Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Lady Bird (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“What if this is the best version”.
When did you grow up? I am now 57, and I’m still “working towards”! I remember distinctly though at the age of 16 thinking “I’ve got there”. And then again at 18. And then again at 21. And then again at 25…. There is something sweet about the certainty of youth that only life’s ultimate experiences can roughen the edges of.
“Lady Bird”, the directorial debut of Greta Gerwig, features one such teen who thinks she knows it all. Looking and acting for all the world like a 15 year old (something that Margot Robbie really can’t pull off in “I, Tonya”) Saoirse Ronan plays Christine McPherson who has the given name (“I gave the name to myself”) of ‘Lady Bird’. She is struggling with a lot of issues: an unreasonable and overbearing (parents: read ‘perfectly reasonably but firm’) mother (Laurie Metcalf, “Roseanne”); the issues of puberty and young love; the constrictions of a Catholic school she despises; and her inability to perform to the grades she needs to get into a college of her choice. That choice being on the East coast as far away from the backwater of Sacremento (“the mid-west of California” – LoL) as she can get.
Love comes in the form of two serial male fixations: the gorgeous and artistic Danny (Lucas Hedges, “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri”, “Manchester By The Sea”) and the aloof and enigmatic Kyle (Timothée Chalamet, “Call Me By Your Name”).
This is a near perfect coming of age film. The plot, while fairly superficial and covering ground well-trodden before, fully engages you and makes the running time just fly by. And there is just so much talent on show. The script by Gerwig is chocker-block full of great and memorable lines; Ronan is pitch-perfect as the irascible and cock-sure teen; Tracy Letts (“The Post“) is magnificent in the less showy role as the “good cop” dad, struggling invisibly with his own demons; and Metcalf gives an Oscar-nominated performance that really should give Alison Janney a run for her money… a drive away from an airport conveys just perfectly every college-age parent’s emotional low-point.
Where perhaps the film overplays its hand a bit is in the “wrong side of the tracks” line. The household while struggling is by no means trailer-park poor (compare and contrast with “I, Tonya”): perhaps this is the depths of financial desperation found in Sacremento? But I doubt it… there still seems to be money available for fancy cowgirl outfits.
Which leads me to the rating, which seems to have been a common rant in the last few weeks. I would have thought that there was nothing like this film to turn the mirror of reasonableness on a young teen, perhaps helping them to treat their parents better, work harder for college or make better choices. Yet it has a UK 15 certificate. And for what? There is a full frontal male photo-spread in “Playgirl” (I want to say “it’s a penis, get over it”, but if forced I would have frankly just snipped the 50 milliseconds out to get the lower rating). And there are a few (only a few) F- and C- words. I have the same problem here as with “Phantom Thread” – here is a high-class film that a young teen audience would absolutely love to see. I think the BBFC have got it wrong again here.
I cannot recommend this film enough: a tale of teenage life love and resolution that is hard to beat. Possibly one of the best coming of age tales I’ve ever seen. On the basis that it looks like I will never get to see “Call Me By Your Name” – the only major one I’ve missed – before this Sunday’s Oscar ceremony, what a great way to round off my Oscar-viewing season.
“Lady Bird”, the directorial debut of Greta Gerwig, features one such teen who thinks she knows it all. Looking and acting for all the world like a 15 year old (something that Margot Robbie really can’t pull off in “I, Tonya”) Saoirse Ronan plays Christine McPherson who has the given name (“I gave the name to myself”) of ‘Lady Bird’. She is struggling with a lot of issues: an unreasonable and overbearing (parents: read ‘perfectly reasonably but firm’) mother (Laurie Metcalf, “Roseanne”); the issues of puberty and young love; the constrictions of a Catholic school she despises; and her inability to perform to the grades she needs to get into a college of her choice. That choice being on the East coast as far away from the backwater of Sacremento (“the mid-west of California” – LoL) as she can get.
Love comes in the form of two serial male fixations: the gorgeous and artistic Danny (Lucas Hedges, “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri”, “Manchester By The Sea”) and the aloof and enigmatic Kyle (Timothée Chalamet, “Call Me By Your Name”).
This is a near perfect coming of age film. The plot, while fairly superficial and covering ground well-trodden before, fully engages you and makes the running time just fly by. And there is just so much talent on show. The script by Gerwig is chocker-block full of great and memorable lines; Ronan is pitch-perfect as the irascible and cock-sure teen; Tracy Letts (“The Post“) is magnificent in the less showy role as the “good cop” dad, struggling invisibly with his own demons; and Metcalf gives an Oscar-nominated performance that really should give Alison Janney a run for her money… a drive away from an airport conveys just perfectly every college-age parent’s emotional low-point.
Where perhaps the film overplays its hand a bit is in the “wrong side of the tracks” line. The household while struggling is by no means trailer-park poor (compare and contrast with “I, Tonya”): perhaps this is the depths of financial desperation found in Sacremento? But I doubt it… there still seems to be money available for fancy cowgirl outfits.
Which leads me to the rating, which seems to have been a common rant in the last few weeks. I would have thought that there was nothing like this film to turn the mirror of reasonableness on a young teen, perhaps helping them to treat their parents better, work harder for college or make better choices. Yet it has a UK 15 certificate. And for what? There is a full frontal male photo-spread in “Playgirl” (I want to say “it’s a penis, get over it”, but if forced I would have frankly just snipped the 50 milliseconds out to get the lower rating). And there are a few (only a few) F- and C- words. I have the same problem here as with “Phantom Thread” – here is a high-class film that a young teen audience would absolutely love to see. I think the BBFC have got it wrong again here.
I cannot recommend this film enough: a tale of teenage life love and resolution that is hard to beat. Possibly one of the best coming of age tales I’ve ever seen. On the basis that it looks like I will never get to see “Call Me By Your Name” – the only major one I’ve missed – before this Sunday’s Oscar ceremony, what a great way to round off my Oscar-viewing season.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Ant-Man and The Wasp: Quantumania (2023) in Movies
Mar 18, 2023
Middle of the Road Marvel
The good news for long-time, hard core Marvel Cinematic Universe fans is that the next “big bad” in the Marvel Cinematic Universe has been unleashed and we will now get to see “Kang The Conqueror” (in his permutations) battling our heroes for the foreseeable future.
The bad news is that for casual fans – and folks that are just plain tired of the MCU – things are going to get more complex and convoluted as the MCU heads deeper into the “Comic Bookiness” of their source material.
Such is the case with ANT-MAN AND THE WASP: QUANTUMANIA, the 3rd standalone Ant Man film starring Paul Ruud, Evangeline Lilly and Michael Douglas. It is a very “Comic Bookie” film in that it takes the audience to the “Quantum Realm” and all the quirky characters and locations therein.
Director Peyton Reed (who helmed the previous 2 Ant-Man films) leans into this “Comic Bookieness” in that he accents the weird and bizarre and creates comic-book-like panels on the images on the screen. Consequently, this makes the film interesting to look at, but for the most part, there is not much substance under the surface.
For their part, Ruud, Lilly, Douglas, Michelle Pfeiffer (returning from the 2nd Ant-Man film) and newcomer Kathryn Newton (taking over the role of Ruud’s daughter, Cassie) are game in what they are asked to work with and react to (mostly to a green screen with CGI filled in later) and they all are winning (enough) presences on screen to spend a very enjoyable time with.
Jonathan Majors is on-board as Kang the Conqueror (a version of him was seen at the end of the first season of the Disney+ series LOKI) and he brings his considerable acting chops, gravitas and weight to the proceedings. He is a force to be reckoned with which was apparent from almost the first time he commanded the screen in this film. It will be interesting to see where he takes things from here.
The problem with this film is that it is (mostly) style with very little substance. Necessarily, the plot drives a more dramatic, darker theme to this Ant-Man film than in previous outings and the film suffers because of it. One of the charms of the Ant-Man films is that Director Reed was able to lean into the inherent goofiness of Paul Ruud and the absurd idea of him being able to shrink. That quirkiness and sense of fun is gone – as are regular characters played in the past 2 films by the likes of Bobby Canavale, Judy Greer, Randall Park (who has a blink or you’ll miss him cameo) and (most egregiously) Michael Pena.
What they are replaced by are some quirky “Quantum Realm” characters – most of whom are CGI and are voiced by some very good voice performers – it just doesn’t hit the same, since the overall theme is darker. Katy M. O’Brian and William Jackson Harper (who is rounding into a very intriguing performer) bring gusto to their roles as a few members of the Quantum realm, which helps pick up the sagginess of this film, but not enough. Not even a Bill Murray appearance can elevate this film to something funner than it is.
All in all a “fine” entry in the Marvel Cinematic Universe – and one that will remind you very much that you are watching a film based on Comic Book characters – but it falls squarely in the middle of the MCU entries...a catalogue of which is becoming very deep (maybe too deep), indeed.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The bad news is that for casual fans – and folks that are just plain tired of the MCU – things are going to get more complex and convoluted as the MCU heads deeper into the “Comic Bookiness” of their source material.
Such is the case with ANT-MAN AND THE WASP: QUANTUMANIA, the 3rd standalone Ant Man film starring Paul Ruud, Evangeline Lilly and Michael Douglas. It is a very “Comic Bookie” film in that it takes the audience to the “Quantum Realm” and all the quirky characters and locations therein.
Director Peyton Reed (who helmed the previous 2 Ant-Man films) leans into this “Comic Bookieness” in that he accents the weird and bizarre and creates comic-book-like panels on the images on the screen. Consequently, this makes the film interesting to look at, but for the most part, there is not much substance under the surface.
For their part, Ruud, Lilly, Douglas, Michelle Pfeiffer (returning from the 2nd Ant-Man film) and newcomer Kathryn Newton (taking over the role of Ruud’s daughter, Cassie) are game in what they are asked to work with and react to (mostly to a green screen with CGI filled in later) and they all are winning (enough) presences on screen to spend a very enjoyable time with.
Jonathan Majors is on-board as Kang the Conqueror (a version of him was seen at the end of the first season of the Disney+ series LOKI) and he brings his considerable acting chops, gravitas and weight to the proceedings. He is a force to be reckoned with which was apparent from almost the first time he commanded the screen in this film. It will be interesting to see where he takes things from here.
The problem with this film is that it is (mostly) style with very little substance. Necessarily, the plot drives a more dramatic, darker theme to this Ant-Man film than in previous outings and the film suffers because of it. One of the charms of the Ant-Man films is that Director Reed was able to lean into the inherent goofiness of Paul Ruud and the absurd idea of him being able to shrink. That quirkiness and sense of fun is gone – as are regular characters played in the past 2 films by the likes of Bobby Canavale, Judy Greer, Randall Park (who has a blink or you’ll miss him cameo) and (most egregiously) Michael Pena.
What they are replaced by are some quirky “Quantum Realm” characters – most of whom are CGI and are voiced by some very good voice performers – it just doesn’t hit the same, since the overall theme is darker. Katy M. O’Brian and William Jackson Harper (who is rounding into a very intriguing performer) bring gusto to their roles as a few members of the Quantum realm, which helps pick up the sagginess of this film, but not enough. Not even a Bill Murray appearance can elevate this film to something funner than it is.
All in all a “fine” entry in the Marvel Cinematic Universe – and one that will remind you very much that you are watching a film based on Comic Book characters – but it falls squarely in the middle of the MCU entries...a catalogue of which is becoming very deep (maybe too deep), indeed.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Rick and Morty - Season 2 in TV
Jul 21, 2017
Absolute insanity (1 more)
Will leave you in stitches throughout
The Universe Is A Crazy and Chaotic Place…
Rick & Morty was one of those shows that totally flew under the radar for me while it was on the air for months, then all of a sudden almost every podcast and youtuber that I subscribe to were recommending it. Though by the time that I was recommended it, I was aware it was an Adult Swim show, so I assumed each episode would only be around six or seven minutes long and put it on the backburner. Then one day I had run out of things to watch, I was up to date on all of my youtube videos and decided to give it a shot. Whilst I didn’t fall in love with it immediately, it did hook me right away and I was pleased to learn each episode was 20 minutes long and because the episodes are so short, I decided to watch a few episodes in a row and by the time I had finished watching Anatomy Park, the third episode of the first season, I realised how great this show was. The writing is so off the wall and insane yet dry that it works and the characters and the dynamic that they have is honestly hilarious, the comedic timing is also spot on. If you haven’t seen the show, think a blend of Family Guy style animation, with a backdrop of a Back To The Future or Doctor Who kind of universe and sprinkled with Always Sunny In Philadelphia style comedy. There is so much about this show that makes it funny, the sheer insanity and traumatisation that Rick exposes his grandchildren to, only to then brush it off as if it is totally normal as it is them that are overreacting and then there is Gerry and Beth’s broken marriage that only exists because Gerry got Beth pregnant with Summer when they were teenagers. Rick and Gerry are probably my two favourite characters in the show, Rick because you know he has seen so many insane things all over the galaxy over the years that literally nothing bothers him anymore and everything is normal to him, no matter how insane it seems to us and the other characters in the show and Gerry because of his exceptional mediocrity and impressive amount of general naivety. Also it would be criminal not to mention the other vast array of fantastically hilarious characters that we meet throughout the show, from Mr Meeseeks, (look at me!) to Mr Poopybutthole, to Birdperson, the list goes on getting more and more crazy as it does. The show is two seasons in so far, with a total of 21 episodes and I can honestly say that there is not one episode that I don’t like. I do have my favourites however, like M Night Shamaliens, when Rick, Morty and Gerry are stuck in a simulation of the real world and Gerry thinks he is having the greatest day of his life, or Rick Potion No.9, where said potion makes everybody fall in love with Morty, then transform into grotesque monsters, so they simply leave that reality behind and move into a fresh one, or Raising Gazorpazorp, where Morty goes through fatherhood in the space of a day, or Mortynight Run where they leave Gerry in a nursing home full of other Gerrys, I don’t want to spoil too much for those who haven’t seen it, but if you haven’t then stop watching this review right now and go watch Rick & Morty. The animation uses an odd art style, which may be initially off-putting, but a few episodes in, it becomes clear that this animation is to a high standard, just done in an odd style. The voice acting also seems fairly amateur at first, but as the show goes on and you get to know the characters and the world, the voice acting actually works perfectly in unison with the way that the show is written.
There isn’t much more to say, this show has hardly any negative qualities, it is one of the best animated shows that I have seen in the last decade and it is totally my kind of humour.
There isn’t much more to say, this show has hardly any negative qualities, it is one of the best animated shows that I have seen in the last decade and it is totally my kind of humour.
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated The Haunting of Hill House in TV
Nov 13, 2018 (Updated Nov 13, 2018)
Predictable jumpscares (2 more)
Bad acting
Crappy script
Overhyped Garbage
The Haunting Of Hill House is a 2018 Netflix series directed by Mike Flanagan, who directed last year's fantastically creepy adaption of Stephen King's 'Gerald's Game'. Hill House even features some of the same cast members in Carla Gugino and Henry Thomas, whom I both really like. Before diving into it, I thought that this show was going to be tailor made for me, with a brilliant cast and the same subtle but terrifying horror that Flanagan used in Gerald's Game.
However, after watching the first couple of episodes, I was struggling to get into it. Due to the massive amount of hype and praise that this show was getting I decided to stick with it. By the time I got to episode 6, I was done, but then my girlfriend guilted me into watching that rest of the series because she wanted to see it and she was, "too scared to watch it alone."
What a huge waste of time that turned out to be.
If you have read any of my other reviews of horror-based media, you will know that I have a love/hate relationship with the genre. There are very few horror movies or shows that I feel indifferent about. I hate lazy, formulaic bad horror and that is exactly what Hill House is.
Every single episode consists of a jumpscare at the start of the episode, then a hard cut either forwards or backwards in the timeline. Then about 15-20 minutes of piss poor acting and boring dialogue. This is followed by another cheap jumpscare, usually a woman screaming at an obnoxiously loud volume at the camera. Then we get another hard cut back to the other timeline.
The main issue with this structure, (other than being extremely lazy and repetitive,) is that when the hard cut is made to the other timeline, the audience knows that it is done by an editor and that we are now being asked to focus on a part of the story within the other timeline, but for the characters within the show, it makes no sense. For example, two people are having a conversation when something creepy happens. They go to investigate and a screaming woman comes launching towards them or is standing at the edge of a bed or doing basically any other ghost story cliché you can think of. Then the show cuts away to show the characters as children being haunted by a different ghost, but then when we cut back to the present, we never find out how the last jumpscare was resolved. What was the aftermath of that screaming lady at the end of the bed you ask? How was that resolved? How are the character's mentalities after this happened to them? Who cares?! Say the writers, let's just move on to the next cheap jumpscare.
The script is extraordinarily lazy and the child actors are horribly bad. This is an issue that I feel that there isn't really any excuse for anymore after the brilliant child performances in shows like Stranger Things and Season 2 of the Sinner.
If you judge the quality of something based on what it sets out to do versus what it actually does, then The Haunting Of Hill House is the worst show that I have had the displeasure of sitting through this year. The scares are pathetic, the acting is atrocious in places, the script is diabolically cheesy at times, there is hardly any originality present for an, 'original series,' and the show is overflowing with clichés. Not once did a jumpscare actually scare me, because they were all either laughably predicable or they would be totally out of place just for the sake of shock value and would merit a heavy sigh rather than an legit scare. The most egregious, offensively bad example of this was when two characters were having a conversation in a car in episode 6 and a ghost randomly screams from the backseat.
Please do not waste your time with this series, 2018 had so much brilliance to offer on the small screen and despite what you might hear from big publications, this is not one of them.
However, after watching the first couple of episodes, I was struggling to get into it. Due to the massive amount of hype and praise that this show was getting I decided to stick with it. By the time I got to episode 6, I was done, but then my girlfriend guilted me into watching that rest of the series because she wanted to see it and she was, "too scared to watch it alone."
What a huge waste of time that turned out to be.
If you have read any of my other reviews of horror-based media, you will know that I have a love/hate relationship with the genre. There are very few horror movies or shows that I feel indifferent about. I hate lazy, formulaic bad horror and that is exactly what Hill House is.
Every single episode consists of a jumpscare at the start of the episode, then a hard cut either forwards or backwards in the timeline. Then about 15-20 minutes of piss poor acting and boring dialogue. This is followed by another cheap jumpscare, usually a woman screaming at an obnoxiously loud volume at the camera. Then we get another hard cut back to the other timeline.
The main issue with this structure, (other than being extremely lazy and repetitive,) is that when the hard cut is made to the other timeline, the audience knows that it is done by an editor and that we are now being asked to focus on a part of the story within the other timeline, but for the characters within the show, it makes no sense. For example, two people are having a conversation when something creepy happens. They go to investigate and a screaming woman comes launching towards them or is standing at the edge of a bed or doing basically any other ghost story cliché you can think of. Then the show cuts away to show the characters as children being haunted by a different ghost, but then when we cut back to the present, we never find out how the last jumpscare was resolved. What was the aftermath of that screaming lady at the end of the bed you ask? How was that resolved? How are the character's mentalities after this happened to them? Who cares?! Say the writers, let's just move on to the next cheap jumpscare.
The script is extraordinarily lazy and the child actors are horribly bad. This is an issue that I feel that there isn't really any excuse for anymore after the brilliant child performances in shows like Stranger Things and Season 2 of the Sinner.
If you judge the quality of something based on what it sets out to do versus what it actually does, then The Haunting Of Hill House is the worst show that I have had the displeasure of sitting through this year. The scares are pathetic, the acting is atrocious in places, the script is diabolically cheesy at times, there is hardly any originality present for an, 'original series,' and the show is overflowing with clichés. Not once did a jumpscare actually scare me, because they were all either laughably predicable or they would be totally out of place just for the sake of shock value and would merit a heavy sigh rather than an legit scare. The most egregious, offensively bad example of this was when two characters were having a conversation in a car in episode 6 and a ghost randomly screams from the backseat.
Please do not waste your time with this series, 2018 had so much brilliance to offer on the small screen and despite what you might hear from big publications, this is not one of them.
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Ghost Stories (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
For years, mankind has pondered over the existence of ghosts, demons and the paranormal. Many have claimed to have experienced it firsthand, while others dedicate their lives and careers to debunking those experiences. It seems to be a question that no one has been able to answer or prove one way or the other, and this fear of the unknown has been the basis of a number of popular horror stories.
Based on the stage play of the same name, ‘Ghost Stories’ follows skeptic Professor Phillip Goodman’s (Nyman) investigation of three unsolved cases, each one detailing a different haunting. After meeting with his idol and fellow skeptic Charles Cameron, and feeling deflated when he begins to question his lifelong skepticism, Goodman meets with former night watchman Tony Matthews (Whitehouse), teenager Simon Rifkind (Lawther), and businessman Mike Priddle (Freeman) to learn about their firsthand experiences with the supernatural. The film is split into three segments, allowing each character to explain their case through the use of flashbacks where we get to see exactly what happened to the characters.
Throughout these flashbacks, Nyman and Dyson have utilised a number of popular horror techniques that will make you jump out of your seat, or hide behind your hands. There’s a serious feeling of unease throughout the entire film, and you have no idea what’s going to happen next. Even as an avid fan of the genre, I found myself genuinely terrified during a large portion of the film. ‘Ghost Stories’ knows exactly how to pace a horror film, and how to leave an audience uncomfortable yet unable to look away from the screen. Whilst the jump scare is inevitable, the film doesn’t overuse these and instead finds ways to build tension and fear, which actually heightens the experience because you find yourself trying to predict when something’s going to pop out at you. It leaves you on edge for the entire ninety minutes, which in my mind, is exactly what a horror film should do.
The stories told by each of the men are gripping, and the actors all do exceptional jobs of portraying their characters. Each of the men interviewed by Goodman are very different in their class backgrounds, beliefs and personalities, but are united in their adamancy that they did experience hauntings and that they left them completely shaken up afterwards. This reinforces the idea that the supernatural can target anyone, and leave anyone feeling helpless. Particular praise has to be given to Alex Lawther; after seeing him in season 3 of ‘Black Mirror’ I had high hopes, and he delivered. He’s certainly one to watch and I look forward to seeing what he gets up to next.
‘Ghost Stories’ is incredibly British in nature, mixing the right amount of dry humour and satire into what is an utterly terrifying experience overall. Other critics have said it’s the best British horror film in years, and I couldn’t agree more. It’s an incredibly gripping story that has a lot of twists and turns, and tugs at all of your heartstrings. Alongside the characters, I went through a number of emotions and felt fully invested in their lives. These are all characters that feel familiar, they’re your average human, which throws realism into the mix. Being able to identify with characters in a horror film makes your fear 100 times worse.
This film is best experienced with as little context as possible, if you walk into it completely blind, I believe you’ll get maximum enjoyment out of it. The trailers have done a great job at keeping it as vague as possible, which was a bonus. There’s nothing worse than trailers giving everything away in a few seconds. ‘Ghost Stories’ does have a twist ending, but I thought this was done brilliantly and I personally was unable to predict it. Nyman and Dyson have put so much effort into crafting an intense, thrilling, mysterious story and it’s seriously paid off. I’m now hoping ‘Ghost Stories’ will be returning to the stage soon, because I’ll be first in line for a ticket!
https://jumpcutonline.co.uk/ghost-stories/
Based on the stage play of the same name, ‘Ghost Stories’ follows skeptic Professor Phillip Goodman’s (Nyman) investigation of three unsolved cases, each one detailing a different haunting. After meeting with his idol and fellow skeptic Charles Cameron, and feeling deflated when he begins to question his lifelong skepticism, Goodman meets with former night watchman Tony Matthews (Whitehouse), teenager Simon Rifkind (Lawther), and businessman Mike Priddle (Freeman) to learn about their firsthand experiences with the supernatural. The film is split into three segments, allowing each character to explain their case through the use of flashbacks where we get to see exactly what happened to the characters.
Throughout these flashbacks, Nyman and Dyson have utilised a number of popular horror techniques that will make you jump out of your seat, or hide behind your hands. There’s a serious feeling of unease throughout the entire film, and you have no idea what’s going to happen next. Even as an avid fan of the genre, I found myself genuinely terrified during a large portion of the film. ‘Ghost Stories’ knows exactly how to pace a horror film, and how to leave an audience uncomfortable yet unable to look away from the screen. Whilst the jump scare is inevitable, the film doesn’t overuse these and instead finds ways to build tension and fear, which actually heightens the experience because you find yourself trying to predict when something’s going to pop out at you. It leaves you on edge for the entire ninety minutes, which in my mind, is exactly what a horror film should do.
The stories told by each of the men are gripping, and the actors all do exceptional jobs of portraying their characters. Each of the men interviewed by Goodman are very different in their class backgrounds, beliefs and personalities, but are united in their adamancy that they did experience hauntings and that they left them completely shaken up afterwards. This reinforces the idea that the supernatural can target anyone, and leave anyone feeling helpless. Particular praise has to be given to Alex Lawther; after seeing him in season 3 of ‘Black Mirror’ I had high hopes, and he delivered. He’s certainly one to watch and I look forward to seeing what he gets up to next.
‘Ghost Stories’ is incredibly British in nature, mixing the right amount of dry humour and satire into what is an utterly terrifying experience overall. Other critics have said it’s the best British horror film in years, and I couldn’t agree more. It’s an incredibly gripping story that has a lot of twists and turns, and tugs at all of your heartstrings. Alongside the characters, I went through a number of emotions and felt fully invested in their lives. These are all characters that feel familiar, they’re your average human, which throws realism into the mix. Being able to identify with characters in a horror film makes your fear 100 times worse.
This film is best experienced with as little context as possible, if you walk into it completely blind, I believe you’ll get maximum enjoyment out of it. The trailers have done a great job at keeping it as vague as possible, which was a bonus. There’s nothing worse than trailers giving everything away in a few seconds. ‘Ghost Stories’ does have a twist ending, but I thought this was done brilliantly and I personally was unable to predict it. Nyman and Dyson have put so much effort into crafting an intense, thrilling, mysterious story and it’s seriously paid off. I’m now hoping ‘Ghost Stories’ will be returning to the stage soon, because I’ll be first in line for a ticket!
https://jumpcutonline.co.uk/ghost-stories/
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Cinderella Man (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
In the late 1920’s Jim Braddock was a boxer with a future. After many wins, he was poised to take his place as one of the greatest boxers of his time. Things took a bad turn for Jim in 1929 when he first lost a 15 round decision to Tommy Loughran, and then lost everything in the Stock Market Crash.
In the new film Cinderella Man Academy Award winner Russell Crowe stars as Jim Braddock in one of the most satisfying films in recent memory. Down and almost out, Braddock struggles to provide for his wife Mae (Renee Zellweger), and his three children. A series of hand injuries has forced Jim to resort to fighting in pick up fights, as he is unable to find work as a laborer.
Things go from bad to worse for Jim when he breaks a bone in his hand and is unable to provide entertainment for those in a local boxing match which results in the suspension of his boxing license. With his electricity turned off in the dead of winter, and his children coughing from the effects of the cold, Jim is forced to hide his injury and seek work as a day laborer to get by.
As Jim and Mae debate sending the kids to her sister in order to better provide for them, a ray of hope arises when Jim’s old manger Joe Gould (Paul Giamatti), says he has arranged a fight with a $250 payday.
Since Jim’s hand has healed, he takes the fight seeing it as a chance to get caught up on his bills. Fate steps in when in a shocking turnaround; Jim wins the fight via knock out, and captures the imagination of the local sports community. Before long, Jim is racking up win after win and improving his lot in life as he prepares for an unexpected title shot against the devastating and unbeaten Max Baer (Craig Bierko).
The fact that Baer has killed two men in the ring is a cause of great stress for Jim and Mae as she worries for the safety of her husband while Jim sees the fight as his chance to provide some financial security for his family.
Anyone who has seen the trailer can be sure that the big fight will take place, and that the underdog will find himself in a battle against overwhelming odds, but what makes Cinderella Man such a captivating film is the captivating human drama that propels the film. There have been many boxing films ranging from “Rocky” to “Raging Bull”, that have depicted the graphic action of the ring, but few have reached the depths of human drama that this film does. Jim is not looking for glory, he is simply looking to provide for his family the best way that he is able be it in the ring or hauling cargo at the docks.
Crowe is riveting as he is able to convey his characters plight to the audience without making it seem forced or heavy handed. Where Crowe truly shines is his ability to mix the emotional sequences of the film with the athletic and action filled ring sequences and not lose any of his character. Far too often actors fail to convince in one aspect when they try to mix drama and action, but Crowe easily transitions between the demands of the role proving again that he is the most gifted actor in Hollywood. The steady direction of Ron Howard keeps the film moving at a crisp pace, without allowing the story to become mired in sentiment.
The only real issue I had with the film is that the talented Zellweger is not given enough to do, as beyond doting for and worry about her family, she is not given much to do aside from stand by while the action occurs around her.
That being said Cinderella Man, is a triumph of film making, and should be a forced to contend with come Oscar season.
In the new film Cinderella Man Academy Award winner Russell Crowe stars as Jim Braddock in one of the most satisfying films in recent memory. Down and almost out, Braddock struggles to provide for his wife Mae (Renee Zellweger), and his three children. A series of hand injuries has forced Jim to resort to fighting in pick up fights, as he is unable to find work as a laborer.
Things go from bad to worse for Jim when he breaks a bone in his hand and is unable to provide entertainment for those in a local boxing match which results in the suspension of his boxing license. With his electricity turned off in the dead of winter, and his children coughing from the effects of the cold, Jim is forced to hide his injury and seek work as a day laborer to get by.
As Jim and Mae debate sending the kids to her sister in order to better provide for them, a ray of hope arises when Jim’s old manger Joe Gould (Paul Giamatti), says he has arranged a fight with a $250 payday.
Since Jim’s hand has healed, he takes the fight seeing it as a chance to get caught up on his bills. Fate steps in when in a shocking turnaround; Jim wins the fight via knock out, and captures the imagination of the local sports community. Before long, Jim is racking up win after win and improving his lot in life as he prepares for an unexpected title shot against the devastating and unbeaten Max Baer (Craig Bierko).
The fact that Baer has killed two men in the ring is a cause of great stress for Jim and Mae as she worries for the safety of her husband while Jim sees the fight as his chance to provide some financial security for his family.
Anyone who has seen the trailer can be sure that the big fight will take place, and that the underdog will find himself in a battle against overwhelming odds, but what makes Cinderella Man such a captivating film is the captivating human drama that propels the film. There have been many boxing films ranging from “Rocky” to “Raging Bull”, that have depicted the graphic action of the ring, but few have reached the depths of human drama that this film does. Jim is not looking for glory, he is simply looking to provide for his family the best way that he is able be it in the ring or hauling cargo at the docks.
Crowe is riveting as he is able to convey his characters plight to the audience without making it seem forced or heavy handed. Where Crowe truly shines is his ability to mix the emotional sequences of the film with the athletic and action filled ring sequences and not lose any of his character. Far too often actors fail to convince in one aspect when they try to mix drama and action, but Crowe easily transitions between the demands of the role proving again that he is the most gifted actor in Hollywood. The steady direction of Ron Howard keeps the film moving at a crisp pace, without allowing the story to become mired in sentiment.
The only real issue I had with the film is that the talented Zellweger is not given enough to do, as beyond doting for and worry about her family, she is not given much to do aside from stand by while the action occurs around her.
That being said Cinderella Man, is a triumph of film making, and should be a forced to contend with come Oscar season.
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.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The House with a Clock in Its Walls (2018) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
The year is 1955 and a newly orphaned young man named Lewis (portrayed by the incredibly talented Owen Vaccaro) arrives in the small town of New Zebedee, Michigan to live with his estranged uncle Jonathan (Jack Black). Upon his arrival he discovers that his Uncle Jonathan and his neighbor/friend Florence (Cate Blanchet) are frantically attempting to find a mysterious clock in the wall of the house, with the clock’s dark purpose still a mystery.
The character of Lewis is your stereotypical weakly newcomer, who has no friends and has no athletic ability what-so-ever. This is portrayed in an extremely comical scene in the beginning of the film where his new classmates are picking basketball teams and would rather take a kid on crutches over Lewis. This one scene did an excellent job of making Lewis very endearing and the underdog you want to root for. Not only is Lewis having a hard time fitting in at school, but he is finding his home life is also a bit unsettling. Lewis and his uncle have a few odd interactions, and eventually he finds out his eccentric uncle is actually a warlock, or as Lewis lovingly likes to call him, a man-witch. After they finally have a heartfelt talk and realize they are both “black swans” in life, his uncle reluctantly agrees to train Lewis to become a warlock. The training sets in motion a series of events that not only grow Lewis as a more powerful warlock-in-training, but also as a person. Ultimately, Lewis must use his new-found magical gift and the power of his new family to prevent the clock from carrying out its devious plan.
Eli Roth, better known for his less kid friendly movies such as Hostel and Cabin Fever, did an astounding job of bringing the film to life. While there are certainly intense moments that may not be entirely suitable for younger viewers, it brought enough scares and creepy moments to entertain both young and old alike. The level of intensity is comparable to other kid friendly horror titles such as the Goosebumps series and this film does a good job of mixing up the lighter moments, jump scares and the use of creepy props to bring both a sense of terror and wonder to the screen at the same time. I do have to say, the scene where a bunch of spooky dolls come to life hit a bit too close to home considering my wife has a very large doll collection. After seeing this film, walking into her doll room will never be the same again.
Owen Vaccaro does an extraordinary job in his role of the quirky and nerdy Lewis and Jack Black is his usual zany self in the role of Uncle Jonathan, but he also does a great job with the more serious moments as well. Cate Blanchet, however, was one of the biggest surprises. Her talents are usually seen in dramas and playing more serious characters, so it was nice to see her in a more fun and playful role. All the characters have an excellent chemistry from the moment we are introduced to them, and that captivating chemistry carries through to the very end.
The House with a Clock in Its Walls certainly kept me entertained throughout. The characters and story were interesting, and the suspense and thrills were scary enough to elicit the occasional jump. While I hesitate to say it’s fun for the whole family as once again, some of the scenes may be a little too frightening for younger audiences, it certainly is a great movie for kids who are a bit older or who are not easily spooked. If you are a fan of lighthearted Halloween movies and can overlook a few silly and unnecessary moments, then this film has the potential to be an instant family classic and one that you will likely want to watch every Halloween season. Hmm, suddenly, I have a craving for homemade chocolate chip cookies and when you see the film, you will completely understand why.
The character of Lewis is your stereotypical weakly newcomer, who has no friends and has no athletic ability what-so-ever. This is portrayed in an extremely comical scene in the beginning of the film where his new classmates are picking basketball teams and would rather take a kid on crutches over Lewis. This one scene did an excellent job of making Lewis very endearing and the underdog you want to root for. Not only is Lewis having a hard time fitting in at school, but he is finding his home life is also a bit unsettling. Lewis and his uncle have a few odd interactions, and eventually he finds out his eccentric uncle is actually a warlock, or as Lewis lovingly likes to call him, a man-witch. After they finally have a heartfelt talk and realize they are both “black swans” in life, his uncle reluctantly agrees to train Lewis to become a warlock. The training sets in motion a series of events that not only grow Lewis as a more powerful warlock-in-training, but also as a person. Ultimately, Lewis must use his new-found magical gift and the power of his new family to prevent the clock from carrying out its devious plan.
Eli Roth, better known for his less kid friendly movies such as Hostel and Cabin Fever, did an astounding job of bringing the film to life. While there are certainly intense moments that may not be entirely suitable for younger viewers, it brought enough scares and creepy moments to entertain both young and old alike. The level of intensity is comparable to other kid friendly horror titles such as the Goosebumps series and this film does a good job of mixing up the lighter moments, jump scares and the use of creepy props to bring both a sense of terror and wonder to the screen at the same time. I do have to say, the scene where a bunch of spooky dolls come to life hit a bit too close to home considering my wife has a very large doll collection. After seeing this film, walking into her doll room will never be the same again.
Owen Vaccaro does an extraordinary job in his role of the quirky and nerdy Lewis and Jack Black is his usual zany self in the role of Uncle Jonathan, but he also does a great job with the more serious moments as well. Cate Blanchet, however, was one of the biggest surprises. Her talents are usually seen in dramas and playing more serious characters, so it was nice to see her in a more fun and playful role. All the characters have an excellent chemistry from the moment we are introduced to them, and that captivating chemistry carries through to the very end.
The House with a Clock in Its Walls certainly kept me entertained throughout. The characters and story were interesting, and the suspense and thrills were scary enough to elicit the occasional jump. While I hesitate to say it’s fun for the whole family as once again, some of the scenes may be a little too frightening for younger audiences, it certainly is a great movie for kids who are a bit older or who are not easily spooked. If you are a fan of lighthearted Halloween movies and can overlook a few silly and unnecessary moments, then this film has the potential to be an instant family classic and one that you will likely want to watch every Halloween season. Hmm, suddenly, I have a craving for homemade chocolate chip cookies and when you see the film, you will completely understand why.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Ford v Ferrari (aka Le Mans '66) (2019) in Movies
Nov 25, 2019
GREAT chemistry between Bale and Damon
Most people are attending - or staying away from - the new James Mangold film, FORD v FERRARI because it is a "race car flick". But to label it as just that is doing a disservice to this film, so if that is what is keeping you away from this movie, think again, for this film is much more than a race car film.
It is, at it's core, a film about friendship and loyalty in the face of adversity and is a very serious contender for multiple awards this Oscar season.
A long gestating film project (Director Mangold first came across this property in 2010), FORD v FERRARI tells the tale of the Ford Motor Company's attempt to unseat the Italian car company, Ferrari, as an elite race car producer by defeating it on it's own turf - the 24 hour race at LeMans.
Entrusted to make this dream a reality by Henry Ford II (Tracy Letts) is (now) legendary race car designer Carroll Shelby (Matt Damon) who turns to his reckless friend - and top race car driver - Ken Miles (Christian Bale) to help put this project over the top.
Will this duo succeed? Will Ford topple Ferrari? Can Shelby help smooth the rough waters that the temperamental Miles will, inevitably, create? What do you think?
But it is the journey - and not the destination - that is the joy of this film, for under the watchful, steady eye of veteran Director Mangold (WALK THE LINE) this film is much, much more than the cliched journey of a maverick bucking the system to, ultimately, prevail. It is a study of friendship and loyalty under intense pressure and Mangold finds the right balance between showing hardcore racing and the friendship and camaraderie of Miles and Shelby.
Mangold, of course, smartly knew that the success (or failure) of this film will rest on the chemistry between the two leads of this film - and he cast them well. Matt Damon brings his usual charm and easy-going attitude to Carroll Shelby, making him the heart and anchor of this film - we see the events unfold through his eyes - and he is a an easy stand-in for the audience during the proceedings and is someone that we are happy, and comfortable, to spend the 2 1/2 hours of this film with.
This is good, for he is strongly complimented - and challenged - by the hard intensity that Christian Bale brings to his portrayal of Ken Miles. This real-life racing car legend is driven (pun intended) to excellence, and does not suffer fools gladly. We spend a good amount of time in this film with Miles staring intently out the window of his race car and no one does smoldering, staring intensity better than Bale. This is another Oscar-worthy performance by an actor who has made a career of Oscar-worthy performances and has me asking - is he the finest actor working today? He certainly is in the conversation.
Bale and Damon play off each other very well, their chemistry seems real and we believe that these are 2 old friends working together. This is the first pairing of these two, and based on these results, I would guess that we'll be seeing these two in a film together again.
They are joined by strong supporting work by the likes of Letts, Jon Bernthal (portraying Lee Iacocca) and Caitriona Balfe (as Miles wife, Mollie). Only Josh Lucas (as the a-hole antagonist of the film) fares less well as his character is written in one note and Lucas just plays that note.
The racing scenes are well done - giving us the visceral intensity of what it must be like in the car, and in the pits, of a major race experience. But it is the friendship between Miles and Shelby that really is the engine that drives this film.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
It is, at it's core, a film about friendship and loyalty in the face of adversity and is a very serious contender for multiple awards this Oscar season.
A long gestating film project (Director Mangold first came across this property in 2010), FORD v FERRARI tells the tale of the Ford Motor Company's attempt to unseat the Italian car company, Ferrari, as an elite race car producer by defeating it on it's own turf - the 24 hour race at LeMans.
Entrusted to make this dream a reality by Henry Ford II (Tracy Letts) is (now) legendary race car designer Carroll Shelby (Matt Damon) who turns to his reckless friend - and top race car driver - Ken Miles (Christian Bale) to help put this project over the top.
Will this duo succeed? Will Ford topple Ferrari? Can Shelby help smooth the rough waters that the temperamental Miles will, inevitably, create? What do you think?
But it is the journey - and not the destination - that is the joy of this film, for under the watchful, steady eye of veteran Director Mangold (WALK THE LINE) this film is much, much more than the cliched journey of a maverick bucking the system to, ultimately, prevail. It is a study of friendship and loyalty under intense pressure and Mangold finds the right balance between showing hardcore racing and the friendship and camaraderie of Miles and Shelby.
Mangold, of course, smartly knew that the success (or failure) of this film will rest on the chemistry between the two leads of this film - and he cast them well. Matt Damon brings his usual charm and easy-going attitude to Carroll Shelby, making him the heart and anchor of this film - we see the events unfold through his eyes - and he is a an easy stand-in for the audience during the proceedings and is someone that we are happy, and comfortable, to spend the 2 1/2 hours of this film with.
This is good, for he is strongly complimented - and challenged - by the hard intensity that Christian Bale brings to his portrayal of Ken Miles. This real-life racing car legend is driven (pun intended) to excellence, and does not suffer fools gladly. We spend a good amount of time in this film with Miles staring intently out the window of his race car and no one does smoldering, staring intensity better than Bale. This is another Oscar-worthy performance by an actor who has made a career of Oscar-worthy performances and has me asking - is he the finest actor working today? He certainly is in the conversation.
Bale and Damon play off each other very well, their chemistry seems real and we believe that these are 2 old friends working together. This is the first pairing of these two, and based on these results, I would guess that we'll be seeing these two in a film together again.
They are joined by strong supporting work by the likes of Letts, Jon Bernthal (portraying Lee Iacocca) and Caitriona Balfe (as Miles wife, Mollie). Only Josh Lucas (as the a-hole antagonist of the film) fares less well as his character is written in one note and Lucas just plays that note.
The racing scenes are well done - giving us the visceral intensity of what it must be like in the car, and in the pits, of a major race experience. But it is the friendship between Miles and Shelby that really is the engine that drives this film.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Bombshell (2019) in Movies
Jan 26, 2020
Power-house female lead roles, times 3. (1 more)
John Lithgow (who should have got a supporting actor nom)
Sleazy old Fox.
This is a curious one. I wonder whether the audience reaction to this one will polarize along gender lines as it did for my wife and I? For I thought this one was "good, but nothing special"... but the illustrious Mrs Movie Man thought it was excellent and would be "memorable".
The movie is based on the true story of the first "Me Too" case against a prominent man in power. Before Harvey Weinstein (allegedly!) there was Roger Ailes (John Lithgow), CEO of the Fox Network. Under the shadowy gaze of the Murdoch brothers (Ben Lawson and Josh Lawson), Ailes rules Fox with a rod of iron. Unfortunately, it's Ailes' - ahem - 'rod of iron' that is part of the problem.
Three women are at the centre of the drama. Megyn Kelly (Charlize Theron) is a leading anchorwoman, fighting her own battles in a man's world. She is currently in trouble with 50% of the US population for taking a firm stand on-screen against Trump's treatment of women; Gretchen Carlson (Nicole Kidman) is a broadcaster approaching her 50's and being shunted progressively towards the door, via afternoon shows, in favour of 'younger models'; Kayla Pospisil (Margot Robbie) is a keen new-starter, ambitious and keen as mustard to impress her bosses, including Ailes.
The three women seldom interact (a scene in a lift is a study in awkwardness) but are all on different stages of the same journey.
I clearly saw a review which referenced the movie as being "Adam McKay-like" since I went in assuming that McKay ("Vice", "The Big Short") was the director of this one. For that reason, I was puzzled. Yes, there were occasions where the actors broke the 4th wall; and there were little visual tricks (a burned in Fox logo for example) that entertained. But it wasn't the close-to-the-edge roller-coaster of innovation that I have come to expect from a McKay film.
When the titles rolled, it was an "Aha" moment! Actually, the director is the Austin Powers director Jay Roach. Not that he hasn't done drama as well: he did the Bryan Cranston vehicle "Trumbo" a few years back. And another MacKay link is the writer: the screenplay is by Charles Randolph, the writer of "The Big Short".
The leading ladies in this really are leading, with Charlize Theron picking up a well-deserved Best Actress Oscar nomination and Margot Robbie getting the Best Supporting nom. Theron is brilliant in everything she does, and here she is chameleon-like in disappearing into her character. I wasn't as sure about Robbie early in the film, but an excruciating "twirl" for Ailes is brilliantly done and an emotional scene during a date is Oscar-reel worthy.
Great supporting turns come from "The West Wing's" Allison Janney and from Kate McKinnon. McKinnon was the most annoying thing in "Yesterday", as the brash US agent, but here she is effective as the lesbian friend of Kayla.
Holding up the male end (as it were) is a fantastic performance from John Lithgow (surprisingly overlooked during the awards season) and Malcolm McDowell delivering an uncanny Rupert Murdoch.
Overall, the "Me Too" movement has created an earthquake in popular culture. Many more movies featuring strong female leads have appeared in the last few years, and that's great. This is a reminder of the time before that, when men openly used their power to force unwanted sex on employees. And its horrifying and disconcerting to watch.
And it was a good movie. But it just wasn't a "wow" movie for me. A female audience will by definition have more experience of this than a male one. Perhaps there is a sense of 'collective guilt' that we blokes need to work through. And perhaps that's a subconscious reason why I didn't 100% engage with the film. (Though I'd like to make it perfectly clear that I don't have any skeletons in that particular closet!)
(For the graphical review, please check out the review on One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/24/one-manns-movies-film-review-bombshell-2020/).
The movie is based on the true story of the first "Me Too" case against a prominent man in power. Before Harvey Weinstein (allegedly!) there was Roger Ailes (John Lithgow), CEO of the Fox Network. Under the shadowy gaze of the Murdoch brothers (Ben Lawson and Josh Lawson), Ailes rules Fox with a rod of iron. Unfortunately, it's Ailes' - ahem - 'rod of iron' that is part of the problem.
Three women are at the centre of the drama. Megyn Kelly (Charlize Theron) is a leading anchorwoman, fighting her own battles in a man's world. She is currently in trouble with 50% of the US population for taking a firm stand on-screen against Trump's treatment of women; Gretchen Carlson (Nicole Kidman) is a broadcaster approaching her 50's and being shunted progressively towards the door, via afternoon shows, in favour of 'younger models'; Kayla Pospisil (Margot Robbie) is a keen new-starter, ambitious and keen as mustard to impress her bosses, including Ailes.
The three women seldom interact (a scene in a lift is a study in awkwardness) but are all on different stages of the same journey.
I clearly saw a review which referenced the movie as being "Adam McKay-like" since I went in assuming that McKay ("Vice", "The Big Short") was the director of this one. For that reason, I was puzzled. Yes, there were occasions where the actors broke the 4th wall; and there were little visual tricks (a burned in Fox logo for example) that entertained. But it wasn't the close-to-the-edge roller-coaster of innovation that I have come to expect from a McKay film.
When the titles rolled, it was an "Aha" moment! Actually, the director is the Austin Powers director Jay Roach. Not that he hasn't done drama as well: he did the Bryan Cranston vehicle "Trumbo" a few years back. And another MacKay link is the writer: the screenplay is by Charles Randolph, the writer of "The Big Short".
The leading ladies in this really are leading, with Charlize Theron picking up a well-deserved Best Actress Oscar nomination and Margot Robbie getting the Best Supporting nom. Theron is brilliant in everything she does, and here she is chameleon-like in disappearing into her character. I wasn't as sure about Robbie early in the film, but an excruciating "twirl" for Ailes is brilliantly done and an emotional scene during a date is Oscar-reel worthy.
Great supporting turns come from "The West Wing's" Allison Janney and from Kate McKinnon. McKinnon was the most annoying thing in "Yesterday", as the brash US agent, but here she is effective as the lesbian friend of Kayla.
Holding up the male end (as it were) is a fantastic performance from John Lithgow (surprisingly overlooked during the awards season) and Malcolm McDowell delivering an uncanny Rupert Murdoch.
Overall, the "Me Too" movement has created an earthquake in popular culture. Many more movies featuring strong female leads have appeared in the last few years, and that's great. This is a reminder of the time before that, when men openly used their power to force unwanted sex on employees. And its horrifying and disconcerting to watch.
And it was a good movie. But it just wasn't a "wow" movie for me. A female audience will by definition have more experience of this than a male one. Perhaps there is a sense of 'collective guilt' that we blokes need to work through. And perhaps that's a subconscious reason why I didn't 100% engage with the film. (Though I'd like to make it perfectly clear that I don't have any skeletons in that particular closet!)
(For the graphical review, please check out the review on One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/24/one-manns-movies-film-review-bombshell-2020/).
