Search
Search results
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Book of Blood (2008) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
"The dead have highways. Highways that lead to intersections and intersections that spill into our world. And if you find yourself at one of those intersections, you should stop and you should listen because the dead have stories to tell."
Mary Florescu, writer, teacher, and overall expert of the paranormal, is still looking for the distinct evidence of supernatural occurences. A house catches her eye that has been on the market since the daughter of the couple living there before had been murdered. It's said the original homeowner was thrown against the wall by an invisible force so hard that shards of his broken bones pierced his lungs and he choked to death on his own blood. During each incident, the message, "Don't mock us," was found written in blood on the closet doors. Mary decides to move into the house to find proof of the supernatural, bringing an audio/video technician, Reg Fuller, to help document anything they find. A new student, Simon McNeal, transfers into Mary's class. He seems to have a special gift related to the paranormal and is brought into the house to help work with Mary and Reg on the project. Strange occurences seem to begin immediately and only get more violent as they occur. But as things progress, the relationship between Mary and Simon turns physical and suspicious evidence is found in Simon's bag that point to him being a fake. Is the house actually "haunted," or is Simon playing everyone for a fool?
I'm a fairly big fan of Clive Barker's work. I've loved the books and stories (Books of Blood Vol. 1-3, Mister B. Gone, The Hellbound Heart) of his that I've read and several of his films (Hellraiser, Midnight Meat Train) are some of the best the horror genre has to offer. Midnight Meat Train was probably the best horror film to come out of last year, so my expectations were high when I heard about this film and saw the trailer. This was one of my most anticipated horror films of the year even though it seemed to get the short end of the stick with its release much like what happened with Midnight Meat Train. I can tell you that Book of Blood is a good watch, but it may not be what you're expecting.
Book of Blood has its bloody moments, but it's not an all out gorefest. It's actually more of a supernatural thriller. The director, John Harrison, described the film as being more along the lines of films like The Others and The Orphanage. It relies more on mood and atmosphere rather than blood and guts splattering all over your face, which isn't a bad thing at all if done correctly. Book of Blood almost pulls that aspect of the film flawlessly. I say, "almost," because certain lines of dialogue ("I promise we will listen and I will tell your stories to the world.") and a few of the things that happened in the final act of the film (steel briefcase...it'll make sense when you see it) seem a bit cheesy, but may sit better with me on repeat viewings.
The film actually reminded me of Hellraiser quite a bit throughout the film. Other than Doug Bradley's brief cameo (if you blink, you'll probably miss him), the opening scene of when Reg and Mary go into the room where everything happened just reminds me of Frank staying in the attic in Hellraiser. Hellraiser is one of my favorite horror films, so the brief nod to the film (whether intentional or not) was very welcome to me.
My main concern with Book of Blood was how they were going to turn a short story that was originally just an introduction to the actual Books of Blood by Clive Barker into a full length film. The concern wound up being for nothing as Book of Blood met nearly all of my expectations and was extremely faithful to the original material while bringing in elements from another one of his stories called, "On Jerusalem Street." The story fleshes out nicely and the acting is good, for the most part. I think the perfectionist in me kept me from rating this any higher, but I'd definitely recommend it as it's a worthy addition to any avid horror movie enthusiast's collection.
Mary Florescu, writer, teacher, and overall expert of the paranormal, is still looking for the distinct evidence of supernatural occurences. A house catches her eye that has been on the market since the daughter of the couple living there before had been murdered. It's said the original homeowner was thrown against the wall by an invisible force so hard that shards of his broken bones pierced his lungs and he choked to death on his own blood. During each incident, the message, "Don't mock us," was found written in blood on the closet doors. Mary decides to move into the house to find proof of the supernatural, bringing an audio/video technician, Reg Fuller, to help document anything they find. A new student, Simon McNeal, transfers into Mary's class. He seems to have a special gift related to the paranormal and is brought into the house to help work with Mary and Reg on the project. Strange occurences seem to begin immediately and only get more violent as they occur. But as things progress, the relationship between Mary and Simon turns physical and suspicious evidence is found in Simon's bag that point to him being a fake. Is the house actually "haunted," or is Simon playing everyone for a fool?
I'm a fairly big fan of Clive Barker's work. I've loved the books and stories (Books of Blood Vol. 1-3, Mister B. Gone, The Hellbound Heart) of his that I've read and several of his films (Hellraiser, Midnight Meat Train) are some of the best the horror genre has to offer. Midnight Meat Train was probably the best horror film to come out of last year, so my expectations were high when I heard about this film and saw the trailer. This was one of my most anticipated horror films of the year even though it seemed to get the short end of the stick with its release much like what happened with Midnight Meat Train. I can tell you that Book of Blood is a good watch, but it may not be what you're expecting.
Book of Blood has its bloody moments, but it's not an all out gorefest. It's actually more of a supernatural thriller. The director, John Harrison, described the film as being more along the lines of films like The Others and The Orphanage. It relies more on mood and atmosphere rather than blood and guts splattering all over your face, which isn't a bad thing at all if done correctly. Book of Blood almost pulls that aspect of the film flawlessly. I say, "almost," because certain lines of dialogue ("I promise we will listen and I will tell your stories to the world.") and a few of the things that happened in the final act of the film (steel briefcase...it'll make sense when you see it) seem a bit cheesy, but may sit better with me on repeat viewings.
The film actually reminded me of Hellraiser quite a bit throughout the film. Other than Doug Bradley's brief cameo (if you blink, you'll probably miss him), the opening scene of when Reg and Mary go into the room where everything happened just reminds me of Frank staying in the attic in Hellraiser. Hellraiser is one of my favorite horror films, so the brief nod to the film (whether intentional or not) was very welcome to me.
My main concern with Book of Blood was how they were going to turn a short story that was originally just an introduction to the actual Books of Blood by Clive Barker into a full length film. The concern wound up being for nothing as Book of Blood met nearly all of my expectations and was extremely faithful to the original material while bringing in elements from another one of his stories called, "On Jerusalem Street." The story fleshes out nicely and the acting is good, for the most part. I think the perfectionist in me kept me from rating this any higher, but I'd definitely recommend it as it's a worthy addition to any avid horror movie enthusiast's collection.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated A Notable Woman: The Romantic Journals of Jean Lucey Pratt in Books
May 25, 2017
Looooong
I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.
Whilst researching a previous book, Simon Garfield came across the diaries of Jean Lucey Pratt amongst journals collected during the Second World War for Mass Observation. Intrigued by her observations and character, Garfield became determined to learn more about her. After eventually receiving permission from Jean’s niece, he was able to read all forty-five of her diaries, edit them, and produce this huge manuscript for publication: A Notable Woman.
Jean began writing her journals in the April of 1925 at the young age of fifteen. Although she did not write everyday, she continued putting down her thoughts and experiences up until her death in 1986. Jean Lucey Pratt was not a celebrity, although she did write an, unfortunately, unsuccessful book; nor did she achieve anything spectacular during her lifetime. What makes her diaries worth publishing is the fact that she was “ordinary,” a woman who wrote not to impress other people, but to honestly express her emotions and opinions.
For the majority of her life Jean lived on her own in Burnham Beeches, Buckinghamshire, where she yearned for a husband. Her dreams of finding the perfect man yet only attracting a handful of lovers is both amusing and saddening. The most interesting part of her written records, however, has got to be the experiences of war. Unlike other diarist such as Anne Frank, who feared for their lives, or those that experienced the fighting up front, Jean provides the perspective of the average British citizen. She comments on the rationing, the blackout curtains as well as the political propaganda, providing her own opinions, which often changed as the war progressed. Jean amuses the reader by revealing she often slept through an air raid, only waking up at the sound of the All Clear.
The war ends midway through the book, thus delivering accounts of the latter half of her life, from career to ill health, incorporating in family events and, of course, her enormous horde of cats. Although a rather introverted, lonely individual, Jean’s relationship and love for her brother is often heartwarming. Separated by oceans and only seeing him every so many years, it is clear that the siblings are strongly supportive of each other. Jean often refers to her brother as Pooh (as in Winnie the Pooh), to which he responds by calling her Piglet.
Initially Jean did not intend to let anyone read her diaries but later began to imagine how other people would react to what she had written. She toyed with the idea of posthumous publication, but presumed only family and friends would read them – how wrong she was! Regardless of whether her diaries were to be viewed by outsiders or not, Jean usually referred to people by their initials. Whether she did this for a particular reason or merely to save time when writing remains debatable, however it does cause a bit of confusion when reading. Helpfully the editor, Garfield, has provided a character list that can be referred back to as needed.
Simon Garfield has done a magnificent job of compiling the diary entries together to produce an interesting, moving and occasionally amusing story about life during the 1900s. He has painstakingly sorted through handwritten entries, deciding what bits to omit and conducting further research in order to explain in footnotes the sections or references that would not make sense if left alone. Garfield has made the majority of Jean’s journals flow like a novel, only becoming erratic towards the end of her life when she would only write once every few months.
A Notable Woman gives a fantastic insight into the lives of ordinary people during an era of hardship and change. Readers are more likely to read an accurate description of the war and subsequent years in this book than in any emotionally detached textbook or biased account. Without a doubt this book is worth a read, although do not expect to be able to rush through it as some may do with a work of fiction. Garfield if highly praised for his efforts, and one hopes that Jean would be proud to finally have a writing success.
Whilst researching a previous book, Simon Garfield came across the diaries of Jean Lucey Pratt amongst journals collected during the Second World War for Mass Observation. Intrigued by her observations and character, Garfield became determined to learn more about her. After eventually receiving permission from Jean’s niece, he was able to read all forty-five of her diaries, edit them, and produce this huge manuscript for publication: A Notable Woman.
Jean began writing her journals in the April of 1925 at the young age of fifteen. Although she did not write everyday, she continued putting down her thoughts and experiences up until her death in 1986. Jean Lucey Pratt was not a celebrity, although she did write an, unfortunately, unsuccessful book; nor did she achieve anything spectacular during her lifetime. What makes her diaries worth publishing is the fact that she was “ordinary,” a woman who wrote not to impress other people, but to honestly express her emotions and opinions.
For the majority of her life Jean lived on her own in Burnham Beeches, Buckinghamshire, where she yearned for a husband. Her dreams of finding the perfect man yet only attracting a handful of lovers is both amusing and saddening. The most interesting part of her written records, however, has got to be the experiences of war. Unlike other diarist such as Anne Frank, who feared for their lives, or those that experienced the fighting up front, Jean provides the perspective of the average British citizen. She comments on the rationing, the blackout curtains as well as the political propaganda, providing her own opinions, which often changed as the war progressed. Jean amuses the reader by revealing she often slept through an air raid, only waking up at the sound of the All Clear.
The war ends midway through the book, thus delivering accounts of the latter half of her life, from career to ill health, incorporating in family events and, of course, her enormous horde of cats. Although a rather introverted, lonely individual, Jean’s relationship and love for her brother is often heartwarming. Separated by oceans and only seeing him every so many years, it is clear that the siblings are strongly supportive of each other. Jean often refers to her brother as Pooh (as in Winnie the Pooh), to which he responds by calling her Piglet.
Initially Jean did not intend to let anyone read her diaries but later began to imagine how other people would react to what she had written. She toyed with the idea of posthumous publication, but presumed only family and friends would read them – how wrong she was! Regardless of whether her diaries were to be viewed by outsiders or not, Jean usually referred to people by their initials. Whether she did this for a particular reason or merely to save time when writing remains debatable, however it does cause a bit of confusion when reading. Helpfully the editor, Garfield, has provided a character list that can be referred back to as needed.
Simon Garfield has done a magnificent job of compiling the diary entries together to produce an interesting, moving and occasionally amusing story about life during the 1900s. He has painstakingly sorted through handwritten entries, deciding what bits to omit and conducting further research in order to explain in footnotes the sections or references that would not make sense if left alone. Garfield has made the majority of Jean’s journals flow like a novel, only becoming erratic towards the end of her life when she would only write once every few months.
A Notable Woman gives a fantastic insight into the lives of ordinary people during an era of hardship and change. Readers are more likely to read an accurate description of the war and subsequent years in this book than in any emotionally detached textbook or biased account. Without a doubt this book is worth a read, although do not expect to be able to rush through it as some may do with a work of fiction. Garfield if highly praised for his efforts, and one hopes that Jean would be proud to finally have a writing success.
Hazel (1853 KP) rated A Notable Woman: The Romantic Journals of Jean Lucey Pratt in Books
Dec 7, 2018
<i>I received this book for free through Goodreads First Reads.</i>
Whilst researching a previous book, Simon Garfield came across the diaries of Jean Lucey Pratt amongst journals collected during the Second World War for Mass Observation. Intrigued by her observations and character, Garfield became determined to learn more about her. After eventually receiving permission from Jean’s niece, he was able to read all forty-five of her diaries, edit them, and produce this huge manuscript for publication: <i>A Notable Woman</i>.
Jean began writing her journals in the April of 1925 at the young age of fifteen. Although she did not write everyday, she continued putting down her thoughts and experiences up until her death in 1986. Jean Lucey Pratt was not a celebrity, although she did write an, unfortunately, unsuccessful book; nor did she achieve anything spectacular during her lifetime. What makes her diaries worth publishing is the fact that she was “ordinary,” a woman who wrote not to impress other people, but to honestly express her emotions and opinions.
For the majority of her life Jean lived on her own in Burnham Beeches, Buckinghamshire, where she yearned for a husband. Her dreams of finding the perfect man yet only attracting a handful of lovers is both amusing and saddening. The most interesting part of her written records, however, has got to be the experiences of war. Unlike other diarist such as Anne Frank, who feared for their lives, or those that experienced the fighting up front, Jean provides the perspective of the average British citizen. She comments on the rationing, the blackout curtains as well as the political propaganda, providing her own opinions, which often changed as the war progressed. Jean amuses the reader by revealing she often slept through an air raid, only waking up at the sound of the All Clear.
The war ends midway through the book, thus delivering accounts of the latter half of her life, from career to ill health, incorporating in family events and, of course, her enormous horde of cats. Although a rather introverted, lonely individual, Jean’s relationship and love for her brother is often heartwarming. Separated by oceans and only seeing him every so many years, it is clear that the siblings are strongly supportive of each other. Jean often refers to her brother as Pooh (as in <i>Winnie the Pooh</i>), to which he responds by calling her Piglet.
Initially Jean did not intend to let anyone read her diaries but later began to imagine how other people would react to what she had written. She toyed with the idea of posthumous publication, but presumed only family and friends would read them – how wrong she was! Regardless of whether her diaries were to be viewed by outsiders or not, Jean usually referred to people by their initials. Whether she did this for a particular reason or merely to save time when writing remains debatable, however it does cause a bit of confusion when reading. Helpfully the editor, Garfield, has provided a character list that can be referred back to as needed.
Simon Garfield has done a magnificent job of compiling the diary entries together to produce an interesting, moving and occasionally amusing story about life during the 1900s. He has painstakingly sorted through handwritten entries, deciding what bits to omit and conducting further research in order to explain in footnotes the sections or references that would not make sense if left alone. Garfield has made the majority of Jean’s journals flow like a novel, only becoming erratic towards the end of her life when she would only write once every few months.
<i>A Notable Woman</i> gives a fantastic insight into the lives of ordinary people during an era of hardship and change. Readers are more likely to read an accurate description of the war and subsequent years in this book than in any emotionally detached textbook or biased account. Without a doubt this book is worth a read, although do not expect to be able to rush through it as some may do with a work of fiction. Garfield if highly praised for his efforts, and one hopes that Jean would be proud to finally have a writing success.
Whilst researching a previous book, Simon Garfield came across the diaries of Jean Lucey Pratt amongst journals collected during the Second World War for Mass Observation. Intrigued by her observations and character, Garfield became determined to learn more about her. After eventually receiving permission from Jean’s niece, he was able to read all forty-five of her diaries, edit them, and produce this huge manuscript for publication: <i>A Notable Woman</i>.
Jean began writing her journals in the April of 1925 at the young age of fifteen. Although she did not write everyday, she continued putting down her thoughts and experiences up until her death in 1986. Jean Lucey Pratt was not a celebrity, although she did write an, unfortunately, unsuccessful book; nor did she achieve anything spectacular during her lifetime. What makes her diaries worth publishing is the fact that she was “ordinary,” a woman who wrote not to impress other people, but to honestly express her emotions and opinions.
For the majority of her life Jean lived on her own in Burnham Beeches, Buckinghamshire, where she yearned for a husband. Her dreams of finding the perfect man yet only attracting a handful of lovers is both amusing and saddening. The most interesting part of her written records, however, has got to be the experiences of war. Unlike other diarist such as Anne Frank, who feared for their lives, or those that experienced the fighting up front, Jean provides the perspective of the average British citizen. She comments on the rationing, the blackout curtains as well as the political propaganda, providing her own opinions, which often changed as the war progressed. Jean amuses the reader by revealing she often slept through an air raid, only waking up at the sound of the All Clear.
The war ends midway through the book, thus delivering accounts of the latter half of her life, from career to ill health, incorporating in family events and, of course, her enormous horde of cats. Although a rather introverted, lonely individual, Jean’s relationship and love for her brother is often heartwarming. Separated by oceans and only seeing him every so many years, it is clear that the siblings are strongly supportive of each other. Jean often refers to her brother as Pooh (as in <i>Winnie the Pooh</i>), to which he responds by calling her Piglet.
Initially Jean did not intend to let anyone read her diaries but later began to imagine how other people would react to what she had written. She toyed with the idea of posthumous publication, but presumed only family and friends would read them – how wrong she was! Regardless of whether her diaries were to be viewed by outsiders or not, Jean usually referred to people by their initials. Whether she did this for a particular reason or merely to save time when writing remains debatable, however it does cause a bit of confusion when reading. Helpfully the editor, Garfield, has provided a character list that can be referred back to as needed.
Simon Garfield has done a magnificent job of compiling the diary entries together to produce an interesting, moving and occasionally amusing story about life during the 1900s. He has painstakingly sorted through handwritten entries, deciding what bits to omit and conducting further research in order to explain in footnotes the sections or references that would not make sense if left alone. Garfield has made the majority of Jean’s journals flow like a novel, only becoming erratic towards the end of her life when she would only write once every few months.
<i>A Notable Woman</i> gives a fantastic insight into the lives of ordinary people during an era of hardship and change. Readers are more likely to read an accurate description of the war and subsequent years in this book than in any emotionally detached textbook or biased account. Without a doubt this book is worth a read, although do not expect to be able to rush through it as some may do with a work of fiction. Garfield if highly praised for his efforts, and one hopes that Jean would be proud to finally have a writing success.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Endless (2020) in Movies
Oct 19, 2020
Alexandra Shipp's acting is OK (1 more)
The British Columbian scenary
A Ghost "Ditto" - but without the star quality
Riley (Alexandra Shipp) and Chris (Nicholas Hamilton) are teenage lovers about to be torn apart... but not in the way you think. Riley is about to turn her back on her talent for comic book art to follow her parent's wishes: to study law on the other side of the country in Georgetown. Chris is from the other side of the tracks - aren't they always in these films? - living in a one-parent family with his mother Lee (Bond-girl Famke Janssen).
But fate is about to push them even further apart as - with an advert as to why drinking, texting and driving don't mix - Chris is killed in a car crash. Tragedy - when the feeling's gone and you can't go on! Can their love for each other reach beyond death itself, and if so, at what cost?
We've been here before of course with the Demi Moore / Patrick Swayze hit "Ghost" from 1990. That was an Oscar winner (Best Supporting Actress for Whoopi Goldberg and screenplay by Bruce Joel Rubin). Will "Endless" - a teen-love version - match this potential? Unfortunately, without a potter's wheel in sight, it doesn't stand a ghost of a chance.
It feels like it's not for the want of trying from the five youngsters* at the heart of the action, with Eddie Ramos and Zoë Belkin playing the lover's best friends and DeRon Horton being the limbo-trapped ghost-guide equivalent to the subway dropout from "Ghost". (* I say "youngsters", but most seem to be in their late twenties!) )
All seem to invest their energy into the project. Unfortunately, with the exception of Alexandra Shipp, the energy is not matched with great acting talent. Poor Nicholas Hamilton (the bully from "It") seems to have a particularly limited range, with his resting expression being "gormless".
None of the adult actors fair much better, with Famke Janssen being particularly unconvincing.
As I said, the exception here is Alexandra Shipp, who had a supporting role in "Love, Simon" and a more centre-stage role as "Storm" in the otherwise disappointing "X-Men: Dark Phoenix". Here she remains eminently watchable, but is hog-bound by a seriously dodgy script.
If you read my bob-the-movie-man blog regularly, you will know I reach for my flame-thrower at the appearance of voiceovers. And the start of this movie made me shudder with fear as a "tell, not show" approach was followed. It's a mild blessing that the script - by Andre Case and O'Neil Sharma - used this device purely as a slightly lazy way to set the scene and the voiceover didn't rear its ugly head again.
However, on a broader basis, the screenplay doesn't excite - predictability is its middle name - and it contains lines of dialogue that are absolute stinkers. There are whole sections of the movie that defy belief, with a police investigation in particular appearing completely incompetent. The result is that it adds neither drama or tension.
Through my career in IT I've had the great fortune to travel to a number of small cities in Canada, and all have appealed with their consistently picturesque qualities and consistently quirky individuals! Here we have the cities of Kelowna and Vernon in British Columbia playing California, and the drone cinematography (by Frank Borin and Mark Dobrescu) displays the dramatic lake-filled scenery to the full.
With so many cookie-cutter movies out there, it feels like the non-horror "Ghost" recipe (or "Heaven Can Wait" / "It's a Wonderful Life" / "A Matter of Life and Death" / delete per your preference) is well overdue for a makeover. Unfortunately, director Scott Speer's attempt just isn't good enough to fill the void. And that's a shame.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the bob-the-movie-man review here - https://rb.gy/mzq6jx . Thanks.)
But fate is about to push them even further apart as - with an advert as to why drinking, texting and driving don't mix - Chris is killed in a car crash. Tragedy - when the feeling's gone and you can't go on! Can their love for each other reach beyond death itself, and if so, at what cost?
We've been here before of course with the Demi Moore / Patrick Swayze hit "Ghost" from 1990. That was an Oscar winner (Best Supporting Actress for Whoopi Goldberg and screenplay by Bruce Joel Rubin). Will "Endless" - a teen-love version - match this potential? Unfortunately, without a potter's wheel in sight, it doesn't stand a ghost of a chance.
It feels like it's not for the want of trying from the five youngsters* at the heart of the action, with Eddie Ramos and Zoë Belkin playing the lover's best friends and DeRon Horton being the limbo-trapped ghost-guide equivalent to the subway dropout from "Ghost". (* I say "youngsters", but most seem to be in their late twenties!) )
All seem to invest their energy into the project. Unfortunately, with the exception of Alexandra Shipp, the energy is not matched with great acting talent. Poor Nicholas Hamilton (the bully from "It") seems to have a particularly limited range, with his resting expression being "gormless".
None of the adult actors fair much better, with Famke Janssen being particularly unconvincing.
As I said, the exception here is Alexandra Shipp, who had a supporting role in "Love, Simon" and a more centre-stage role as "Storm" in the otherwise disappointing "X-Men: Dark Phoenix". Here she remains eminently watchable, but is hog-bound by a seriously dodgy script.
If you read my bob-the-movie-man blog regularly, you will know I reach for my flame-thrower at the appearance of voiceovers. And the start of this movie made me shudder with fear as a "tell, not show" approach was followed. It's a mild blessing that the script - by Andre Case and O'Neil Sharma - used this device purely as a slightly lazy way to set the scene and the voiceover didn't rear its ugly head again.
However, on a broader basis, the screenplay doesn't excite - predictability is its middle name - and it contains lines of dialogue that are absolute stinkers. There are whole sections of the movie that defy belief, with a police investigation in particular appearing completely incompetent. The result is that it adds neither drama or tension.
Through my career in IT I've had the great fortune to travel to a number of small cities in Canada, and all have appealed with their consistently picturesque qualities and consistently quirky individuals! Here we have the cities of Kelowna and Vernon in British Columbia playing California, and the drone cinematography (by Frank Borin and Mark Dobrescu) displays the dramatic lake-filled scenery to the full.
With so many cookie-cutter movies out there, it feels like the non-horror "Ghost" recipe (or "Heaven Can Wait" / "It's a Wonderful Life" / "A Matter of Life and Death" / delete per your preference) is well overdue for a makeover. Unfortunately, director Scott Speer's attempt just isn't good enough to fill the void. And that's a shame.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the bob-the-movie-man review here - https://rb.gy/mzq6jx . Thanks.)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Baby Driver (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A summer film so cool that air-con is optional.
Sorry for the lack of posts folks…. with a holiday in sunny Portugal, I’ve not been to the pics for weeks!
There’s something inherently appealing about the concept of a getaway driver. A skillful ‘bad-boy’, but not normally bad enough to actually DO the nasty crime stuff…. merely be an active accomplice to it. As a result, it’s a subject that the movies have returned to time after time. I’m old and crusty enough to remember being wowed at seeing Ryan O’Neal in Walter Hill’s “Driver” on the big screen in 1978. And well before that, as a kid, my poor departed mother used to be driven crazy by me begging her to take me to see “The Italian Job” (the original 1969 version) YET again… probably the greatest getaway chase in movie history: I must have seen that film at least 20 times in the cinema. Of course more recently we’ve also had Ryan Gosling and Carey Mulligan in “Drive” on the same theme. Any I’ve forgotten?
But with Edgar Wright at the helm, a big name cast and an enticing trailer, I had high expectations for “Baby Driver” – and boy was I happy! This is such a seriously cool film on so many levels.
Opening with a bank heist followed by a kick-ass car chase, we follow ‘Baby’ (Ansel Elgort, “Allegiant”, “The Fault in our Stars”) as a tinnitus-suffering, music-infused getaway driver under the thumb of the criminal overlord Doc (Kevin Spacey, in icy Frank Underwood mode). Doc recruits an ever-changing mix-tape of villains for each job, including the psychopathic and appropriately named ‘Bats’ (Jamie Foxx, “Sleepless”), the chillingly dangerous Buddy (Jon Hamm, “Mad Men”, “Keeping Up With The Joneses”) and his “Bonnie-style” wife ‘Darling’ (Eiza González) and the moderately incompetent JD (Lanny Joon) (who changed his neck tattoo of “HATE” to “HAT” since it improved his job prospects… LOL…. “everybody loves a hat”!).
Baby’s life gets more complicated when the hoods become aware of his fledgling relationship with fellow-orphan Debora (Lily James) a waitress in a diner and another lever to keep Baby locked into the job that he is just so, so good at.
On the surface this might be perceived as being just another good excuse for a lot of CGI-driven car stunts in the style of “The Fate of the Furious”. But no. Firstly, as Edgar Wright declared before the special screening I saw, all of the car stunts were actually performed for real on the mean streets of Atlanta (and hats off to the film’s stunt coordinator Robert Nagle and his team for these). And secondly, the car scenes are almost secondary to the fabulous story and character development in the film. The script (also by Edgar Wright) is just brilliant. There are genuinely laugh-out loud moments in the movie, with one of the highlights for me being JD tasked with procuring Michael Myers “Halloween” masks for a heist. If you don’t find this scene hilarious, you are not human – official.
The only misstep for me in the script was an unbelievable event (both in terms of likelihood and – particularly – timing) during a closing car park fight***.
Elgort is really strong in the lead role, and suggested to me that if the role of the young Han Solo in the upcoming Star Wars spin-off hadn’t already gone to Alden Ehrenreich, then here was a very strong contender. All of the supporting roles are strong (as you would expect from such a stellar cast) with Jon Hamm being a standout, appearing truly demonic in the closing scenes. The one role I was less sure about in the film was that of Lily James, whose performance as the ‘sweet as apple pie’ waitress seemed a little too “animated” for the big screen in the early scenes – I remember an acting class by Michael Caine where he advised that given the size of movie screens it’s often the case that “stillness is good”. What works well on the small screen (I am a big fan of her roles in historical TV dramas like “Downton Abbey” and the impeccable “War and Peace”) perhaps sometimes needs modifying for the wide-screen experience. I greatly warmed to her portrayal in the action sequences later on though: she’s a great actress and one that this film can hopefully now propel into the higher echelons in Hollywood.
Another star of the film is the fabulous soundtrack coordinated by Oscar-winner Steven Price (“Gravity“) featuring (amongst many other classics) Queen’s “Brighton Rock”, Golden Earring’s “Radar Love”, the Simon and Garfunkel classic (obviously) and Bob & Earl’s “Harlem Shuffle”, all used to brilliant effect. This latter track leads me on to some early Oscar predictions: if this film doesn’t get nominated this year for Oscars for Best Editing (Jonathan Amos and Paul Machliss, “Scott Pilgrim vs the World”) and Best Sound Editing (Julian Slater), then there is no God! The “Harlem Shuffle” coffee run sequence is a masterclass in editing and direction. Starting off with what I thought might turn into a tribute to “Saturday Night Fever”, the scene neatly takes on a style all of its own. It’s use of – erm – “subtitles” is just brilliant.
The often subtle, and occasionally not so subtle, edits between scenes are also truly masterful, making this moviegoer laugh-out-loud with delight periodically at the movie-making skill on display.
All of this is orchestrated by Edgar Wright as director who – for me – has been a little inconsistent over the years (loved, loved, loved “Shaun of the Dead” and “Hot Fuzz”; “The World’s End” – not so much). Here, he delivers in spades and this film rockets immediately into my Films of the Year list for 2017. Awe inspiring.
Beg, steal, borrow, rob a bank – – do what you have to, but make sure you catch this film on the big screen.
There’s something inherently appealing about the concept of a getaway driver. A skillful ‘bad-boy’, but not normally bad enough to actually DO the nasty crime stuff…. merely be an active accomplice to it. As a result, it’s a subject that the movies have returned to time after time. I’m old and crusty enough to remember being wowed at seeing Ryan O’Neal in Walter Hill’s “Driver” on the big screen in 1978. And well before that, as a kid, my poor departed mother used to be driven crazy by me begging her to take me to see “The Italian Job” (the original 1969 version) YET again… probably the greatest getaway chase in movie history: I must have seen that film at least 20 times in the cinema. Of course more recently we’ve also had Ryan Gosling and Carey Mulligan in “Drive” on the same theme. Any I’ve forgotten?
But with Edgar Wright at the helm, a big name cast and an enticing trailer, I had high expectations for “Baby Driver” – and boy was I happy! This is such a seriously cool film on so many levels.
Opening with a bank heist followed by a kick-ass car chase, we follow ‘Baby’ (Ansel Elgort, “Allegiant”, “The Fault in our Stars”) as a tinnitus-suffering, music-infused getaway driver under the thumb of the criminal overlord Doc (Kevin Spacey, in icy Frank Underwood mode). Doc recruits an ever-changing mix-tape of villains for each job, including the psychopathic and appropriately named ‘Bats’ (Jamie Foxx, “Sleepless”), the chillingly dangerous Buddy (Jon Hamm, “Mad Men”, “Keeping Up With The Joneses”) and his “Bonnie-style” wife ‘Darling’ (Eiza González) and the moderately incompetent JD (Lanny Joon) (who changed his neck tattoo of “HATE” to “HAT” since it improved his job prospects… LOL…. “everybody loves a hat”!).
Baby’s life gets more complicated when the hoods become aware of his fledgling relationship with fellow-orphan Debora (Lily James) a waitress in a diner and another lever to keep Baby locked into the job that he is just so, so good at.
On the surface this might be perceived as being just another good excuse for a lot of CGI-driven car stunts in the style of “The Fate of the Furious”. But no. Firstly, as Edgar Wright declared before the special screening I saw, all of the car stunts were actually performed for real on the mean streets of Atlanta (and hats off to the film’s stunt coordinator Robert Nagle and his team for these). And secondly, the car scenes are almost secondary to the fabulous story and character development in the film. The script (also by Edgar Wright) is just brilliant. There are genuinely laugh-out loud moments in the movie, with one of the highlights for me being JD tasked with procuring Michael Myers “Halloween” masks for a heist. If you don’t find this scene hilarious, you are not human – official.
The only misstep for me in the script was an unbelievable event (both in terms of likelihood and – particularly – timing) during a closing car park fight***.
Elgort is really strong in the lead role, and suggested to me that if the role of the young Han Solo in the upcoming Star Wars spin-off hadn’t already gone to Alden Ehrenreich, then here was a very strong contender. All of the supporting roles are strong (as you would expect from such a stellar cast) with Jon Hamm being a standout, appearing truly demonic in the closing scenes. The one role I was less sure about in the film was that of Lily James, whose performance as the ‘sweet as apple pie’ waitress seemed a little too “animated” for the big screen in the early scenes – I remember an acting class by Michael Caine where he advised that given the size of movie screens it’s often the case that “stillness is good”. What works well on the small screen (I am a big fan of her roles in historical TV dramas like “Downton Abbey” and the impeccable “War and Peace”) perhaps sometimes needs modifying for the wide-screen experience. I greatly warmed to her portrayal in the action sequences later on though: she’s a great actress and one that this film can hopefully now propel into the higher echelons in Hollywood.
Another star of the film is the fabulous soundtrack coordinated by Oscar-winner Steven Price (“Gravity“) featuring (amongst many other classics) Queen’s “Brighton Rock”, Golden Earring’s “Radar Love”, the Simon and Garfunkel classic (obviously) and Bob & Earl’s “Harlem Shuffle”, all used to brilliant effect. This latter track leads me on to some early Oscar predictions: if this film doesn’t get nominated this year for Oscars for Best Editing (Jonathan Amos and Paul Machliss, “Scott Pilgrim vs the World”) and Best Sound Editing (Julian Slater), then there is no God! The “Harlem Shuffle” coffee run sequence is a masterclass in editing and direction. Starting off with what I thought might turn into a tribute to “Saturday Night Fever”, the scene neatly takes on a style all of its own. It’s use of – erm – “subtitles” is just brilliant.
The often subtle, and occasionally not so subtle, edits between scenes are also truly masterful, making this moviegoer laugh-out-loud with delight periodically at the movie-making skill on display.
All of this is orchestrated by Edgar Wright as director who – for me – has been a little inconsistent over the years (loved, loved, loved “Shaun of the Dead” and “Hot Fuzz”; “The World’s End” – not so much). Here, he delivers in spades and this film rockets immediately into my Films of the Year list for 2017. Awe inspiring.
Beg, steal, borrow, rob a bank – – do what you have to, but make sure you catch this film on the big screen.