Search
Search results
Laura T (4 KP) rated Stranger Things - Season 2 in TV
Nov 4, 2017 (Updated Nov 4, 2017)
Steve And Dustins bromance. (3 more)
Eleven and Hopper as a family.
Lucas’s little sister (she needs a bigger part next time)
Ghostbusters!
Love letter to the 80s
I don’t normally review stuff but I ADORE this show. I love anything geeky anyway but this just combines it with the awesomeness that was the 80s. A fantastic show that you can’t help be sucked into and want to watch them all in one go (who needs sleep?!?) I wasn’t sure whether I’d watch it when I first saw it advertised, but I’m so glad I did. They’ve got it down to a t. Bad hair, crap fashion, awesome music, and fantastic homages to some great 80s films. It’s just one big love letter to some of the best things about that decade. Wasn’t sure if S2 would be as good, but i think it’s just as good if not better. And we know how rare that can be. I’m not gonna go into everything about the show as I think you just need to clear a big chunk of space in your free time and binge them all. S3 and 4 cant come soon enough!!
ClareR (5577 KP) rated Professor Chandra Follows His Bliss in Books
Mar 14, 2019
A wonderful story of family and finding yourself.
This is SUCH a good book!
Professor Chandra, a Professor at Cambridge University, has missed out on the Nobel Prize for Economics, and he’s not happy about it! So unhappy in fact, that he doesn’t pay attention whilst crossing the road, and gets run over by a bicycle. He ends up in hospital, and decides that he needs to re-evaluate his life and get in contact with his children. And so starts his journey of self-realisation.
I loved this book. The characters were all immensely likeable (even the irritating Steve - Chandra’s ex-wife’s new husband). Some of the things that happened seemed a bit unlikely, but we’re not reading this as a non-fiction book, are we? They were very funny though, and occasionally, they were quite sad. This book had it all for me. I read this on The Pigeonhole, so one part a day for ten days, and I can honestly say that I looked forward to reading it every day. I feel a little bereft that it’s over now.
Highly recommended!
Professor Chandra, a Professor at Cambridge University, has missed out on the Nobel Prize for Economics, and he’s not happy about it! So unhappy in fact, that he doesn’t pay attention whilst crossing the road, and gets run over by a bicycle. He ends up in hospital, and decides that he needs to re-evaluate his life and get in contact with his children. And so starts his journey of self-realisation.
I loved this book. The characters were all immensely likeable (even the irritating Steve - Chandra’s ex-wife’s new husband). Some of the things that happened seemed a bit unlikely, but we’re not reading this as a non-fiction book, are we? They were very funny though, and occasionally, they were quite sad. This book had it all for me. I read this on The Pigeonhole, so one part a day for ten days, and I can honestly say that I looked forward to reading it every day. I feel a little bereft that it’s over now.
Highly recommended!
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Finding Steve McQueen (2019) in Movies
Nov 3, 2020
Not much of a heist
Finding Steve McQueen is a heist drama centring around a young man who idolises Steve McQueen, and follows him as he joins a gang of thieves as they plot to steal millions from President Nixon’s secret funds. This is loosely based around a true story and is told from the point of view of the gang’s getaway driver Harry Barber, with his McQueen inspired locks and mannerisms.
The tale of the 1972 heist is recounted by Barber (Travis Fimmel) to his girlfriend Molly Murphy (Rachael Taylor) in 1980, after having been on the run from the FBI for 8 years. This starts out as though it could be a rather fun and lighthearted heist movie, but I’m afraid despite it’s short 90 minute run time, it feels rather drawn out and dull. Right from the get go, the cinematography, directing style and just general look of this film just doesn’t feel right. It feels like it has been made for tv, it has that rather cheap look about it and sadly the camera angles and character styling do nothing but reinforce this. The CGI, whilst infrequent, is very bad and you can spot the green screen scenes a mile off. Even the car chase scene is lacklustre and unimpressive. You can tell that this hasn’t had a lot of money thrown at it.
The performances too I’m afraid are also rather lacking, although a large part of this is likely down to the often dodgy script that seems to enjoy ramming 70s references down our throats whilst being completely unconvincing about every other aspect of the story. I haven’t see much of Travis Fimmel, so I’m not sure if his goofy persona in this is his acting style or in character, but either way it doesn’t always work. Rachael Taylor’s Molly seems out of place and rather unlikeable and it’s only Forest Whitaker as FBI Agent Howard Lambert who comes out unscathed, playing a rather aloof and unfazed agent on the tail of the gang following the heist.
The heist itself is really the main problem here. Instead of being a heist movie, this plays out like a romance with a little bit of heist thrown in, and not a very exciting one at that. There are some moments of intrigue and fun when you see how the gang pulled the heist off and later on how they got caught, but apart from this it’s probably one of the dullest heists I’ve ever seen. Aside from a decent soundtrack, there is very little excitement in this. The motive for the heist also seems rather fuzzy and far fetched. Even the romance seems forced and wavers between being very fake and unconvincing to rather cringeworthy and cliched.
There’s also the question of whether this movie succeeds in finding Steve McQueen, and whilst it is undoubtedly a homage to the man himself, it is not a very successful one. It references all the right things but unfortunately struggles to get close to the man himself and as heist movies go, it may have done itself a disservice by trying to liken itself to McQueen and his successes. Overall I’m afraid this is a rather dull heist film that even with a low budget could’ve been much better.
The tale of the 1972 heist is recounted by Barber (Travis Fimmel) to his girlfriend Molly Murphy (Rachael Taylor) in 1980, after having been on the run from the FBI for 8 years. This starts out as though it could be a rather fun and lighthearted heist movie, but I’m afraid despite it’s short 90 minute run time, it feels rather drawn out and dull. Right from the get go, the cinematography, directing style and just general look of this film just doesn’t feel right. It feels like it has been made for tv, it has that rather cheap look about it and sadly the camera angles and character styling do nothing but reinforce this. The CGI, whilst infrequent, is very bad and you can spot the green screen scenes a mile off. Even the car chase scene is lacklustre and unimpressive. You can tell that this hasn’t had a lot of money thrown at it.
The performances too I’m afraid are also rather lacking, although a large part of this is likely down to the often dodgy script that seems to enjoy ramming 70s references down our throats whilst being completely unconvincing about every other aspect of the story. I haven’t see much of Travis Fimmel, so I’m not sure if his goofy persona in this is his acting style or in character, but either way it doesn’t always work. Rachael Taylor’s Molly seems out of place and rather unlikeable and it’s only Forest Whitaker as FBI Agent Howard Lambert who comes out unscathed, playing a rather aloof and unfazed agent on the tail of the gang following the heist.
The heist itself is really the main problem here. Instead of being a heist movie, this plays out like a romance with a little bit of heist thrown in, and not a very exciting one at that. There are some moments of intrigue and fun when you see how the gang pulled the heist off and later on how they got caught, but apart from this it’s probably one of the dullest heists I’ve ever seen. Aside from a decent soundtrack, there is very little excitement in this. The motive for the heist also seems rather fuzzy and far fetched. Even the romance seems forced and wavers between being very fake and unconvincing to rather cringeworthy and cliched.
There’s also the question of whether this movie succeeds in finding Steve McQueen, and whilst it is undoubtedly a homage to the man himself, it is not a very successful one. It references all the right things but unfortunately struggles to get close to the man himself and as heist movies go, it may have done itself a disservice by trying to liken itself to McQueen and his successes. Overall I’m afraid this is a rather dull heist film that even with a low budget could’ve been much better.
Lee Ronaldo recommended Meet The Beatles! by The Beatles in Music (curated)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Welcome to Marwen (2018) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
I knew what I'd be seeing on the screen for this one but it was still intriguing to watch.
When we're seeing the dolls in action you can tell that every detail has been taken into account. The way they move their limbs, the articulation and their reactions are all spot on. If you listen during the fight scenes you can even hear the plastic on plastic thunking. The little touches in Marwen itself are wonderful too.
Transitions between the fictional town and the real town are done in a surprisingly smooth way. The shifts through the bar's frontage keep the action flowing in the busier points of the movie and are a nice change of pace from the camera and photographs.
You end up thinking about a lot of things. It took me longer than it probably should have done to work a few things out (no spoilers), but when I did it opened up a whole other train of thought and even a day later I'm still thinking about it.
Steve Carell does an amazing job of conveying the trauma that Mark is having to deal with, and the moments where his anxieties take him are so horribly real. The film overall punches you in the face with emotions. There's one particular moment with Kurt and his car that made me anxious myself and I actually wanted to scream at the screen, if I'd been at home I would have been screaming. Before you ask, of course I was crying! So much at one point I thought I was going to choke on the lump in my throat.
What you should do
I have no doubt this one will be under appreciated as it is a little unusual, but it is worth a watch at some point.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I'd quite like to try those meatballs.
When we're seeing the dolls in action you can tell that every detail has been taken into account. The way they move their limbs, the articulation and their reactions are all spot on. If you listen during the fight scenes you can even hear the plastic on plastic thunking. The little touches in Marwen itself are wonderful too.
Transitions between the fictional town and the real town are done in a surprisingly smooth way. The shifts through the bar's frontage keep the action flowing in the busier points of the movie and are a nice change of pace from the camera and photographs.
You end up thinking about a lot of things. It took me longer than it probably should have done to work a few things out (no spoilers), but when I did it opened up a whole other train of thought and even a day later I'm still thinking about it.
Steve Carell does an amazing job of conveying the trauma that Mark is having to deal with, and the moments where his anxieties take him are so horribly real. The film overall punches you in the face with emotions. There's one particular moment with Kurt and his car that made me anxious myself and I actually wanted to scream at the screen, if I'd been at home I would have been screaming. Before you ask, of course I was crying! So much at one point I thought I was going to choke on the lump in my throat.
What you should do
I have no doubt this one will be under appreciated as it is a little unusual, but it is worth a watch at some point.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
I'd quite like to try those meatballs.
Gareth von Kallenbach (965 KP) rated Welcome to Marwen (2018) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
Cap’t Hogie (Steve Carell) is saved from of Nazi’s, after his plane crashed in a swamp in Belgium, by a squad women. They are able to take the beaten and battered Hogie back to their town of Marwen. Or at least that the story Mark Hogancamp (also Steve Carell) has conjured in his art installation outside his trailer home. Mark himself was found by a bartender, Wendy (Stefanie von Pfetten), after he was beaten with an inch of his life by a group of white supremacist. Hogancamp was a successful sketch artist and now can hardly write his own name. He also has little to no memory of the life before the beating. But he is still and artist and now his art lives in the dolls he uses to create a fantasy story that mirrors his real life.
The group of women dolls that seem to always save his Hogie character are all based on the women his life. There is G.I. Julie, aka Julie (Janelle Monae), his rehab partner after his accident and Roberta (Merritt Wever), the friendly neighborhood hobby story clerk. Plus there is Anna (Gwendoline Christie) nurse who brings Hogie his mail and supplies in real life and Carlala (Eiza Gonzalez) his coworker in real life. These make up the majority of his bad ass Nazi killing crew in Marwen. The newest addition is his neighbor Nicole (Leslie Mann) who he think might help him defeat the Nazi’s in Marwen for good and be a special new friend in real life. He will need both his Marwen crew and his real life friends as the sentencing for his real life attackers gets closer and his fragile mental health is pushed to a stressful breaking point.
This unique story is based on the real life of world famous photographic artist Mark Hogancamp. Mark was brutally beaten because he made a smart comment about liking to wear women’s shoes. It’s also a story of overcoming addiction and mental health issues. He turned the disaster into a passion for creating art and using fantasy to cope with tragedy.
This was a really interesting way of telling a one of a kind true story. I thought that director, Robert Zemeckis (Forest Gump, Flight) used both real life and the fantasy world of Marwen to create one story. There were times when the story really didn’t flow great between the two worlds but overall was really original filmmaking. The pace and flow were a little off with the transitions. I thought the animation was exceptionally done. The story also had a bunch of topics it tackled, from mental health and memory loss to addiction but also had a good mix of humor. Carell dual performances were really well done and the supporting cast was also good. Films that are original and try new and interesting things are always worth a view in my opinion. I could see the content not really being for everyone but I thought the overall story left me feeling good.
The group of women dolls that seem to always save his Hogie character are all based on the women his life. There is G.I. Julie, aka Julie (Janelle Monae), his rehab partner after his accident and Roberta (Merritt Wever), the friendly neighborhood hobby story clerk. Plus there is Anna (Gwendoline Christie) nurse who brings Hogie his mail and supplies in real life and Carlala (Eiza Gonzalez) his coworker in real life. These make up the majority of his bad ass Nazi killing crew in Marwen. The newest addition is his neighbor Nicole (Leslie Mann) who he think might help him defeat the Nazi’s in Marwen for good and be a special new friend in real life. He will need both his Marwen crew and his real life friends as the sentencing for his real life attackers gets closer and his fragile mental health is pushed to a stressful breaking point.
This unique story is based on the real life of world famous photographic artist Mark Hogancamp. Mark was brutally beaten because he made a smart comment about liking to wear women’s shoes. It’s also a story of overcoming addiction and mental health issues. He turned the disaster into a passion for creating art and using fantasy to cope with tragedy.
This was a really interesting way of telling a one of a kind true story. I thought that director, Robert Zemeckis (Forest Gump, Flight) used both real life and the fantasy world of Marwen to create one story. There were times when the story really didn’t flow great between the two worlds but overall was really original filmmaking. The pace and flow were a little off with the transitions. I thought the animation was exceptionally done. The story also had a bunch of topics it tackled, from mental health and memory loss to addiction but also had a good mix of humor. Carell dual performances were really well done and the supporting cast was also good. Films that are original and try new and interesting things are always worth a view in my opinion. I could see the content not really being for everyone but I thought the overall story left me feeling good.
Rodney Barnes (472 KP) rated Captain America: Civil War (2016) in Movies
Apr 13, 2019
In my top 5 Marvel movies
Contains spoilers, click to show
This is one of my favorite movies of all time. The only reason I didn't give it a 10 is because I did not care for the Baron Zemo angle. His reason for revenge was related to his family getting killed due to the actions of the Avengers. In the comics Zemo was a power and despot that was on the same level as Captain America when it comes to battle. This story was similar to the story arc in the Civil War comics. The government wants to control heroes because innocent people get killed in their battles trying to save mankind. The last battle they had with Ultron was the catalyst for the Sokovia accords. Oversight by the allied nations. We finally see Cap and Bucky reunited as friends but it is a little tricky at first. Bucky gets blamed for a terrorist action that he is innocent of. Zemo gets a hold of a old Hydra book that was used to brainwash Bucky and he uses it again on Bucky to carry out his plan. The "Civil War" begins when Tony agrees with oversight from the UN and Cap disagrees. The highligjt for me is seeing Spider-Man finally in the MCU. The action was great, the story was great and it had a profound impact on the MCU. It ended with Tony and Steve not being the best of friends and you see that affect in Infinity War. This movie is highly recommended by me
Lee (2222 KP) rated Stan & Ollie (2018) in Movies
Dec 19, 2018 (Updated Dec 19, 2018)
A wonderful movie
I have been really looking forward to seeing this movie. I, along with countless millions around the world, have fond memories of watching regular re-runs of Laurel & Hardy movies on TV, and they hold a very special place in so many people's hearts. Timeless legends that deserve to be remembered for generations to come. That being said, the preview screening I attended last night was probably only a quarter full, so I fear that this story detailing the latter part of their career isn't really going to appeal to mainstream audiences. I kind of hope it reignites interest in their work though as this truly is a wonderful film.
The movie begins in 1937, where Stan and Ollie are currently riding high as the most successful comedy performers in Hollywood. They're at Hal Roach studios, making their way to the set of Way Out West in order to shoot another scene. They're just chatting away together as we follow them - about their wives, about money. Stan's contract with Hal Roach is due to end shortly, while Ollie's isn't, and Stan is conscious of the fact that they don't actually own the rights to their own movies, so don't make as much money as performers such as Charlie Chaplin. He argues a bit with Hal Roach about it, before he and Ollie perform a song and dance number for the movie (the original clip of this scene is shown at the end of this movie, highlighting just how perfectly they nailed the recreation of it here). That short conversation, and the differing viewpoints regarding money and their film rights, lays the foundations for the rest of the movie, and we then jump forward 16 years.
The boys arrive in Newcastle, England in 1953. They're here to perform a tour of the UK, recreating classic scenes from their movies in an attempt to generate enough interest in them to get a movie made. A retelling of Robin Hood, which is being written by Stan. Age is clearly catching up with them though, particularly with Ollie, while Stan remains the driving force of the pair, constantly performing classic gags and coming up with new ideas. Unfortunately for them, they barely manage to fill half the seats of the theatres they perform in, with concern growing as to whether or not their eventual London dates will even go ahead. Their wives are due to join them on tour in a couple of weeks time, and they're also concerned as to what they'll make of it all when they arrive, especially as the boys are currently only staying in small, simple guest houses. Promoter Bernard Delfont (one of the movies funniest supporting roles) is keen to get them out and about promoting themselves, attending events and meeting dignitaries. His interests initially seem focused elsewhere in the theatre business, particularly with upcoming British comedy performer Norman Wisdom, so it's hard work generating interest in Laurel & Hardy once more. Luckily though, the effort pays off, and they eventually upgrade their London show to a bigger theatre, selling it out.
John C Reilly and Steve Coogan are just perfect as Stan and Ollie. I struggled a little at times with Steve Coogan, as I've been a big fan of his varied comedy work for nearly 30 years now, so found it a bit distracting. But he definitely pulls this off, and it's incredible to see so many mannerisms and iconic scenes from their movies so perfectly reproduced by both leads. The other outstanding and hilarious double act in this movie are the wives, who arrive in London to support their husbands and mix things up a little. They are clearly very caring and protective of their husbands though, supporting them through ill health, and an unfortunate falling out between Stan and Ollie related to events that occurred 16 years ago. A pivotal moment in their careers which was alluded to in the opening scenes of the movie, and further elaborated on in a number of flashbacks later on. It's a bit of an emotional roller-coaster, but overall this is a wonderfully heartwarming and moving love story about two of Hollywoods greatest. And it succeeded in making me want to watch every single one of their movies again.
The movie begins in 1937, where Stan and Ollie are currently riding high as the most successful comedy performers in Hollywood. They're at Hal Roach studios, making their way to the set of Way Out West in order to shoot another scene. They're just chatting away together as we follow them - about their wives, about money. Stan's contract with Hal Roach is due to end shortly, while Ollie's isn't, and Stan is conscious of the fact that they don't actually own the rights to their own movies, so don't make as much money as performers such as Charlie Chaplin. He argues a bit with Hal Roach about it, before he and Ollie perform a song and dance number for the movie (the original clip of this scene is shown at the end of this movie, highlighting just how perfectly they nailed the recreation of it here). That short conversation, and the differing viewpoints regarding money and their film rights, lays the foundations for the rest of the movie, and we then jump forward 16 years.
The boys arrive in Newcastle, England in 1953. They're here to perform a tour of the UK, recreating classic scenes from their movies in an attempt to generate enough interest in them to get a movie made. A retelling of Robin Hood, which is being written by Stan. Age is clearly catching up with them though, particularly with Ollie, while Stan remains the driving force of the pair, constantly performing classic gags and coming up with new ideas. Unfortunately for them, they barely manage to fill half the seats of the theatres they perform in, with concern growing as to whether or not their eventual London dates will even go ahead. Their wives are due to join them on tour in a couple of weeks time, and they're also concerned as to what they'll make of it all when they arrive, especially as the boys are currently only staying in small, simple guest houses. Promoter Bernard Delfont (one of the movies funniest supporting roles) is keen to get them out and about promoting themselves, attending events and meeting dignitaries. His interests initially seem focused elsewhere in the theatre business, particularly with upcoming British comedy performer Norman Wisdom, so it's hard work generating interest in Laurel & Hardy once more. Luckily though, the effort pays off, and they eventually upgrade their London show to a bigger theatre, selling it out.
John C Reilly and Steve Coogan are just perfect as Stan and Ollie. I struggled a little at times with Steve Coogan, as I've been a big fan of his varied comedy work for nearly 30 years now, so found it a bit distracting. But he definitely pulls this off, and it's incredible to see so many mannerisms and iconic scenes from their movies so perfectly reproduced by both leads. The other outstanding and hilarious double act in this movie are the wives, who arrive in London to support their husbands and mix things up a little. They are clearly very caring and protective of their husbands though, supporting them through ill health, and an unfortunate falling out between Stan and Ollie related to events that occurred 16 years ago. A pivotal moment in their careers which was alluded to in the opening scenes of the movie, and further elaborated on in a number of flashbacks later on. It's a bit of an emotional roller-coaster, but overall this is a wonderfully heartwarming and moving love story about two of Hollywoods greatest. And it succeeded in making me want to watch every single one of their movies again.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated War for the Planet of the Apes (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
The Great Ape-scape
Six years ago, I didn’t think I’d be telling you that a remake of the classic Planet of the Apes and its sequel would go on to be one of the finest double acts since The Two Ronnies, but that’s exactly what has happened.
Now, the final part of this incredible trilogy, War for the Planet of the Apes is out and ready to conclude an incredible half decade of cinema. But is it as good as its predecessors?
Caesar (Andy Serkis) and his band of loyal apes are forced into a deadly war with an army of humans led by a ruthless colonel (Woody Harrelson). After Caesar’s band of apes suffers unimaginable losses, he wrestles with his darker instincts and begins his own quest of revenge. As the journey finally brings the two rivals face-to-face, Caesar and the colonel are pitted against each other in an epic battle that will determine the fate of both of their species.
I have to say, I was a little concerned the finished product would be as tongue twisting as its frankly ridiculous title (a problem that has blighted the entire series), but it ends up being a stunning and heart-warming finale to a franchise filled to the brim with memorable moments.
The motion capture used on Andy Serkis to create Caesar has to be seen to be believed. If you thought predecessor Dawn was good, you haven’t seen anything yet. His hair moves with subtle believability and his movements are so fluid, it’s easy to forget you’re watching a film and not a documentary.
But this incredible technology isn’t used solely on our main protagonist. Fan favourite orangutan Maurice returns and newcomer “Bad Ape” captured by Steve Zahn provides the flick with a much-needed eccentric, shining a little light in one of the bleakest feature films of the last half decade.
The human characters, naturally don’t fare so well. Woody Harrelson is his usual charismatic self but feels a little caricature like. His colonel just doesn’t feel particularly believable. Likewise, Amiah Miller’s turn as Nova, whom Maurice adopts as his daughter, seems to be merely used as a plot device, though she does partake in some of the sweeter moments.
As with its predecessors, War is a slow burner with the action interweaved into the plot rather than the other way around. In principle it works well, though the pacing towards the middle of this 140-minute behemoth is a little off.
Nevertheless, the action is filmed beautifully. In fact, the whole film is stunning. Beautiful wooded landscapes and open deserts are juxtaposed with the dark concentration camps used in the latter half. One sequence in particular, behind a gorgeously realised waterfall, is one of the best action scenes of the entire year.
Masquerading as a blockbuster, this is a film with a much deeper message about messing with nature. Brutal and emotionally testing, War for the Planet of the Apes is brave in its choices and all the better for it.
Three films in, it would be easy for director Matt Reeves to rest on his laurels and rely on the positive reaction to its predecessors, but thankfully he has climaxed on a high. It’s not perfect, and not an easy watch by any means, but for a threequel, you can’t really get much better.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/07/12/war-for-the-planet-of-the-apes-review/
Now, the final part of this incredible trilogy, War for the Planet of the Apes is out and ready to conclude an incredible half decade of cinema. But is it as good as its predecessors?
Caesar (Andy Serkis) and his band of loyal apes are forced into a deadly war with an army of humans led by a ruthless colonel (Woody Harrelson). After Caesar’s band of apes suffers unimaginable losses, he wrestles with his darker instincts and begins his own quest of revenge. As the journey finally brings the two rivals face-to-face, Caesar and the colonel are pitted against each other in an epic battle that will determine the fate of both of their species.
I have to say, I was a little concerned the finished product would be as tongue twisting as its frankly ridiculous title (a problem that has blighted the entire series), but it ends up being a stunning and heart-warming finale to a franchise filled to the brim with memorable moments.
The motion capture used on Andy Serkis to create Caesar has to be seen to be believed. If you thought predecessor Dawn was good, you haven’t seen anything yet. His hair moves with subtle believability and his movements are so fluid, it’s easy to forget you’re watching a film and not a documentary.
But this incredible technology isn’t used solely on our main protagonist. Fan favourite orangutan Maurice returns and newcomer “Bad Ape” captured by Steve Zahn provides the flick with a much-needed eccentric, shining a little light in one of the bleakest feature films of the last half decade.
The human characters, naturally don’t fare so well. Woody Harrelson is his usual charismatic self but feels a little caricature like. His colonel just doesn’t feel particularly believable. Likewise, Amiah Miller’s turn as Nova, whom Maurice adopts as his daughter, seems to be merely used as a plot device, though she does partake in some of the sweeter moments.
As with its predecessors, War is a slow burner with the action interweaved into the plot rather than the other way around. In principle it works well, though the pacing towards the middle of this 140-minute behemoth is a little off.
Nevertheless, the action is filmed beautifully. In fact, the whole film is stunning. Beautiful wooded landscapes and open deserts are juxtaposed with the dark concentration camps used in the latter half. One sequence in particular, behind a gorgeously realised waterfall, is one of the best action scenes of the entire year.
Masquerading as a blockbuster, this is a film with a much deeper message about messing with nature. Brutal and emotionally testing, War for the Planet of the Apes is brave in its choices and all the better for it.
Three films in, it would be easy for director Matt Reeves to rest on his laurels and rely on the positive reaction to its predecessors, but thankfully he has climaxed on a high. It’s not perfect, and not an easy watch by any means, but for a threequel, you can’t really get much better.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/07/12/war-for-the-planet-of-the-apes-review/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Battle of the Sexes (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Tennis and sex, but without the grunting.
Here’s a good test of someone’s age…. ask the question “Billie-Jean?”. Millennials will probably come back with “Huh?”; those in their 30’s or 40’s might come back with “Michael Jackson!”; those older than that will probably reply “King!”.
“Battle of the Sexes” (which I just managed to catch before it left cinemas) tells the true-life story of US tennis star Billie-Jean King (Emma Stone, “La La Land“). The year is 1973 and Billie-Jean is riding high as the Number 1 female tennis player. She is a feminist; she is married (to hunk Larry – no not that one – King played by Austin Stowell (“Whiplash“, “Bridge of Spies“)); …. and she is also attracted to women, not something she has yet acted on. That all changes when her path crosses with LA-hairdresser Marilyn (Andrea Riseborough, “Birdman“, “Oblivion”).
But this is a side story: the main event is a bet made by aging ex-star Bobby Riggs (Steve Carell, “Foxcatcher“); that – even at his age – as a man he could beat the leading female tennis player of the day.
The film is gloriously retro, starting with the old-school 20th Century Fox production logo. And it contains breathtakingly sexist dialogue by writer Simon Beaufoy (“Everest“, “The Full Monty”). Surely men couldn’t have been so crass and outrageous in the 70’s? Sorry ladies, but the answer is yes, and the film is testament to how far women’s rights have come in 50 years.
This is a tour de force in acting from both Emma Stone and Steve Carell, particularly the latter: a scene where Carell tries to re-engage with his estranged wife (Elisabeth Shue, “Leaving Las Vegas”) is both nuanced and heart-breaking. Stone’s performance is also praiseworthy, although it feels slightly less so as it is an impersonation of a (relatively) well-known figure: this is extremely well-studied though, right down to her strutting walk around the court which I had both forgotten and was immediately again reminded of.
One of my favourite movie awards are the Screen Actor’s Guild (SAG) “cast” awards that celebrate ensemble performances, and here is a film that should have been nominated (it unfortunately wasn’t). Andrea Riseborough; Natalie Morales (as fellow tennis player Rosie Casals); comedian Sarah Silverman (“A Million Ways to Die in the West“), almost unrecognisable as the brash publicist Gladys Heldman; Bill Pullman as LTA head Jack Kramer; the great Alan Cumming (“The Good Wife”) as the team’s flamboyant, gay, costume designer; Lewis Pullman as Riggs’s son Larry; Jessica McNamee (magnetic eyes!) as King’s Australian tennis nemesis Margaret Court. All bounce off the leads, and each other, just beautifully.
Cinematography by Linus Sandgren (“La La Land“) and editing by Pamela Martin (“Little Miss Sunshine”) unite to deliver one of the most sexually charged haircuts you are ever likely to see on the screen. For those put off by this aspect of the storyline, the “girl-on-girl action” is pretty tastefully done and not overly graphic: it’s mostly “first-base” stuff rather than “third-base”!
“What a waste of a lovely night”. Marilyn (Andrea Riseborough) and Billie-Jean (Emma Stone) get serious.
Directed with panache by the co-directors of the 2006 smash “Little Miss Sunshine” – Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris – all in all it’s a delight, especially for older audiences who will get a blast of nostalgia from days when sports were still played at a slightly more leisurely pace… and definitely without the grunting.
“Battle of the Sexes” (which I just managed to catch before it left cinemas) tells the true-life story of US tennis star Billie-Jean King (Emma Stone, “La La Land“). The year is 1973 and Billie-Jean is riding high as the Number 1 female tennis player. She is a feminist; she is married (to hunk Larry – no not that one – King played by Austin Stowell (“Whiplash“, “Bridge of Spies“)); …. and she is also attracted to women, not something she has yet acted on. That all changes when her path crosses with LA-hairdresser Marilyn (Andrea Riseborough, “Birdman“, “Oblivion”).
But this is a side story: the main event is a bet made by aging ex-star Bobby Riggs (Steve Carell, “Foxcatcher“); that – even at his age – as a man he could beat the leading female tennis player of the day.
The film is gloriously retro, starting with the old-school 20th Century Fox production logo. And it contains breathtakingly sexist dialogue by writer Simon Beaufoy (“Everest“, “The Full Monty”). Surely men couldn’t have been so crass and outrageous in the 70’s? Sorry ladies, but the answer is yes, and the film is testament to how far women’s rights have come in 50 years.
This is a tour de force in acting from both Emma Stone and Steve Carell, particularly the latter: a scene where Carell tries to re-engage with his estranged wife (Elisabeth Shue, “Leaving Las Vegas”) is both nuanced and heart-breaking. Stone’s performance is also praiseworthy, although it feels slightly less so as it is an impersonation of a (relatively) well-known figure: this is extremely well-studied though, right down to her strutting walk around the court which I had both forgotten and was immediately again reminded of.
One of my favourite movie awards are the Screen Actor’s Guild (SAG) “cast” awards that celebrate ensemble performances, and here is a film that should have been nominated (it unfortunately wasn’t). Andrea Riseborough; Natalie Morales (as fellow tennis player Rosie Casals); comedian Sarah Silverman (“A Million Ways to Die in the West“), almost unrecognisable as the brash publicist Gladys Heldman; Bill Pullman as LTA head Jack Kramer; the great Alan Cumming (“The Good Wife”) as the team’s flamboyant, gay, costume designer; Lewis Pullman as Riggs’s son Larry; Jessica McNamee (magnetic eyes!) as King’s Australian tennis nemesis Margaret Court. All bounce off the leads, and each other, just beautifully.
Cinematography by Linus Sandgren (“La La Land“) and editing by Pamela Martin (“Little Miss Sunshine”) unite to deliver one of the most sexually charged haircuts you are ever likely to see on the screen. For those put off by this aspect of the storyline, the “girl-on-girl action” is pretty tastefully done and not overly graphic: it’s mostly “first-base” stuff rather than “third-base”!
“What a waste of a lovely night”. Marilyn (Andrea Riseborough) and Billie-Jean (Emma Stone) get serious.
Directed with panache by the co-directors of the 2006 smash “Little Miss Sunshine” – Jonathan Dayton and Valerie Faris – all in all it’s a delight, especially for older audiences who will get a blast of nostalgia from days when sports were still played at a slightly more leisurely pace… and definitely without the grunting.