Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Borat: Subsequent Moviefilm (2020) in Movies
Nov 14, 2020
Crude: check. Offensive: check. It’s Borat… what do you expect?
Kazakh news-hound Borat Margaret Sagdiyev (Sacha Baron Cohen) is in trouble with his country's rulers after his first 'moviefilm' brought shame and disrepute to the country. Under threat of death he is sent on a mission to deliver Johnny - a monkey, but the most popular celebrity in Kazakhstan - as a gift to Donald Trump.
All of this gets screwed up when Johnny meets an untimely end during transportation. Fortunately all is not lost, since Borat's daughter Tutar (Maria Bakalova) has smuggled herself into the States. Borat determines to offer Tutar as a gift to US VP Mike Pence. But first, she must be made less feral and more acceptable to US society.
Baron Cohen has made his primary career out of spoofing both celebrities and common-or-garden bigots, giving them the rope with which to hang themselves with their outrageous views. This is what he did so successfully in the first Borat film in 2006. An issue now is that, since that first movie made Borat such a pop icon, his appearance on the street in his usual garb generates unwelcome attention. As such he adopts a variety of different disguises to get closer to his "victims".
Helpfully, his "daughter" (a brilliant Bulgarian actress Maria Bakalova) is an unknown face, and takes some of this strain on her own shoulders.
So, I'm in no way a prude. And the antics in here generated a half dozen chuckles and a few genuine belly laughs. But some of the gags went just too far for me, and strayed into "genuinely uncomfortable" territory. A "moonblood" dance is just plain gross. And, notwithstanding Baron Cohen's Jewish roots, a gag involving the holocaust treads into territory that I don't think should be remotely approached for the purposes of comedy.
Many of the (allegedly) unaware stars manage to crucify themselves - and presumably, in some cases, their careers - by coming out with the most appalling commentary that often beggars belief. A doctor - Charles Wallace - would surely be struck off if in the UK. Others just appear gullible and/or easily led. Rudy Giuliani's behaviour - although ambiguous - is at the very least lewdly suspicious. You just wish that the team would have let the action proceed a bit longer.
As a saving grace, amongst all the crass and bigoted behaviour, there are individuals that shine out as warm and generous individuals. One is holocaust survivor Dim Evans, who sadly died earlier this year, holding out a hand of friendship to Borat when he appears in a synagogue obscenely and ridiculously dressed as a jew.
But the real star of the show is unemployed 'babysitter' Jeanise Jones who is genuinely taken in by the plight of Tutar. The warmth, concern and compassion she shows is genuinely heart-warming. The best news to come out of the whole movie is that a GoFundMe page, astutely created by her pastor, has so far raised more than $180,000 to help her out of poverty. This is on top of the $100,000 that Sacha Baron Cohen has donated to her Oklahoma City community.
2020 has been a bizarre year in general, but no more so than with the election shenanigans in the US. When you have Rudy Giuliani hosting news conferences from The Four Seasons Total Landscaping car park, sandwiched between a crematorium and a sex shop, and Donald "CAPS LOCK" Trump defiantly Tweeting like a moron, it's really difficult for any comedy film to top that.
'Borat 2' gives it a go. And you can only be impressed by the cojones on Sacha Baron Cohen. But ultimately this outing ends up feeling overly-scripted and 'forced' compared to the original. Borat fans will no doubt love it. I tolerated it, and was intermittently entertained. But I would have preferred more of the clever hilarious bits and less of the cringingly crude and offensive stuff.
Oh... and if you're ever on "Pointless" and need a pointless Tom Hanks movie... don't forget this one!
(For the full graphical review, please check out the bob the movie man web site here - https://rb.gy/ef9wcf . Thanks.)
All of this gets screwed up when Johnny meets an untimely end during transportation. Fortunately all is not lost, since Borat's daughter Tutar (Maria Bakalova) has smuggled herself into the States. Borat determines to offer Tutar as a gift to US VP Mike Pence. But first, she must be made less feral and more acceptable to US society.
Baron Cohen has made his primary career out of spoofing both celebrities and common-or-garden bigots, giving them the rope with which to hang themselves with their outrageous views. This is what he did so successfully in the first Borat film in 2006. An issue now is that, since that first movie made Borat such a pop icon, his appearance on the street in his usual garb generates unwelcome attention. As such he adopts a variety of different disguises to get closer to his "victims".
Helpfully, his "daughter" (a brilliant Bulgarian actress Maria Bakalova) is an unknown face, and takes some of this strain on her own shoulders.
So, I'm in no way a prude. And the antics in here generated a half dozen chuckles and a few genuine belly laughs. But some of the gags went just too far for me, and strayed into "genuinely uncomfortable" territory. A "moonblood" dance is just plain gross. And, notwithstanding Baron Cohen's Jewish roots, a gag involving the holocaust treads into territory that I don't think should be remotely approached for the purposes of comedy.
Many of the (allegedly) unaware stars manage to crucify themselves - and presumably, in some cases, their careers - by coming out with the most appalling commentary that often beggars belief. A doctor - Charles Wallace - would surely be struck off if in the UK. Others just appear gullible and/or easily led. Rudy Giuliani's behaviour - although ambiguous - is at the very least lewdly suspicious. You just wish that the team would have let the action proceed a bit longer.
As a saving grace, amongst all the crass and bigoted behaviour, there are individuals that shine out as warm and generous individuals. One is holocaust survivor Dim Evans, who sadly died earlier this year, holding out a hand of friendship to Borat when he appears in a synagogue obscenely and ridiculously dressed as a jew.
But the real star of the show is unemployed 'babysitter' Jeanise Jones who is genuinely taken in by the plight of Tutar. The warmth, concern and compassion she shows is genuinely heart-warming. The best news to come out of the whole movie is that a GoFundMe page, astutely created by her pastor, has so far raised more than $180,000 to help her out of poverty. This is on top of the $100,000 that Sacha Baron Cohen has donated to her Oklahoma City community.
2020 has been a bizarre year in general, but no more so than with the election shenanigans in the US. When you have Rudy Giuliani hosting news conferences from The Four Seasons Total Landscaping car park, sandwiched between a crematorium and a sex shop, and Donald "CAPS LOCK" Trump defiantly Tweeting like a moron, it's really difficult for any comedy film to top that.
'Borat 2' gives it a go. And you can only be impressed by the cojones on Sacha Baron Cohen. But ultimately this outing ends up feeling overly-scripted and 'forced' compared to the original. Borat fans will no doubt love it. I tolerated it, and was intermittently entertained. But I would have preferred more of the clever hilarious bits and less of the cringingly crude and offensive stuff.
Oh... and if you're ever on "Pointless" and need a pointless Tom Hanks movie... don't forget this one!
(For the full graphical review, please check out the bob the movie man web site here - https://rb.gy/ef9wcf . Thanks.)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Jungle Cruise (2021) in Movies
Aug 2, 2021
Star power from Johnson and Blunt (1 more)
Direction, cinematography, special effects and score all top notch
An Amazon-based blockbuster that delivers!
Dating from 1955, Jungle Cruise was one of the key attractions at Disneyland when it first opened. Full of corny spiel from the lovable boat captains, the experience is nicely evoked in the new Disney movie: a true summer blockbuster that delights.
Positives:
- Cut the movie open and it reads "summer blockbuster pleaser" through the middle. This is largely down to the charisma of its two stars, Blunt and Johnson, who prove why they are both such bankable commodities. It's clearly based on the "will they/won't they" simmering sexual chemistry between two polar-opposites, as featured in movies such as "Romancing the Stone" and "The African Queen". (Since the theme park ride was heavily influenced by the latter, this is no surprise). But there's also a heavy dose of tongue-in-cheek ridiculousness as featured in other great B-movie homages such as "The Mummy" and (most notably) "Raiders of the Lost Ark". (A few scenes directly mimic the Indiana Jones movies.)
- The supporting cast also have fun with their roles. Jack Whitehouse, doing almost a like-for-like copy of John Hannah's character in "The Mummy", could have been extremely annoying. But although he's the comic relief in the piece, he steers it just the right side of farcical, avoiding Jar-Jar Binks territory. ("When in Rome" he declares, swallowing a flagon of fermented spit. "God - I wish I was in Rome"!) Jesse Plemons, one of my favourite actors, who proved his comic chops in "Game Night", here delivers one of the most over-the-top Nazis since Ronald Lacey's Toht in "Raiders". Rounding things off is Paul Giamatti with a bizarrely comic performance as Nilo, a competing riverboat owner.
- Special effects, cinematography (Flavio Martínez Labiano, of "The Shallows") and James Newton-Howard's score all add to the lush blockbuster feel of the movie. And director Jaume Collet-Serra (who did the clever shark B-movie "The Shallows") keeps the movie clipping along at a fine rate, with only a few sections of character-building dialogue to get the kids fidgety.
Negatives:
- I mean, it's popcorn nonsense of course. The Amazonian 'McGuffin' is a tree that only comes to life under very specific conditions. And isn't it amazing that watery machinery (developed by who?) still works after at least 400 years, when my dishwasher gives up after ten? (But it's done with verve and style, so who cares?)
- Although the screenplay is actually very slick for a movie of this type, it feels like a script by committee at times. A single writer might have been tempted to duck the Hollywood ending and leave things on a more thoughtful, albeit downbeat, note.
Summary Thoughts on "Jungle Cruise": This was a pleasant surprise for me. A fun and light-hearted movie that ticks all the boxes as a summer blockbuster. It nicely evokes the cheesiness of the theme park ride operator (past alumni have included Robin Williams and Kevin Costner), especially with Johnson's opening scenes. But then rounds it out as a spectacular and appealing tongue-in-cheek adventure.
And, by the way, in case you fancy sitting through the interminable end titles to watch a post-credits scene.... there isn't one.
(#takenonefortheteam).
Parental Guidance: One question might be whether, with a "12A" certificate, this summer blockbuster is one that your kids might enjoy or be freaked out by. A comparison with "Raiders of the Lost Ark" is perhaps useful here. There are quite a number of "jolts" involving snakes and bees but probably not as bad as the ones you get in an uncut version of "Raiders" (think the spiked Satipo; the mummies/snakes when escaping the 'Well of Souls'; and the melting Nazi bad-guys). So if you have kids that lapped up that stuff then I don't think they would have any issues with this one.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on the web, Facebook or Tiktok. Thanks).
Positives:
- Cut the movie open and it reads "summer blockbuster pleaser" through the middle. This is largely down to the charisma of its two stars, Blunt and Johnson, who prove why they are both such bankable commodities. It's clearly based on the "will they/won't they" simmering sexual chemistry between two polar-opposites, as featured in movies such as "Romancing the Stone" and "The African Queen". (Since the theme park ride was heavily influenced by the latter, this is no surprise). But there's also a heavy dose of tongue-in-cheek ridiculousness as featured in other great B-movie homages such as "The Mummy" and (most notably) "Raiders of the Lost Ark". (A few scenes directly mimic the Indiana Jones movies.)
- The supporting cast also have fun with their roles. Jack Whitehouse, doing almost a like-for-like copy of John Hannah's character in "The Mummy", could have been extremely annoying. But although he's the comic relief in the piece, he steers it just the right side of farcical, avoiding Jar-Jar Binks territory. ("When in Rome" he declares, swallowing a flagon of fermented spit. "God - I wish I was in Rome"!) Jesse Plemons, one of my favourite actors, who proved his comic chops in "Game Night", here delivers one of the most over-the-top Nazis since Ronald Lacey's Toht in "Raiders". Rounding things off is Paul Giamatti with a bizarrely comic performance as Nilo, a competing riverboat owner.
- Special effects, cinematography (Flavio Martínez Labiano, of "The Shallows") and James Newton-Howard's score all add to the lush blockbuster feel of the movie. And director Jaume Collet-Serra (who did the clever shark B-movie "The Shallows") keeps the movie clipping along at a fine rate, with only a few sections of character-building dialogue to get the kids fidgety.
Negatives:
- I mean, it's popcorn nonsense of course. The Amazonian 'McGuffin' is a tree that only comes to life under very specific conditions. And isn't it amazing that watery machinery (developed by who?) still works after at least 400 years, when my dishwasher gives up after ten? (But it's done with verve and style, so who cares?)
- Although the screenplay is actually very slick for a movie of this type, it feels like a script by committee at times. A single writer might have been tempted to duck the Hollywood ending and leave things on a more thoughtful, albeit downbeat, note.
Summary Thoughts on "Jungle Cruise": This was a pleasant surprise for me. A fun and light-hearted movie that ticks all the boxes as a summer blockbuster. It nicely evokes the cheesiness of the theme park ride operator (past alumni have included Robin Williams and Kevin Costner), especially with Johnson's opening scenes. But then rounds it out as a spectacular and appealing tongue-in-cheek adventure.
And, by the way, in case you fancy sitting through the interminable end titles to watch a post-credits scene.... there isn't one.
(#takenonefortheteam).
Parental Guidance: One question might be whether, with a "12A" certificate, this summer blockbuster is one that your kids might enjoy or be freaked out by. A comparison with "Raiders of the Lost Ark" is perhaps useful here. There are quite a number of "jolts" involving snakes and bees but probably not as bad as the ones you get in an uncut version of "Raiders" (think the spiked Satipo; the mummies/snakes when escaping the 'Well of Souls'; and the melting Nazi bad-guys). So if you have kids that lapped up that stuff then I don't think they would have any issues with this one.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies on the web, Facebook or Tiktok. Thanks).
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated The Midnight Sky (2020) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
As a movie star, which, let’s face it, is George Clooney’s main and best job, we haven’t seen the guy for four years, since the largely underwhelming Money Monster. And, as a director, you’d be forgiven for thinking he hasn’t done anything for years, so unmemorable was 2017’s Suburbicon, with Matt Damon. It is a worrying trend of his entire career, that despite some genuine gold, and even a few diamonds here and there over the years, there are way more duds, with large pockets of “meh” thrown in.
The Netflix original movie The Midnight Sky was never going to be met with very high expectations, therefore. Although, it is testament to gorgeous George’s allure that we are still curious to at least see for ourselves what all the poor reviews are about. It seemed to be unanimous around the big voices that the main issue is that “nothing happens”. This does not worry me normally, as it quite often demonstrates how a 2020s audience, especially a Netflix one, has the attention span of a hungry vole in search of a fast worm followed by a quick nap! Patient story building and minimalism are not well regarded any more in the main. And that is a big problem for this film in finding an appreciative audience.
Clooney himself pitched it as Gravity meets The Revenant. Now, what you have done there, George, is set yourself up to be compared to two works of relative genius, both with far bigger budgets and the actual big screen in mind, not the “yes, it’s still a movie, but it is made for TV and phones” phenomenon. So it is bound to suffer in any critique. It didn’t stand a chance.
OK, it is ponderously slow. Fact. And there are moments when staring at Clooney’s extremely compelling beard is the most interesting thing to do with your brain or eyes in that moment. But to say nothing happens is erroneously unfair – Augustine is dying, and alone, in a world that has destroyed itself in an unspecified way. As he navigates a nightmare landscape of ice and his own diminishing sanity his subconscious creates an ethereal presence to guide him to his “essential” purpose: getting a message to a distant space station not to return to Earth under any circumstances.
Whilst not remotely original, and borrowing from the previously specified references in big, obvious ways (as well as Solaris, which GC didn’t mention, but its influence is apparent, both the Soderburgh and Tarkovsky versions), the heart of the idea isn’t anywhere near as weak as the naysayers would have you believe. If, in fact, you tune in to Clooney’s fine, sensitive performance, whilst reading between the lines of emotion and meaning, it is quite a satisfying tale. Yes, with a lot of problems, not least of all in momentum and the excitement you might expect from a sci-fi. But it isn’t “bad”, per se. Merely ponderous.
As for those up in space, including the always watchable and wonderful Felicity Jones, David Oyelowo, and Kyle Chandler, their lot is much more difficult than the Earthbound sequences. Caught between budget CGI and sets, and trapped in recreations of better space films, they simply don’t have the script to create any atmosphere or chemistry between themselves. Including an excruciating sing-along sequence that serves no purpose other than to make you cringe! The shame then is that we never feel like they are worth saving, which makes Augustine’s efforts feel futile and hollow – maybe something Clooney as director wanted to convey… but he shouldn’t have done it by making us care absolutely zero about those being saved.
Ultimately, it is an admirable failure in many ways, and not worth an earnest recommendation. It is another flop for Clooney as director. But there is just enough beauty and fragility in what Clooney is doing as an actor to make it far from a complete waste of time. Yes, it is a further example of Netflix producing something that feels churned out and corner cutting, rather than a fully rounded work that has all the framework a big cinema release would receive. It just isn’t quite as bad as the reviews suggest.
The Netflix original movie The Midnight Sky was never going to be met with very high expectations, therefore. Although, it is testament to gorgeous George’s allure that we are still curious to at least see for ourselves what all the poor reviews are about. It seemed to be unanimous around the big voices that the main issue is that “nothing happens”. This does not worry me normally, as it quite often demonstrates how a 2020s audience, especially a Netflix one, has the attention span of a hungry vole in search of a fast worm followed by a quick nap! Patient story building and minimalism are not well regarded any more in the main. And that is a big problem for this film in finding an appreciative audience.
Clooney himself pitched it as Gravity meets The Revenant. Now, what you have done there, George, is set yourself up to be compared to two works of relative genius, both with far bigger budgets and the actual big screen in mind, not the “yes, it’s still a movie, but it is made for TV and phones” phenomenon. So it is bound to suffer in any critique. It didn’t stand a chance.
OK, it is ponderously slow. Fact. And there are moments when staring at Clooney’s extremely compelling beard is the most interesting thing to do with your brain or eyes in that moment. But to say nothing happens is erroneously unfair – Augustine is dying, and alone, in a world that has destroyed itself in an unspecified way. As he navigates a nightmare landscape of ice and his own diminishing sanity his subconscious creates an ethereal presence to guide him to his “essential” purpose: getting a message to a distant space station not to return to Earth under any circumstances.
Whilst not remotely original, and borrowing from the previously specified references in big, obvious ways (as well as Solaris, which GC didn’t mention, but its influence is apparent, both the Soderburgh and Tarkovsky versions), the heart of the idea isn’t anywhere near as weak as the naysayers would have you believe. If, in fact, you tune in to Clooney’s fine, sensitive performance, whilst reading between the lines of emotion and meaning, it is quite a satisfying tale. Yes, with a lot of problems, not least of all in momentum and the excitement you might expect from a sci-fi. But it isn’t “bad”, per se. Merely ponderous.
As for those up in space, including the always watchable and wonderful Felicity Jones, David Oyelowo, and Kyle Chandler, their lot is much more difficult than the Earthbound sequences. Caught between budget CGI and sets, and trapped in recreations of better space films, they simply don’t have the script to create any atmosphere or chemistry between themselves. Including an excruciating sing-along sequence that serves no purpose other than to make you cringe! The shame then is that we never feel like they are worth saving, which makes Augustine’s efforts feel futile and hollow – maybe something Clooney as director wanted to convey… but he shouldn’t have done it by making us care absolutely zero about those being saved.
Ultimately, it is an admirable failure in many ways, and not worth an earnest recommendation. It is another flop for Clooney as director. But there is just enough beauty and fragility in what Clooney is doing as an actor to make it far from a complete waste of time. Yes, it is a further example of Netflix producing something that feels churned out and corner cutting, rather than a fully rounded work that has all the framework a big cinema release would receive. It just isn’t quite as bad as the reviews suggest.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Judy (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Neither a true biopic nor a musical, a very sad and sombre film worth seeing for a sure-fire nominee for Zellweger for the Oscars.
Decline and Fall (Part 1).
This is an extremely sombre film. I will go as far as saying that it is well-and-truly a “Father Ted” film (see glossary).
The Story.
Young Judy Garland is a starlet in the MGM studio system run by Louis B. Mayer (a villainous Richard Cordery). She doesn’t have a life outside of the movies; is fed diet pills and “pep-pills” that destroy her sleep; and she is starting to get fed up with it all. No wonder then that she grows up to be an alcoholic insomniac with a trail of failed marriages and a temperamental nature.
Thus, through flash-backs to the young Judy (the English Darci Shaw, in her movie debut) we track the older Judy (Renée Zellweger) through the last tragic years of her life. Unable to work, due to a reputation that proceeds her, she is forced to take up the offer from Bernard Delfont (Michael Gambon) of a residency at London’s “Talk of the Town”. This separates her from her older daughter (Liza Minnelli played by Gemma-Leah Devereux) and, crucially, her younger children Lorna (Bella Ramsey) and Joey (Lewin Lloyd). (Their Dad is Sidney Luft (“Victoria’s” Rufus Sewell): hence Lorna being Lorna Luft). This separation increases Judy’s mental decline.
Also in a constant state of stress is Rosalyn Wilder (Jessie Buckley) who has the unenviable job of trying to keep Garland on the straight and narrow to perform every night.
A Towering Performance.
Whatever I think about the film overall (and we’ll come to that), this is 100% the “Renée Zellweger show”. It’s an extraordinary performance, and is pitch perfect, both in terms of capturing Garland’s mannerisms and vocal style. If Zellweger doesn’t get an Oscar nomination for this then I’ll eat my favourite orange baseball hat! I’ll have to review the final short-list, but I would not be remotely surprised if she won for this.
Elsewhere is the cast, Michael Gambon gives a reliable performance as Delfont (his second depiction this year after the turn by Rufus Jones in “Stan and Ollie“!) and the rising star that is Jessie Buckley is also effective as Wilder in a much quieter role than we’re used to seeing her in.
Musical? Or biopic?
Is this a musical? Or a biopic? Or neither? Actually, I would suggest it’s neither. There’s been a curious split in the last year between films like “Bohemian Rhapsody“, which were biopics with music, to “Rocketman” which was very much a musical based around a biopic.
“Judy” can’t be classed as a musical since (and I checked my watch) the first musical number doesn’t come until FORTY MINUTES into the picture. Neither is it a true biopic, focusing only on a few short months of Garland’s extensive career, the ‘young Judy’ scenes being nothing but short flashbacks to set the scene. This probably makes sense, else a true biopic of the wonder that was Judy Garland would have turned into a 4 hour plus epic!
A rough ride, but could I care?
Above all, it’s a depressing watch, like seeing a sick animal in distress. But I never felt the film got to the heart of the matter to really make me CARE enough. The nearest it gets is with a moving portion where Judy makes the evening (if not the lifetime) of some super-fans – Dan (Andy Nyman) and Stan (Daniel Cerqueira). She goes home with them for omelettes and a sing-song: a strong nod towards Garland’s extensive following, even today, among the gay community. The finale, where the couple try to salvage an on-stage psychiatric session by Judy is touching but, for me, not tear-inducing.
The screenplay is by Tom Edge, from the stage play by Peter Quilter. The director is relative movie-newcomer Rupert Goold.
I liked this movie, but did I like it enough to rush and see it again? No, not really. Worth seeing though to appreciate the odds-on favourite (surely!) for the Best Actress Oscar of this year.
This is an extremely sombre film. I will go as far as saying that it is well-and-truly a “Father Ted” film (see glossary).
The Story.
Young Judy Garland is a starlet in the MGM studio system run by Louis B. Mayer (a villainous Richard Cordery). She doesn’t have a life outside of the movies; is fed diet pills and “pep-pills” that destroy her sleep; and she is starting to get fed up with it all. No wonder then that she grows up to be an alcoholic insomniac with a trail of failed marriages and a temperamental nature.
Thus, through flash-backs to the young Judy (the English Darci Shaw, in her movie debut) we track the older Judy (Renée Zellweger) through the last tragic years of her life. Unable to work, due to a reputation that proceeds her, she is forced to take up the offer from Bernard Delfont (Michael Gambon) of a residency at London’s “Talk of the Town”. This separates her from her older daughter (Liza Minnelli played by Gemma-Leah Devereux) and, crucially, her younger children Lorna (Bella Ramsey) and Joey (Lewin Lloyd). (Their Dad is Sidney Luft (“Victoria’s” Rufus Sewell): hence Lorna being Lorna Luft). This separation increases Judy’s mental decline.
Also in a constant state of stress is Rosalyn Wilder (Jessie Buckley) who has the unenviable job of trying to keep Garland on the straight and narrow to perform every night.
A Towering Performance.
Whatever I think about the film overall (and we’ll come to that), this is 100% the “Renée Zellweger show”. It’s an extraordinary performance, and is pitch perfect, both in terms of capturing Garland’s mannerisms and vocal style. If Zellweger doesn’t get an Oscar nomination for this then I’ll eat my favourite orange baseball hat! I’ll have to review the final short-list, but I would not be remotely surprised if she won for this.
Elsewhere is the cast, Michael Gambon gives a reliable performance as Delfont (his second depiction this year after the turn by Rufus Jones in “Stan and Ollie“!) and the rising star that is Jessie Buckley is also effective as Wilder in a much quieter role than we’re used to seeing her in.
Musical? Or biopic?
Is this a musical? Or a biopic? Or neither? Actually, I would suggest it’s neither. There’s been a curious split in the last year between films like “Bohemian Rhapsody“, which were biopics with music, to “Rocketman” which was very much a musical based around a biopic.
“Judy” can’t be classed as a musical since (and I checked my watch) the first musical number doesn’t come until FORTY MINUTES into the picture. Neither is it a true biopic, focusing only on a few short months of Garland’s extensive career, the ‘young Judy’ scenes being nothing but short flashbacks to set the scene. This probably makes sense, else a true biopic of the wonder that was Judy Garland would have turned into a 4 hour plus epic!
A rough ride, but could I care?
Above all, it’s a depressing watch, like seeing a sick animal in distress. But I never felt the film got to the heart of the matter to really make me CARE enough. The nearest it gets is with a moving portion where Judy makes the evening (if not the lifetime) of some super-fans – Dan (Andy Nyman) and Stan (Daniel Cerqueira). She goes home with them for omelettes and a sing-song: a strong nod towards Garland’s extensive following, even today, among the gay community. The finale, where the couple try to salvage an on-stage psychiatric session by Judy is touching but, for me, not tear-inducing.
The screenplay is by Tom Edge, from the stage play by Peter Quilter. The director is relative movie-newcomer Rupert Goold.
I liked this movie, but did I like it enough to rush and see it again? No, not really. Worth seeing though to appreciate the odds-on favourite (surely!) for the Best Actress Oscar of this year.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Stan & Ollie (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
When the laughter has to end.
The problem with any comedy double act is that if illness or death get in the way (think Dustin Gee and Les Dennis; or Morecambe and Wise) the wheels can come off for the other partner. “Stan and Ollie” tells the story of the comic duo starting in 1937 when they reached their peak of global popularity, albeit when Laurel was hardly on speaking terms with their long-term producer Hal Roach (Danny Huston).
As you might guess from this, the emotional direction for the film is downwards, but not necessarily in a totally depressing way. The film depicts the duo’s tour of Laurel’s native country (he was born in Lancashire) and this has its ups as well as its downs.
Not knowing their life story, this is one where when the trailer came on I shut my eyes and plugged my ears so as to avoid spoilers: as such I will say nothing further on the details of the plot.
My wife and I were reminiscing after seeing this flick about how our parents used to crack up over the film antics of Laurel and Hardy. And they were, in their own slapstick way, very funny indeed. The film manages to recreate (impecably) some of their more famous routines and parodies others: their travel trunk gallops to the bottom of the station steps, mimicking the famous scenes with a piano from 1932’s “The Music Box”. “Do we really need that trunk” Hardy deadpans to Laurel.
The turns
There are four star turns at the heart of the film and they are John C. Reilly as Ollie; Steve Coogan as Stan; Shirley Henderson (forever to be referenced as “Moaning Myrtle”) as Ollie’s wife Lucille and Nina Arianda (so memorable as the ‘pointer outer’ in the ‘Emperor’s New Clothes’ segment of “Florence Foster Jenkins“) as Stan’s latest wife Ida.
Coogan and Reilly do an outstanding job of impersonating the comic duo. Both are simply brilliant, playing up to their public personas when visible but subtly delivering similar traits in private. Of the two, John C. Reilly’s performance is the most memorable: he IS Oliver Hardy. Not taking too much away from the other performance, but there are a few times when Coogan poked through the illusion (like a Partridge sticking its head out from a Pear Tree you might say).
Henderson and Arianda also add tremendous heart to the drama, and Arianda’s Ida in particular is hilarious. Also delivering a fabulous supporting role is Rufus Jones as the famous impressario Bernard Delfont: all smarm and Machiavellian chicanery that adds a different shape of comedy to the film.
Another Fine Mess?
Actually, no: it’s one of those pleasant and untaxing cinema experiences that older audiences in particular will really enjoy. However, the film’s far from perfect in my view: the flash-forwards/flash-backs I felt made the story bitty and disjointed; and ultimately the life story of the duo doesn’t have a huge depth of drama in it to amaze or excite, the way that 2004’s “Beyond the Sea” (the biopic of Bobby Darin) did for example. But the film never gets boring or disappoints.
I’d like to say that the script by Jeff Pope (“Philomena“) is historically accurate, but a look at the wikipedia entries for the pair show that it was far from that. Yes, the tours of the UK and Europe did happen, but over multiple years and the actual events in their lives are telescoped into a single trip for dramatic purposes. But I think the essence of the pair comes across nicely. Laurel’s wikipedia entry records a nice death-bed scene that sums up the guy:
“Minutes before his death, he told his nurse that he would not mind going skiing, and she replied that she was not aware that he was a skier. “I’m not,” said Laurel, “I’d rather be doing that than this!” A few minutes later, the nurse looked in on him again and found that he had died quietly in his armchair.”
“Stan and Ollie” has a few preview screenings before the New Year, but goes on UK general release on January 11th. Recommended.
As you might guess from this, the emotional direction for the film is downwards, but not necessarily in a totally depressing way. The film depicts the duo’s tour of Laurel’s native country (he was born in Lancashire) and this has its ups as well as its downs.
Not knowing their life story, this is one where when the trailer came on I shut my eyes and plugged my ears so as to avoid spoilers: as such I will say nothing further on the details of the plot.
My wife and I were reminiscing after seeing this flick about how our parents used to crack up over the film antics of Laurel and Hardy. And they were, in their own slapstick way, very funny indeed. The film manages to recreate (impecably) some of their more famous routines and parodies others: their travel trunk gallops to the bottom of the station steps, mimicking the famous scenes with a piano from 1932’s “The Music Box”. “Do we really need that trunk” Hardy deadpans to Laurel.
The turns
There are four star turns at the heart of the film and they are John C. Reilly as Ollie; Steve Coogan as Stan; Shirley Henderson (forever to be referenced as “Moaning Myrtle”) as Ollie’s wife Lucille and Nina Arianda (so memorable as the ‘pointer outer’ in the ‘Emperor’s New Clothes’ segment of “Florence Foster Jenkins“) as Stan’s latest wife Ida.
Coogan and Reilly do an outstanding job of impersonating the comic duo. Both are simply brilliant, playing up to their public personas when visible but subtly delivering similar traits in private. Of the two, John C. Reilly’s performance is the most memorable: he IS Oliver Hardy. Not taking too much away from the other performance, but there are a few times when Coogan poked through the illusion (like a Partridge sticking its head out from a Pear Tree you might say).
Henderson and Arianda also add tremendous heart to the drama, and Arianda’s Ida in particular is hilarious. Also delivering a fabulous supporting role is Rufus Jones as the famous impressario Bernard Delfont: all smarm and Machiavellian chicanery that adds a different shape of comedy to the film.
Another Fine Mess?
Actually, no: it’s one of those pleasant and untaxing cinema experiences that older audiences in particular will really enjoy. However, the film’s far from perfect in my view: the flash-forwards/flash-backs I felt made the story bitty and disjointed; and ultimately the life story of the duo doesn’t have a huge depth of drama in it to amaze or excite, the way that 2004’s “Beyond the Sea” (the biopic of Bobby Darin) did for example. But the film never gets boring or disappoints.
I’d like to say that the script by Jeff Pope (“Philomena“) is historically accurate, but a look at the wikipedia entries for the pair show that it was far from that. Yes, the tours of the UK and Europe did happen, but over multiple years and the actual events in their lives are telescoped into a single trip for dramatic purposes. But I think the essence of the pair comes across nicely. Laurel’s wikipedia entry records a nice death-bed scene that sums up the guy:
“Minutes before his death, he told his nurse that he would not mind going skiing, and she replied that she was not aware that he was a skier. “I’m not,” said Laurel, “I’d rather be doing that than this!” A few minutes later, the nurse looked in on him again and found that he had died quietly in his armchair.”
“Stan and Ollie” has a few preview screenings before the New Year, but goes on UK general release on January 11th. Recommended.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Mummy (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Crushingly Mediocre
I’d read the bad reviews, but thought “Hey, it’s Tom Cruise – how bad could it be?” The answer is, “Pretty bad”.
It’s an ominous sign when a film starts with a voice-over (even if done by the sonorous tones of Russell Crowe). Regular readers of this blog will know I generally abhor voice-overs: it invariably belies a belief by the scriptwriters that they think the audience are too damn stupid to join up the plot-dots themselves. Here we portentously walk through the ancient Egyptian backstory of princess Ahmanet (Sofia Boutella, “Kingsman: The Secret Service“; “Star Trek Beyond“) cursed to become the titular Mummy. We then skip forward to the present day and the film settles down, promisingly enough, with scavenging adventurer Nick Morton (Cruise, in Indiana Jones mode), discovering a lost Egyptian temple in war-torn modern-day Mesopotamia that for the sake of the world should have stayed lost.
But after an impressive plane crash (with zero G scenes filmed for real in a “Vomit Comet”) the plot dissolves into a completely incoherent mush. With B-movie lines forcing B-movie acting performances, the film lurches from plot crisis to plot crisis in a similar manner to the comically lurching undead Zombie-like creatures that Ahmanet has sucked the life out of. (After 110 minutes of this, I know how they feel!)
What were actors of this calibre doing in this mess? When I first saw the trailer for this, and saw that Cruise was in it, I thought this felt like an unusual career misstep for the megastar. After seeing the film, I’m even more mystified. Nick Morton is supposed to be an immoral bad guy. Immoral bad guy?? Tom Cruise?? Nope, you lost the audience on that one in the first ten minutes. Cruise, who is STILL only a year younger than I am (damn him, for real!) is still in great shape and must spend ALL his time in the gym. There must be a time soon coming though where he gets to a “Roger Moore in View to a Kill” moment where these action hero roles just no longer become credible anymore.
And what was Russell Crowe, as a famous / infamous (yes, both!) doctor from literature doing in this? His character’s involvement in the plot was almost completely inconsequential. In fact his ‘affliction’ only serves as a coincidental diversion (how convenient!) for bad Mummy-related action to happen. His character has no backstory and seems to serve only as a backbone for Universal’s “Dark Universe” franchise that this movie is supposed to launch. (Good luck with that Universal after this stinker!) Surely it would have made more sense to have the first film in the series to be the origins story for Crowe’s character and the organisation he sets up. This would have made far more sense.
Annabelle Wallis, who is sweet and “only” 22 years his junior, plays Cruise’s love interest in the film and equips herself well, given the material she has to play with. However (after “King Arthur: Legend of the Sword“) she must be kicking herself for not picking the ‘right’ summer blockbusters for her CV.
The main culprit here is the plot, which again is mystifying given that the writing team includes David Koepp (“Jurassic Park”; “Mission Impossible”); Christopher McQuarrie (“The Usual Suspects”, “Edge of Tomorrow“) and Jon Spaihts (“Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation“, “Doctor Strange“). A poor script can sometimes be salvaged by a good director, but here we have Alex Kurtzman, who has only one other directing credit to his name. And I’m afraid it shows. All round, not a good day at the office.
Brian Tyler did the music (aside from the Danny Elfman opening “Dark Universe” fanfare) but it comprises what I would term “running and jumping music”, with few discernible leitmotifs for the characters breaking through.
“Was that supposed to be funny?” My wife’s reaction after the film sums up that this really is a bit of a stinker. Best avoided.
It’s an ominous sign when a film starts with a voice-over (even if done by the sonorous tones of Russell Crowe). Regular readers of this blog will know I generally abhor voice-overs: it invariably belies a belief by the scriptwriters that they think the audience are too damn stupid to join up the plot-dots themselves. Here we portentously walk through the ancient Egyptian backstory of princess Ahmanet (Sofia Boutella, “Kingsman: The Secret Service“; “Star Trek Beyond“) cursed to become the titular Mummy. We then skip forward to the present day and the film settles down, promisingly enough, with scavenging adventurer Nick Morton (Cruise, in Indiana Jones mode), discovering a lost Egyptian temple in war-torn modern-day Mesopotamia that for the sake of the world should have stayed lost.
But after an impressive plane crash (with zero G scenes filmed for real in a “Vomit Comet”) the plot dissolves into a completely incoherent mush. With B-movie lines forcing B-movie acting performances, the film lurches from plot crisis to plot crisis in a similar manner to the comically lurching undead Zombie-like creatures that Ahmanet has sucked the life out of. (After 110 minutes of this, I know how they feel!)
What were actors of this calibre doing in this mess? When I first saw the trailer for this, and saw that Cruise was in it, I thought this felt like an unusual career misstep for the megastar. After seeing the film, I’m even more mystified. Nick Morton is supposed to be an immoral bad guy. Immoral bad guy?? Tom Cruise?? Nope, you lost the audience on that one in the first ten minutes. Cruise, who is STILL only a year younger than I am (damn him, for real!) is still in great shape and must spend ALL his time in the gym. There must be a time soon coming though where he gets to a “Roger Moore in View to a Kill” moment where these action hero roles just no longer become credible anymore.
And what was Russell Crowe, as a famous / infamous (yes, both!) doctor from literature doing in this? His character’s involvement in the plot was almost completely inconsequential. In fact his ‘affliction’ only serves as a coincidental diversion (how convenient!) for bad Mummy-related action to happen. His character has no backstory and seems to serve only as a backbone for Universal’s “Dark Universe” franchise that this movie is supposed to launch. (Good luck with that Universal after this stinker!) Surely it would have made more sense to have the first film in the series to be the origins story for Crowe’s character and the organisation he sets up. This would have made far more sense.
Annabelle Wallis, who is sweet and “only” 22 years his junior, plays Cruise’s love interest in the film and equips herself well, given the material she has to play with. However (after “King Arthur: Legend of the Sword“) she must be kicking herself for not picking the ‘right’ summer blockbusters for her CV.
The main culprit here is the plot, which again is mystifying given that the writing team includes David Koepp (“Jurassic Park”; “Mission Impossible”); Christopher McQuarrie (“The Usual Suspects”, “Edge of Tomorrow“) and Jon Spaihts (“Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation“, “Doctor Strange“). A poor script can sometimes be salvaged by a good director, but here we have Alex Kurtzman, who has only one other directing credit to his name. And I’m afraid it shows. All round, not a good day at the office.
Brian Tyler did the music (aside from the Danny Elfman opening “Dark Universe” fanfare) but it comprises what I would term “running and jumping music”, with few discernible leitmotifs for the characters breaking through.
“Was that supposed to be funny?” My wife’s reaction after the film sums up that this really is a bit of a stinker. Best avoided.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated The Lion King (2019) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
It seems recently that the Disney vault has exploded with the release of several of their classic animated films being remade. Unfortunately, the classics that have inspired these remakes have been redone with mixed results. The original The Lion King was released back in 1994 and it’s hard to believe that I was a junior in college when I saw it. Since that time, we’ve seen various iterations of the classic story, a few direct to VCR sequels and the awe-inspiring Broadway stage production (which if you are a serious fan of the movie I encourage you to see). It seems odd to discuss the plot of a movie that I’m certain everyone reading this has seen at least once (or a dozen times over). To the uninformed however, The Lion King is about a young cub named Simba (JD McCrary as the young voice and Donald Glover as the adult) who suffers the tragic loss of his father Mufasa (James Earl Jones) at the paws of his evil uncle Scar (Chiwetel Ejiofor). Scar convinces Simba that he is responsible for his father’s death and that he must leave the pride and never return. With the help of his faithful friends Timon (Billy Eichner), the lovable warthog Pumbaa (Seth Rogen), the ever wise Zazu (John Oliver) and his budding queen Nala (Beyoncé’) he learns that true courage comes from within and realizes he must face Scar if he is ever to bring peace back to the Pride Lands.
Given the recent track record, I wasn’t sure if this was going to be a retelling of the story as I remembered it, or a re-imagining of the story as a whole (and yes there is a difference). Thankfully, I can say that The Lion King draws practically all of its inspiration directly from the animated classic. Director Jon Favreau (who had already wowed audiences when he directed The Jungle Book) brings the same heart-warming, tear jerk moments that we all know and love. While he certainly didn’t take any risks with The Lion King, that’s exactly what made it such a pleasure to behold. He understood that there was no need to change the story into something new or try to make it something it shouldn’t be. True, for those who have seen the animated film it will feel incredibly familiar, but I think that’s exactly what fans are looking for. Changes and risks don’t always make a movie better, and The Lion King is a prime example of not breaking something that works.
The real star of the show however isn’t the actors, nor it’s incredible director, but the technology that went behind bringing our favorite felines to life. Disney refers to this as a “photo real movie”. The technology behind it merges both new and old together to bring the animals to life, indistinguishable from their real-life counterparts. Utilizing VR, animation and mixed with live action film-making it is practically impossible to distinguish what is live and what is animated. The character models have come a far way from the original Jumanji, which was heralded back in 1995 for it’s use of computer animated animals that supposedly looked and felt like the real thing. While Disney has always made great strides to make their computer-generated animals look and feel real (much like the absolutely stunning Jungle Book) The Lion King takes this to an entirely different level altogether.
Disney has done what has seemed practically impossible lately, bringing a classic back to the screen without changing what made the original such a classic. Unlike some of their more recent attempts, The Lion King holds true to the source material which has delighted fans for over 25 years. While the story doesn’t bring anything particularly new to the table, the photo realistic lions and their supporting cast feel as fresh as they ever have. If you aren’t a fan of the classic animated movie, The Lion King won’t necessarily change that, however the imagery alone may be reason enough to see it. I hope Disney takes note of this movie in particular, that fans don’t need a re-imagining of the stories that captivated our youths to bring the magic back. The Lion King is a testament to how the Disney classic still holds up today, and how to make something old feel new again.
http://sknr.net/2019/07/11/the-lion-king/
Given the recent track record, I wasn’t sure if this was going to be a retelling of the story as I remembered it, or a re-imagining of the story as a whole (and yes there is a difference). Thankfully, I can say that The Lion King draws practically all of its inspiration directly from the animated classic. Director Jon Favreau (who had already wowed audiences when he directed The Jungle Book) brings the same heart-warming, tear jerk moments that we all know and love. While he certainly didn’t take any risks with The Lion King, that’s exactly what made it such a pleasure to behold. He understood that there was no need to change the story into something new or try to make it something it shouldn’t be. True, for those who have seen the animated film it will feel incredibly familiar, but I think that’s exactly what fans are looking for. Changes and risks don’t always make a movie better, and The Lion King is a prime example of not breaking something that works.
The real star of the show however isn’t the actors, nor it’s incredible director, but the technology that went behind bringing our favorite felines to life. Disney refers to this as a “photo real movie”. The technology behind it merges both new and old together to bring the animals to life, indistinguishable from their real-life counterparts. Utilizing VR, animation and mixed with live action film-making it is practically impossible to distinguish what is live and what is animated. The character models have come a far way from the original Jumanji, which was heralded back in 1995 for it’s use of computer animated animals that supposedly looked and felt like the real thing. While Disney has always made great strides to make their computer-generated animals look and feel real (much like the absolutely stunning Jungle Book) The Lion King takes this to an entirely different level altogether.
Disney has done what has seemed practically impossible lately, bringing a classic back to the screen without changing what made the original such a classic. Unlike some of their more recent attempts, The Lion King holds true to the source material which has delighted fans for over 25 years. While the story doesn’t bring anything particularly new to the table, the photo realistic lions and their supporting cast feel as fresh as they ever have. If you aren’t a fan of the classic animated movie, The Lion King won’t necessarily change that, however the imagery alone may be reason enough to see it. I hope Disney takes note of this movie in particular, that fans don’t need a re-imagining of the stories that captivated our youths to bring the magic back. The Lion King is a testament to how the Disney classic still holds up today, and how to make something old feel new again.
http://sknr.net/2019/07/11/the-lion-king/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Downton Abbey (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Very little happens…. and it’s totally glorious!
The “Downton Abbey” TV show is comfortingly bland. The tales of the well-heeled Grantham family and the below-stairs antics of their servants. But for those who have followed Julian Fellowes‘ pot-boiler drama through all six seasons, and a number of Christmas specials, it’s like a favourite jumper… or rediscovering your comfy slippers just as the nights start getting colder.
But in a world where TV spin-off movies are notoriously dire, would this movie by the nail in Downton’s coffin?
Thankfully not.
It’s a glorious production! The opening of this film will, I’m sure, fill all Downton fans with utter glee. John Lunn‘s music builds progressively as a royal letter wends its way through the 1927 postal system, eventually ending up (as the famous theme finally emerges spectacularly) at the doors of Downton Abbey. (Downton is of course the gorgeous Highclere Castle near Newbury, acting as a star of the film in its own right. Somewhere I was lucky enough to visit just a couple of weeks before filming began).
The plot(s).
In a year of Thanos-crushing drama, there really is nothing very substantial going on here!
The King (George V, an almost unrecognizable Simon “Hitchhikers Guide” Jones) and Queen Mary (Geraldine James) are staying over in Downton for one night on their Yorkshire tour. This naturally sets the below-stairs staff into a bit of a tizz, as indeed it does the whole village. But their glee at involvement and recognition is a bit premature, since the royal entourage – headed by an officious Mr Wilson (David Haig) – parachute the complete gamut of staff into the location to serve the royal party, so bypassing the locals completely.
The ‘Downton massive’ are of course having none of this, and a battle-royale ensues.
Scattered as sub-plots like confetti at a wedding are a military man putting a strong arm around the potentially-risky Irish Tom Branson (Allen Leech); a family rift that erupts between Aunt Violet (Maggie Smith) and cousin (and royal lady-in-waiting) Maud Bagshaw (Imelda Staunton); a sobbing princess (Kate Phillips); an over-enthusiastic shopkeeper (Mark Addy), who is difficult to let-down gently; a plumbing emergency with romantic jealousy and sabotage involved; the sexual preferences of Barrow (Robert James-Collier) getting him into trouble; and a potential love-interest for the widowed Tom with Maud’s maid Lucy (Tuppence Middleton). (There are probably half a dozen others that I’ve forgotten!)
A huge ensemble cast.
As befits a show that has gone over six seasons, there is a huge ensemble cast involved. Inevitably, some get more air time than others. Bates (Brendan Coyle) seems to be particularly short-changed, and above stairs I thought the same was true – strangely enough – of the Crawleys (Hugh Bonneville and Elizabeth McGovern).
As for Henry Talbot (Matthew Goode), he’s hardly in it at all! Apart from some impressive camera gymnastics for his running-up-the-stairs arrival, he doesn’t make much of an impression at all. (I can only guess he had other filming commitments).
These are players that have worked together as a team for many years, and it shows.
But the acting kudos has to go to Maggie Smith who steals absolutely every scene she’s in, with genuinely witty lines – “I’ll lick the stamps myself” (LoL). Close behind though is Imelda Staunton who also turns in a very impressive performance.
Glorious photography.
The photography is fantastic throughout, with deep rich colours, pin-sharp focus and some seriously dramatic pans. A big hats off to cinematographer Ben Smithard, but also to his drone team (“The helicopter ladies”) for delivering some jaw-droppingly gorgeous shots of Highclere castle.
(By the way, I thought the picture at my local Picturehouse cinema – Harbour Lights in Southampton – was particularly stunning: I queried it with them, and they said they had changed the (very expensive) projector bulb just that day! These things clearly matter!)
Will is appeal?
If you are a Downton fan, yes, Yes, YES! I have been a moderate fan of the TV series, but went with superfans – the illustrious Mrs Movie-Man and (as a guest visitor) Miss Movie-Man. I loved it, but the two ladies were ecstatic with the movie.
Even if you have never seen an episode, it is easy to pick up and the quality of the production is so impressive I don’t think you will be disappointed.
As such, I think I need to post a blend of ratings for this one.
But in a world where TV spin-off movies are notoriously dire, would this movie by the nail in Downton’s coffin?
Thankfully not.
It’s a glorious production! The opening of this film will, I’m sure, fill all Downton fans with utter glee. John Lunn‘s music builds progressively as a royal letter wends its way through the 1927 postal system, eventually ending up (as the famous theme finally emerges spectacularly) at the doors of Downton Abbey. (Downton is of course the gorgeous Highclere Castle near Newbury, acting as a star of the film in its own right. Somewhere I was lucky enough to visit just a couple of weeks before filming began).
The plot(s).
In a year of Thanos-crushing drama, there really is nothing very substantial going on here!
The King (George V, an almost unrecognizable Simon “Hitchhikers Guide” Jones) and Queen Mary (Geraldine James) are staying over in Downton for one night on their Yorkshire tour. This naturally sets the below-stairs staff into a bit of a tizz, as indeed it does the whole village. But their glee at involvement and recognition is a bit premature, since the royal entourage – headed by an officious Mr Wilson (David Haig) – parachute the complete gamut of staff into the location to serve the royal party, so bypassing the locals completely.
The ‘Downton massive’ are of course having none of this, and a battle-royale ensues.
Scattered as sub-plots like confetti at a wedding are a military man putting a strong arm around the potentially-risky Irish Tom Branson (Allen Leech); a family rift that erupts between Aunt Violet (Maggie Smith) and cousin (and royal lady-in-waiting) Maud Bagshaw (Imelda Staunton); a sobbing princess (Kate Phillips); an over-enthusiastic shopkeeper (Mark Addy), who is difficult to let-down gently; a plumbing emergency with romantic jealousy and sabotage involved; the sexual preferences of Barrow (Robert James-Collier) getting him into trouble; and a potential love-interest for the widowed Tom with Maud’s maid Lucy (Tuppence Middleton). (There are probably half a dozen others that I’ve forgotten!)
A huge ensemble cast.
As befits a show that has gone over six seasons, there is a huge ensemble cast involved. Inevitably, some get more air time than others. Bates (Brendan Coyle) seems to be particularly short-changed, and above stairs I thought the same was true – strangely enough – of the Crawleys (Hugh Bonneville and Elizabeth McGovern).
As for Henry Talbot (Matthew Goode), he’s hardly in it at all! Apart from some impressive camera gymnastics for his running-up-the-stairs arrival, he doesn’t make much of an impression at all. (I can only guess he had other filming commitments).
These are players that have worked together as a team for many years, and it shows.
But the acting kudos has to go to Maggie Smith who steals absolutely every scene she’s in, with genuinely witty lines – “I’ll lick the stamps myself” (LoL). Close behind though is Imelda Staunton who also turns in a very impressive performance.
Glorious photography.
The photography is fantastic throughout, with deep rich colours, pin-sharp focus and some seriously dramatic pans. A big hats off to cinematographer Ben Smithard, but also to his drone team (“The helicopter ladies”) for delivering some jaw-droppingly gorgeous shots of Highclere castle.
(By the way, I thought the picture at my local Picturehouse cinema – Harbour Lights in Southampton – was particularly stunning: I queried it with them, and they said they had changed the (very expensive) projector bulb just that day! These things clearly matter!)
Will is appeal?
If you are a Downton fan, yes, Yes, YES! I have been a moderate fan of the TV series, but went with superfans – the illustrious Mrs Movie-Man and (as a guest visitor) Miss Movie-Man. I loved it, but the two ladies were ecstatic with the movie.
Even if you have never seen an episode, it is easy to pick up and the quality of the production is so impressive I don’t think you will be disappointed.
As such, I think I need to post a blend of ratings for this one.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Spielberg (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
On making Drew Barrymore cry.
“Spielberg” is an HBO-produced documentary by documentarian Susan Lacy. You’ll never guess who the subject is?!
Steven Spielberg is a product of one of the most surprising revolutions in Hollywood in the late 70’s: one of a set of wunderkind directors alongside such luminaries as George Lucas, Francis Ford Coppola, John Milius, Brian De Palma and Martin Scorcese. These men (only men, it should be noted!) were ready to cock a snook at Hollywood’s traditional studio system to break rules (case in point, Star Wars’ lack of opening credits) and move cinema into the format that would last to this day.
As this excellent documentary makes clear, Spielberg was one of the least rebellious of the movie-brats. Even though (astoundingly) he blagged himself a production office at Universal (after hiding during the Tram Tour toilet stop!), his path to the top was through hard graft on multiple Universal TV shows, after recognition of his talents by Universal exec Sidney Sheinberg who speaks in the film.
Before we get to that stage of his life, we cover his childhood back-story as a reluctant Jew living in a non-Jewish neighbourhood, driven to fill his time with tormenting his sisters and movie-making with a Super 8 camera. Scenes of home videos, photos and his early attempts at special effects are all fascinating. The impact of his Bohemian mother Leah and workaholic father Arnold, and particularly the very surprising relationship breakdown that happened between them, go a long way to explain the constant return to ‘father issues’ in many of his films such as “E.T.”, “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”, “Hook” and “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade”.
The majority of the film though settles down into a roughly chronological review of the highlights of his movie career, with particular emphasis justly being placed on some of the key watershed moments in that career. Most of his films get at least a mention, but “Jaws”, “E.T.”, “Schindler’s List”, “The Color Purple”, “Jurassic Park”, “Munich” and “Empire of the Sun” get more focus. It is such a wonderful trip down my cinematic memory lane. I also forget just what cinematic majesty and craftsmanship is present in these films: I just hope that at some point this will get a Blu-Ray or DVD release so it can be properly appreciated (rather than viewing it on a tiny airplane screen which is how I watched this): the combination of film clips in here is breathtaking.
As might be expected for a documentary about the great director, there is plenty of ‘behind the camera’ footage on show, some of which is fascinating. Spielberg could always get the very best performances out of the youngsters on set, from Cary Guffey (“Toys!!”) in “Close Encounters” to a heartbreaking scene where he reduces the young Drew Barrymore to howls of emotion in “E.T.”. A master at work.
All of the movie scenes are accompanied by new interview footage from Spielberg himself, as well as warm platitudes from many of the luminaries he has worked with in the past. Directors involved include many of the the directors referenced above, as well as those modern directors influenced by him such as J.J. Abrams; his go-to cinematographers Vilmos Zsigmond and Janusz Kaminski; his ‘go-to’ composer John Williams; and stars including his go-to ‘everyman’ Richard Dreyfuss, Tom Cruise, Harrison Ford, Bob Balaban, Tom Hanks, Opray Winfrey, Leonardo DiCaprio, Christian Bale, Dustin Hoffman and James Brolin. Some of these comments are useful and insightful; some are just fairly meaningless sound bites that add nothing to the film. What all the comments are though is almost all uniformly positive.
And that’s my only criticism of the film. Like me, Susan Lacy is clearly a big fan. It is probably quite hard to find anyone who isn’t…. but perhaps Ms Lacy should have tried a bit harder! There is only limited focus on his big comedy flop of 1979, “1941”, and no mention at all of his lowest WW grossing film “Always”. And there are only a few contributors – notably film critic Janet Maslin – who are willing to stick their head above the parapet and prod into Spielberg’s weaknesses; ostensibly his tendency to veer to the sentimental and away from harder issues: the omitted “Color Purple” ‘mirror scene’ being a case in point.
This is a recommended watch for Spielberg fans. On the eve of the launch of his latest – “Ready Player One”, a film that I am personally dubious about from the trailer – it’s a great insight into the life and works of the great man. It could though have cut a slightly harder and more critical edge.
Steven Spielberg is a product of one of the most surprising revolutions in Hollywood in the late 70’s: one of a set of wunderkind directors alongside such luminaries as George Lucas, Francis Ford Coppola, John Milius, Brian De Palma and Martin Scorcese. These men (only men, it should be noted!) were ready to cock a snook at Hollywood’s traditional studio system to break rules (case in point, Star Wars’ lack of opening credits) and move cinema into the format that would last to this day.
As this excellent documentary makes clear, Spielberg was one of the least rebellious of the movie-brats. Even though (astoundingly) he blagged himself a production office at Universal (after hiding during the Tram Tour toilet stop!), his path to the top was through hard graft on multiple Universal TV shows, after recognition of his talents by Universal exec Sidney Sheinberg who speaks in the film.
Before we get to that stage of his life, we cover his childhood back-story as a reluctant Jew living in a non-Jewish neighbourhood, driven to fill his time with tormenting his sisters and movie-making with a Super 8 camera. Scenes of home videos, photos and his early attempts at special effects are all fascinating. The impact of his Bohemian mother Leah and workaholic father Arnold, and particularly the very surprising relationship breakdown that happened between them, go a long way to explain the constant return to ‘father issues’ in many of his films such as “E.T.”, “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”, “Hook” and “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade”.
The majority of the film though settles down into a roughly chronological review of the highlights of his movie career, with particular emphasis justly being placed on some of the key watershed moments in that career. Most of his films get at least a mention, but “Jaws”, “E.T.”, “Schindler’s List”, “The Color Purple”, “Jurassic Park”, “Munich” and “Empire of the Sun” get more focus. It is such a wonderful trip down my cinematic memory lane. I also forget just what cinematic majesty and craftsmanship is present in these films: I just hope that at some point this will get a Blu-Ray or DVD release so it can be properly appreciated (rather than viewing it on a tiny airplane screen which is how I watched this): the combination of film clips in here is breathtaking.
As might be expected for a documentary about the great director, there is plenty of ‘behind the camera’ footage on show, some of which is fascinating. Spielberg could always get the very best performances out of the youngsters on set, from Cary Guffey (“Toys!!”) in “Close Encounters” to a heartbreaking scene where he reduces the young Drew Barrymore to howls of emotion in “E.T.”. A master at work.
All of the movie scenes are accompanied by new interview footage from Spielberg himself, as well as warm platitudes from many of the luminaries he has worked with in the past. Directors involved include many of the the directors referenced above, as well as those modern directors influenced by him such as J.J. Abrams; his go-to cinematographers Vilmos Zsigmond and Janusz Kaminski; his ‘go-to’ composer John Williams; and stars including his go-to ‘everyman’ Richard Dreyfuss, Tom Cruise, Harrison Ford, Bob Balaban, Tom Hanks, Opray Winfrey, Leonardo DiCaprio, Christian Bale, Dustin Hoffman and James Brolin. Some of these comments are useful and insightful; some are just fairly meaningless sound bites that add nothing to the film. What all the comments are though is almost all uniformly positive.
And that’s my only criticism of the film. Like me, Susan Lacy is clearly a big fan. It is probably quite hard to find anyone who isn’t…. but perhaps Ms Lacy should have tried a bit harder! There is only limited focus on his big comedy flop of 1979, “1941”, and no mention at all of his lowest WW grossing film “Always”. And there are only a few contributors – notably film critic Janet Maslin – who are willing to stick their head above the parapet and prod into Spielberg’s weaknesses; ostensibly his tendency to veer to the sentimental and away from harder issues: the omitted “Color Purple” ‘mirror scene’ being a case in point.
This is a recommended watch for Spielberg fans. On the eve of the launch of his latest – “Ready Player One”, a film that I am personally dubious about from the trailer – it’s a great insight into the life and works of the great man. It could though have cut a slightly harder and more critical edge.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Ad Astra (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Impressive visuals, but rather disappointing as an overall package.
Like father, like son?
I really love sci-fi films with high ambitions. “Psychological” sci-fi like “Solaris” for example. And “Arrival” topped my movie list for 2016. In similar vein, “Ad Astra” is also a movie concerning attempted contact with alien life. So I had high hopes for it. But would this Sci-fi epic ultimately challenge my brain again, or end up in the “Crystal Skull” sin bin with a dodgy alien meeting?
The Plot
Set a few years into the future, Roy McBride (Brad Pitt) is the son of a legend. H. Clifford McBride (Tommy Lee Jones) was a space exploration pioneer. His picture hangs in the NASA hall of fame next to Buzz Aldrin’s. McBride senior went missing presumed dead near Neptune during a mission. The mission was to get outside the Sun’s heliosphere to scan for potential alien transmissions from nearby solar systems.
But something went badly wrong, and now the earth (and potentially all human life migrating into the solar system) is at risk from massive electromagnetic bursts arising from Neptune. Is Clifford alive and involved in the emerging crisis? The authorities send Roy on a secret mission to Mars to try to communicate with his father.
Majestic cinematography
Let’s start with a real positive. The cinematography here is first rate. Hoyte Van-Hoytema – well known for “Interstellar“, “Spectre” and “Dunkirk” – knocks this out of the park. In the same manner as “Blade Runner 2049“, many of the frames of this film could be blown up and placed on art gallery walls around the world.
Add to that some cracking film editing from John Axelrad and Lee Haugen, and some beautiful sound design and I predict the movie should feature strongly in the technical awards at the Oscars.
But “science fiction” has the word “science” in it….
I’d like to park my physics brain sometimes when I go to the movies, but I just can’t. So I really need sci-fi films to live up to the science part of their name. There are a number of areas, particularly at the back end of the film, when credibility goes out the window.
I can’t really say more here without giving spoilers, so I will leave them to a “Spoiler section” below the trailer…. don’t read this if you haven’t seen the film!
What IS this movie trying to be?
In my view the film is pretty schizophrenic in nature. This is what confused me about the trailer, jumping from a cerebral sci-fi vibe to moon buggy shoot-outs.
On one hand, its the standard (but always interesting) tale of a child abandoned by a hero-father and his attempts to reconcile what that’s done to his life and relationships. How can he ever square that circle without contacting his dad? As the film’s tag-line goes “The answers we seek are just outside our reach”.
On the other there are episodes of action that would fit happily into an action scene from Star Trek.
The two elements never really gel, leading to the feeling of the film having been written as a set of disconnected pages and the writers then saying “Hey, Jimmy, once you’ve finished making us the tea, could you just write a few lines to join those pages up into a shooting script?”. Then later, “What do you mean Jimmy you used BOTH piles of paper?!”.
The greatest sin of all
Unfortunately, the film commits a cardinal sin in my book. Those of you who follow my blog regularly might know what I’m going to say….
Voiceovers! I BLOODY HATE THEM!! It’s at the very extreme of what the great Mark Kermode calls “show don’t tell”.
Here, we don’t just have a little Brad Pitt set-up intro and he then shuts up. He just drones on and on and on with his inner thoughts. At least Matt Damon in “The Martian” got away with it by cleverly filming his video blog. And it’s not as if there isn’t a prime opportunity to use that device here! He is constantly having to talk to a computer to do his regular psychological tests! But that option is not picked up.
BIG BLACK MARK!
But the film has its moments
Bubbling under all of this are some stand-out moments where, for me, the film soared. One of them (ultimately setting me up for as much of a disappointing fall as some of the characters!) is the stunning opening shots aboard the “Sky Antenna” structure. Impressive and exciting, with falling bits of metal playing Russian Roulette with Roy’s iife.
Another strength for me is Brad Pitt. I’ve seen wildly differing views on this, but for me its a quiet but strong acting performance. There are many scenes when he has no lines, his inner (and our outer) voice gives it a miss, and he acts the socks off his peers. What with “Once Upon A Time… In Hollywood” its been a really good year for Pitt. I suspect “Hollywood” might be the one though that gets him his fourth acting Oscar nomination.
For a 2019 film, it’s actually a very male-heavy film, made more so by Pitt’s love-interest (Liv Tyler) being given virtually nothing to do other that look a bit sulky from a distance. I’m not even sure she gets a single line in the whole film! (“Miss Tyler – please sign for your script”. “But, there’s nothing in the envelope?”. “Quite Miss Tyler, Quite”).
The only decent female role goes to Ruth Negga as the Mars colony leader. Even then, she only has limited screen time and although having the title “Mars CEO” really doesn’t seem to have much power.
Elsewhere, its great to see both Tommy Lee Jones and Donald Sutherland back on the big screen again.
Final Thoughts
As any veteran RAF person will know, “Ad Astra” is Latin for “To the stars”. In space terms this is less “to the stars” and more “just beyond your front door”.
James Gray‘s film undoubtedly has high ambitions but, through its spasmodic script, never really gets there. It has the beauty of “Gravity” but none of the refinement; there’s an essence of “Space Odyssey” in places, but it never goes for the mystical angle; it has the potential to reflect the near-insanity through loneliness of “Silent Running” but never commits fully to that storyline. But if its novelty you’re looking for, it ticks the “floating monkeys in space” box!
I think it’s worth seeing on the big screen just for its visual beauty and Pitt’s performance. And as a major block-buster sci-fi film I enjoyed it to a degree. But for me it had just so many irritations that it failed to live up to my high expectations. A great shame and a frustrating disappointment.
But at least it’s great news for Richard Branson and Virgin Atlantic shareholders. They can be assured that the future is bright for their “long distance” flights in the future!
I really love sci-fi films with high ambitions. “Psychological” sci-fi like “Solaris” for example. And “Arrival” topped my movie list for 2016. In similar vein, “Ad Astra” is also a movie concerning attempted contact with alien life. So I had high hopes for it. But would this Sci-fi epic ultimately challenge my brain again, or end up in the “Crystal Skull” sin bin with a dodgy alien meeting?
The Plot
Set a few years into the future, Roy McBride (Brad Pitt) is the son of a legend. H. Clifford McBride (Tommy Lee Jones) was a space exploration pioneer. His picture hangs in the NASA hall of fame next to Buzz Aldrin’s. McBride senior went missing presumed dead near Neptune during a mission. The mission was to get outside the Sun’s heliosphere to scan for potential alien transmissions from nearby solar systems.
But something went badly wrong, and now the earth (and potentially all human life migrating into the solar system) is at risk from massive electromagnetic bursts arising from Neptune. Is Clifford alive and involved in the emerging crisis? The authorities send Roy on a secret mission to Mars to try to communicate with his father.
Majestic cinematography
Let’s start with a real positive. The cinematography here is first rate. Hoyte Van-Hoytema – well known for “Interstellar“, “Spectre” and “Dunkirk” – knocks this out of the park. In the same manner as “Blade Runner 2049“, many of the frames of this film could be blown up and placed on art gallery walls around the world.
Add to that some cracking film editing from John Axelrad and Lee Haugen, and some beautiful sound design and I predict the movie should feature strongly in the technical awards at the Oscars.
But “science fiction” has the word “science” in it….
I’d like to park my physics brain sometimes when I go to the movies, but I just can’t. So I really need sci-fi films to live up to the science part of their name. There are a number of areas, particularly at the back end of the film, when credibility goes out the window.
I can’t really say more here without giving spoilers, so I will leave them to a “Spoiler section” below the trailer…. don’t read this if you haven’t seen the film!
What IS this movie trying to be?
In my view the film is pretty schizophrenic in nature. This is what confused me about the trailer, jumping from a cerebral sci-fi vibe to moon buggy shoot-outs.
On one hand, its the standard (but always interesting) tale of a child abandoned by a hero-father and his attempts to reconcile what that’s done to his life and relationships. How can he ever square that circle without contacting his dad? As the film’s tag-line goes “The answers we seek are just outside our reach”.
On the other there are episodes of action that would fit happily into an action scene from Star Trek.
The two elements never really gel, leading to the feeling of the film having been written as a set of disconnected pages and the writers then saying “Hey, Jimmy, once you’ve finished making us the tea, could you just write a few lines to join those pages up into a shooting script?”. Then later, “What do you mean Jimmy you used BOTH piles of paper?!”.
The greatest sin of all
Unfortunately, the film commits a cardinal sin in my book. Those of you who follow my blog regularly might know what I’m going to say….
Voiceovers! I BLOODY HATE THEM!! It’s at the very extreme of what the great Mark Kermode calls “show don’t tell”.
Here, we don’t just have a little Brad Pitt set-up intro and he then shuts up. He just drones on and on and on with his inner thoughts. At least Matt Damon in “The Martian” got away with it by cleverly filming his video blog. And it’s not as if there isn’t a prime opportunity to use that device here! He is constantly having to talk to a computer to do his regular psychological tests! But that option is not picked up.
BIG BLACK MARK!
But the film has its moments
Bubbling under all of this are some stand-out moments where, for me, the film soared. One of them (ultimately setting me up for as much of a disappointing fall as some of the characters!) is the stunning opening shots aboard the “Sky Antenna” structure. Impressive and exciting, with falling bits of metal playing Russian Roulette with Roy’s iife.
Another strength for me is Brad Pitt. I’ve seen wildly differing views on this, but for me its a quiet but strong acting performance. There are many scenes when he has no lines, his inner (and our outer) voice gives it a miss, and he acts the socks off his peers. What with “Once Upon A Time… In Hollywood” its been a really good year for Pitt. I suspect “Hollywood” might be the one though that gets him his fourth acting Oscar nomination.
For a 2019 film, it’s actually a very male-heavy film, made more so by Pitt’s love-interest (Liv Tyler) being given virtually nothing to do other that look a bit sulky from a distance. I’m not even sure she gets a single line in the whole film! (“Miss Tyler – please sign for your script”. “But, there’s nothing in the envelope?”. “Quite Miss Tyler, Quite”).
The only decent female role goes to Ruth Negga as the Mars colony leader. Even then, she only has limited screen time and although having the title “Mars CEO” really doesn’t seem to have much power.
Elsewhere, its great to see both Tommy Lee Jones and Donald Sutherland back on the big screen again.
Final Thoughts
As any veteran RAF person will know, “Ad Astra” is Latin for “To the stars”. In space terms this is less “to the stars” and more “just beyond your front door”.
James Gray‘s film undoubtedly has high ambitions but, through its spasmodic script, never really gets there. It has the beauty of “Gravity” but none of the refinement; there’s an essence of “Space Odyssey” in places, but it never goes for the mystical angle; it has the potential to reflect the near-insanity through loneliness of “Silent Running” but never commits fully to that storyline. But if its novelty you’re looking for, it ticks the “floating monkeys in space” box!
I think it’s worth seeing on the big screen just for its visual beauty and Pitt’s performance. And as a major block-buster sci-fi film I enjoyed it to a degree. But for me it had just so many irritations that it failed to live up to my high expectations. A great shame and a frustrating disappointment.
But at least it’s great news for Richard Branson and Virgin Atlantic shareholders. They can be assured that the future is bright for their “long distance” flights in the future!