown the world into chaos. Katie loses her job at the mansion where she lives and finds herself traveling with a dog and a lovesick man whom she has no affection for on a journey to find Tom. Meanwhile, Tom has lost Katie’s pocket watch, was thrown overboard, and is trying to make his way back to her. Thanks to Deirdre, The Queen of the Witches, the journey these two lovers are on is excruciatingly long and dangerous.
The Indians who live peacefully in the Forest have started to band together in preparation for driving “the white man” back into the sea where they came from. Slaves have also started rebelling all along the Coast and are being hunted by a military who wants them destroyed. Making things even worse Pirates are causing the roads to be unsafe for travelers and Tom finds himself mixed up with them. All the while Deirdre is playing her games with each of the separate groups. The only way to set everything right once more is to create a new Child of Light.
I enjoyed how all the characters seem to cross paths at one point or another in ways that are more natural than forced by the author. All the trials that Tom and Katie are willing to endure in an attempt to see each other again restore a person’s faith in humanity and love. At the same time, the book forces the reader to question just what is love and why will we go to the ends of the Earth for it. What I did not like was that there were a few different times where I would lose track of who was talking or what was going on. I am not sure if this was in any way due to how the book was written or because I was not devoting the amount of attention to the book as it deserves. Even so philosophical books are expected to confuse readers at times and force them to re-evaluate passages, so it in no way changes my opinion of this book.
I would only recommend this book to adult readers. While there is nothing inappropriate for readers in high school, the philosophy would probably be a bit much for them. The casual reader should also be prepared for a long and at times difficult read. Nonetheless, I rate this book to be a perfect 4 out of 4. People who do not realize what kind of book this is would probably put it down during the first few chapters and give it a low rating for being hard to read. Those that realize what they are reading will find that the seemingly random ramblings do make sense if you slow down. There is a wonderful plotline and a beautiful love story (thankfully not a mushy one) that takes place throughout the book if readers are willing to take their time and look.
https://www.facebook.com/nightreaderreviews
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Stan & Ollie (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
When the laughter has to end.
The problem with any comedy double act is that if illness or death get in the way (think Dustin Gee and Les Dennis; or Morecambe and Wise) the wheels can come off for the other partner. “Stan and Ollie” tells the story of the comic duo starting in 1937 when they reached their peak of global popularity, albeit when Laurel was hardly on speaking terms with their long-term producer Hal Roach (Danny Huston).
As you might guess from this, the emotional direction for the film is downwards, but not necessarily in a totally depressing way. The film depicts the duo’s tour of Laurel’s native country (he was born in Lancashire) and this has its ups as well as its downs.
Not knowing their life story, this is one where when the trailer came on I shut my eyes and plugged my ears so as to avoid spoilers: as such I will say nothing further on the details of the plot.
My wife and I were reminiscing after seeing this flick about how our parents used to crack up over the film antics of Laurel and Hardy. And they were, in their own slapstick way, very funny indeed. The film manages to recreate (impecably) some of their more famous routines and parodies others: their travel trunk gallops to the bottom of the station steps, mimicking the famous scenes with a piano from 1932’s “The Music Box”. “Do we really need that trunk” Hardy deadpans to Laurel.
The turns
There are four star turns at the heart of the film and they are John C. Reilly as Ollie; Steve Coogan as Stan; Shirley Henderson (forever to be referenced as “Moaning Myrtle”) as Ollie’s wife Lucille and Nina Arianda (so memorable as the ‘pointer outer’ in the ‘Emperor’s New Clothes’ segment of “Florence Foster Jenkins“) as Stan’s latest wife Ida.
Coogan and Reilly do an outstanding job of impersonating the comic duo. Both are simply brilliant, playing up to their public personas when visible but subtly delivering similar traits in private. Of the two, John C. Reilly’s performance is the most memorable: he IS Oliver Hardy. Not taking too much away from the other performance, but there are a few times when Coogan poked through the illusion (like a Partridge sticking its head out from a Pear Tree you might say).
Henderson and Arianda also add tremendous heart to the drama, and Arianda’s Ida in particular is hilarious. Also delivering a fabulous supporting role is Rufus Jones as the famous impressario Bernard Delfont: all smarm and Machiavellian chicanery that adds a different shape of comedy to the film.
Another Fine Mess?
Actually, no: it’s one of those pleasant and untaxing cinema experiences that older audiences in particular will really enjoy. However, the film’s far from perfect in my view: the flash-forwards/flash-backs I felt made the story bitty and disjointed; and ultimately the life story of the duo doesn’t have a huge depth of drama in it to amaze or excite, the way that 2004’s “Beyond the Sea” (the biopic of Bobby Darin) did for example. But the film never gets boring or disappoints.
I’d like to say that the script by Jeff Pope (“Philomena“) is historically accurate, but a look at the wikipedia entries for the pair show that it was far from that. Yes, the tours of the UK and Europe did happen, but over multiple years and the actual events in their lives are telescoped into a single trip for dramatic purposes. But I think the essence of the pair comes across nicely. Laurel’s wikipedia entry records a nice death-bed scene that sums up the guy:
“Minutes before his death, he told his nurse that he would not mind going skiing, and she replied that she was not aware that he was a skier. “I’m not,” said Laurel, “I’d rather be doing that than this!” A few minutes later, the nurse looked in on him again and found that he had died quietly in his armchair.”
“Stan and Ollie” has a few preview screenings before the New Year, but goes on UK general release on January 11th. Recommended.
As you might guess from this, the emotional direction for the film is downwards, but not necessarily in a totally depressing way. The film depicts the duo’s tour of Laurel’s native country (he was born in Lancashire) and this has its ups as well as its downs.
Not knowing their life story, this is one where when the trailer came on I shut my eyes and plugged my ears so as to avoid spoilers: as such I will say nothing further on the details of the plot.
My wife and I were reminiscing after seeing this flick about how our parents used to crack up over the film antics of Laurel and Hardy. And they were, in their own slapstick way, very funny indeed. The film manages to recreate (impecably) some of their more famous routines and parodies others: their travel trunk gallops to the bottom of the station steps, mimicking the famous scenes with a piano from 1932’s “The Music Box”. “Do we really need that trunk” Hardy deadpans to Laurel.
The turns
There are four star turns at the heart of the film and they are John C. Reilly as Ollie; Steve Coogan as Stan; Shirley Henderson (forever to be referenced as “Moaning Myrtle”) as Ollie’s wife Lucille and Nina Arianda (so memorable as the ‘pointer outer’ in the ‘Emperor’s New Clothes’ segment of “Florence Foster Jenkins“) as Stan’s latest wife Ida.
Coogan and Reilly do an outstanding job of impersonating the comic duo. Both are simply brilliant, playing up to their public personas when visible but subtly delivering similar traits in private. Of the two, John C. Reilly’s performance is the most memorable: he IS Oliver Hardy. Not taking too much away from the other performance, but there are a few times when Coogan poked through the illusion (like a Partridge sticking its head out from a Pear Tree you might say).
Henderson and Arianda also add tremendous heart to the drama, and Arianda’s Ida in particular is hilarious. Also delivering a fabulous supporting role is Rufus Jones as the famous impressario Bernard Delfont: all smarm and Machiavellian chicanery that adds a different shape of comedy to the film.
Another Fine Mess?
Actually, no: it’s one of those pleasant and untaxing cinema experiences that older audiences in particular will really enjoy. However, the film’s far from perfect in my view: the flash-forwards/flash-backs I felt made the story bitty and disjointed; and ultimately the life story of the duo doesn’t have a huge depth of drama in it to amaze or excite, the way that 2004’s “Beyond the Sea” (the biopic of Bobby Darin) did for example. But the film never gets boring or disappoints.
I’d like to say that the script by Jeff Pope (“Philomena“) is historically accurate, but a look at the wikipedia entries for the pair show that it was far from that. Yes, the tours of the UK and Europe did happen, but over multiple years and the actual events in their lives are telescoped into a single trip for dramatic purposes. But I think the essence of the pair comes across nicely. Laurel’s wikipedia entry records a nice death-bed scene that sums up the guy:
“Minutes before his death, he told his nurse that he would not mind going skiing, and she replied that she was not aware that he was a skier. “I’m not,” said Laurel, “I’d rather be doing that than this!” A few minutes later, the nurse looked in on him again and found that he had died quietly in his armchair.”
“Stan and Ollie” has a few preview screenings before the New Year, but goes on UK general release on January 11th. Recommended.