Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Another Round (2020) in Movies
Jun 30, 2021
Mads Mikkelsen. The rest of the ensemble cast are great too. (1 more)
Momentum of the movie is great.
A cure for a mid-life crisis? It’s worth a shot!
After giving the most emotional and heartbreaking Oscar speech of the recent awards, Thomas Vinterberg's International Feature winner is now in UK cinemas. "Druk" (Danish for "Binge Drinking") is in the Danish language with subtitles: but don't let that put you off.
Positives:
- Mads Mikkelsen delivers a stunning performance. He really delivers the goods. He was nominated for a BAFTA for the role but missed out on the Oscar nomination. This feels unjust. I would have personally swapped out Steven Yeun for this performance by Mads.
- Thomas Vinterberg was justly nominated for Best Director at both the BAFTAs and the Oscars. The movie never lacks momentum from beginning to end. I was thoroughly entertained.
- It's quite unusual to see a 'buddy movie' concerning a group of men that's not a cop film. My wife described it as a '"chick-flick for blokes". I guess you need to go to "The Hangover" films to find an equivalent. (That of course also centres around alcohol. Are we really that shallow?!)
Negatives:
- Up until a "church scene", I thought the story was well-structured and coherent. But I'm not quite sure what message the finale of the movie was trying to send. Yes, it's fun and full of energy. And Mikkelsen's dancing is both bizarre and entertaining. But given all that's gone before, is it a "what the hell, life is for living and alcohol is part of that" statement? I was unsure.
Summary Thoughts on "Another Round": The movie is dedicated to "Ada" - Vinterberg's daughter, who was supposed to be acting in the film but tragically died in a car crash just four days into shooting. (Hence his emotional Oscar acceptance). The fact he managed to finish the movie at all is amazing. But the fact it's so good is a great memorial to her.
It's billed as a "comedy drama" but, although there are comic moments, it leans heavily on the "drama". The Scandinavians in general tend to drink as much, if not more, than the British do. So this is a reminder of both the benefits and risks of the evil drink.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies her - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/06/30/another-round-cure-for-a-mid-life-crisis-its-worth-a-shot/ , You can also check out my new Tiktok channel @onemannsmovies. Thanks.)
Positives:
- Mads Mikkelsen delivers a stunning performance. He really delivers the goods. He was nominated for a BAFTA for the role but missed out on the Oscar nomination. This feels unjust. I would have personally swapped out Steven Yeun for this performance by Mads.
- Thomas Vinterberg was justly nominated for Best Director at both the BAFTAs and the Oscars. The movie never lacks momentum from beginning to end. I was thoroughly entertained.
- It's quite unusual to see a 'buddy movie' concerning a group of men that's not a cop film. My wife described it as a '"chick-flick for blokes". I guess you need to go to "The Hangover" films to find an equivalent. (That of course also centres around alcohol. Are we really that shallow?!)
Negatives:
- Up until a "church scene", I thought the story was well-structured and coherent. But I'm not quite sure what message the finale of the movie was trying to send. Yes, it's fun and full of energy. And Mikkelsen's dancing is both bizarre and entertaining. But given all that's gone before, is it a "what the hell, life is for living and alcohol is part of that" statement? I was unsure.
Summary Thoughts on "Another Round": The movie is dedicated to "Ada" - Vinterberg's daughter, who was supposed to be acting in the film but tragically died in a car crash just four days into shooting. (Hence his emotional Oscar acceptance). The fact he managed to finish the movie at all is amazing. But the fact it's so good is a great memorial to her.
It's billed as a "comedy drama" but, although there are comic moments, it leans heavily on the "drama". The Scandinavians in general tend to drink as much, if not more, than the British do. So this is a reminder of both the benefits and risks of the evil drink.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies her - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/06/30/another-round-cure-for-a-mid-life-crisis-its-worth-a-shot/ , You can also check out my new Tiktok channel @onemannsmovies. Thanks.)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Trauma Centre (2019) in Movies
Jun 9, 2020
Many moons ago I said to myself that I shouldn't watch films with big stars in if I'd never heard of them before they become available to buy, Steven Seagal was the reason for this rule in the beginning... when and why did I ever forsake that idea?
After witnessing a crime Madison ends up in hospital recovering from injuries she sustained in the incident. What she doesn't realise is that she's hiding evidence that will lead straight to her attackers. Her only chance is a cop assigned to watch her and her own wits.
I picked this up on Prime as the rental for members was only £1.99, that seems like a bargain... I can't say I was convinced after I finished it.
Trauma Centre is a very basic crime thriller, it doesn't ever stray into anything out of the ordinary. If it wasn't for the fact this was a new release I'd have said I'd seen it before and just forgotten all about it.
Nicky Whelan is probably the best of the bunch when it comes to the acting, but I think that's mainly because she gets to act manic and terrorised for most of it and that gave her the ability to act her way out of poor scripting.
We've also got Steve Guttenberg playing the doctor and it was nice to see him in something new. I loved so many of his films when I was growing up so this felt almost nostalgic... but it's an odd character and thankfully he doesn't pop up in a lot of scenes.
And then there's Brucey. I've watched a lot of Bruce Willis films and while some of them aren't great they've never really been bad. Dubious, yes. Bad, no. Saying Willis' performance was lazy may be being generous. There's no energy in the role at all and every scene looks like he's just woken up from a nap and isn't really sure where he is. This should have been an easily doable role for "classic" Willis with minimal effort.
Everything in the film left me kind of blanks. As I mentioned at the beginning, this film could have been any of several you've already seen. With just a small amount of effort (mainly with the script and the acting) this could have been a watchable 3.5 starred action film, but as it is there's little enjoyment to be had.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/trauma-centre-movie-review.html
After witnessing a crime Madison ends up in hospital recovering from injuries she sustained in the incident. What she doesn't realise is that she's hiding evidence that will lead straight to her attackers. Her only chance is a cop assigned to watch her and her own wits.
I picked this up on Prime as the rental for members was only £1.99, that seems like a bargain... I can't say I was convinced after I finished it.
Trauma Centre is a very basic crime thriller, it doesn't ever stray into anything out of the ordinary. If it wasn't for the fact this was a new release I'd have said I'd seen it before and just forgotten all about it.
Nicky Whelan is probably the best of the bunch when it comes to the acting, but I think that's mainly because she gets to act manic and terrorised for most of it and that gave her the ability to act her way out of poor scripting.
We've also got Steve Guttenberg playing the doctor and it was nice to see him in something new. I loved so many of his films when I was growing up so this felt almost nostalgic... but it's an odd character and thankfully he doesn't pop up in a lot of scenes.
And then there's Brucey. I've watched a lot of Bruce Willis films and while some of them aren't great they've never really been bad. Dubious, yes. Bad, no. Saying Willis' performance was lazy may be being generous. There's no energy in the role at all and every scene looks like he's just woken up from a nap and isn't really sure where he is. This should have been an easily doable role for "classic" Willis with minimal effort.
Everything in the film left me kind of blanks. As I mentioned at the beginning, this film could have been any of several you've already seen. With just a small amount of effort (mainly with the script and the acting) this could have been a watchable 3.5 starred action film, but as it is there's little enjoyment to be had.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/06/trauma-centre-movie-review.html
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated tick, tick...Boom! (2021) in Movies
Jan 11, 2022
A Love Letter
If you ever worked on a live theater performance, whether as a performer, tech crew, make-up, costumes, box office, etc…the Netflix Original film tick, tick…BOOM is for you.
If you are a theater lover, the Netflix Original film tick, tick…BOOM is for you.
If you are not interested in live theater at all..then, perhaps, tick, tick…BOOM might be a little too “inside baseball” for you.
Based on the one man concert/show/performance by the late Jonathan Larson, the writer of the the Pulitzer Prize winning musical RENT, tick, tick…BOOM expands this performance piece and turns it into a biopic of the artist who passed as his hit musical was just about ready to debut.
As written by Steven Levenson and Directed by Lin-Manuel Miranda, tick, tick…BOOM is a love letter to Broadway, to artists struggling to make it in the Great White Way, to the community of disaffected peoples in 1990 and, mostly, to Jonathan Larson himself.
Andrew Garfield is transcendent in his portrayal of Larson. He embodies this character with love, ambition, focus, flaws and a surprisingly strong singing voice. It is an Oscar-nomination worthy performance.
He is joined, lovingly, by a strong supporting cast starting with Alexandra Shipp (as Larson’s girlfriend), Robin de Jesus (as his best friend) and Vanessa Hudgens (as a performer in the show, called Superbia, that he is trying to get up on the boards). These young performers are joined by a couple of wily veterans including Judith Light (as his Agent) and Bradley Whitford (as the late Stephen Sondheim). They bring energy, star power and…yes…love…to the screen.
And that is what this film ultimately is, a love letter to all of the artists (both on-stage and off) that try, despite immeasurable odds, to get a show on it’s feet. Director Miranda infuses this film with homages to theater - and theater people - and sprinkles in some very good songs that drives this point home.
None of the numbers hit home as hard as the “Diner” song - a song that features many, many Broadway performers, both new and old, that were either inspirations to Larson - or were inspired by him (including Miranda himself).
Come for the musical, stay for the outstanding performance of Garfield, and immerse yourself into the world of struggling artists in NYC in the 1990’s. You’ll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
If you are a theater lover, the Netflix Original film tick, tick…BOOM is for you.
If you are not interested in live theater at all..then, perhaps, tick, tick…BOOM might be a little too “inside baseball” for you.
Based on the one man concert/show/performance by the late Jonathan Larson, the writer of the the Pulitzer Prize winning musical RENT, tick, tick…BOOM expands this performance piece and turns it into a biopic of the artist who passed as his hit musical was just about ready to debut.
As written by Steven Levenson and Directed by Lin-Manuel Miranda, tick, tick…BOOM is a love letter to Broadway, to artists struggling to make it in the Great White Way, to the community of disaffected peoples in 1990 and, mostly, to Jonathan Larson himself.
Andrew Garfield is transcendent in his portrayal of Larson. He embodies this character with love, ambition, focus, flaws and a surprisingly strong singing voice. It is an Oscar-nomination worthy performance.
He is joined, lovingly, by a strong supporting cast starting with Alexandra Shipp (as Larson’s girlfriend), Robin de Jesus (as his best friend) and Vanessa Hudgens (as a performer in the show, called Superbia, that he is trying to get up on the boards). These young performers are joined by a couple of wily veterans including Judith Light (as his Agent) and Bradley Whitford (as the late Stephen Sondheim). They bring energy, star power and…yes…love…to the screen.
And that is what this film ultimately is, a love letter to all of the artists (both on-stage and off) that try, despite immeasurable odds, to get a show on it’s feet. Director Miranda infuses this film with homages to theater - and theater people - and sprinkles in some very good songs that drives this point home.
None of the numbers hit home as hard as the “Diner” song - a song that features many, many Broadway performers, both new and old, that were either inspirations to Larson - or were inspired by him (including Miranda himself).
Come for the musical, stay for the outstanding performance of Garfield, and immerse yourself into the world of struggling artists in NYC in the 1990’s. You’ll be glad you did.
Letter Grade: A-
8 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Camelot (The Chronicles of Arthur, #3)
6.0
Rate It
Book
Brand new epic adventure from bestselling author Peter Gibbons! Must-read for fans of Bernard...
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Pacific Rim: Uprising (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Absolutely Bonkers
2013’s Pacific Rim was one of the most underrated films of the year. Lumbered in the same category as the Transformers series for its seemingly simple premise about robots fighting giant monsters, it had a lukewarm performance at the box office.
For those movie buffs reading this, you’ll of course know the film was directed by the Oscar-winning Guillermo Del Toro and with that came his signature quirks and visual sense of style. Oh yes, Pacific Rim was much more than a mish-mash of action.
A sequel looked very unlikely given the mediocre reception it received and then Del Toro passed on the idea altogether, instead focusing on the film that earned him a Best Director award at this year’s Oscars, The Shape of Water. I’m not going to pretend that was the wrong decision because it clearly wasn’t.
Nevertheless, Universal and Legendary pictures, with help from Del Toro handpicked little-known director Steven S. DeKnight to helm this second instalment in the new series, Pacific Rim: Uprising. It’s taken five years and $150million to get here. Was it worth it?
Jake Pentecost (John Boyega) is a once-promising Jaeger pilot whose legendary father gave his life to secure humanity’s victory against the monstrous Kaiju. Jake has since abandoned his training only to become caught up in a criminal underworld. But when an even more unstoppable threat is unleashed to tear through cities and bring the world to its knees, Jake is given one last chance by his estranged sister, Mako Mori (Rinko Kikuchi), to live up to his father’s legacy.
Coming hot off the heels of his performance in Star Wars: The Last Jedi, John Boyega channels his franchise father, Idris Elba, reasonably well and his estranged relationship with the former jaeger pilot is discussed, albeit briefly. Boyega is still discovering himself as a leading star and it’s films like Pacific Rim and Star Wars that he continues to impress in.
Here, he plays a cocky, arrogant young man who has lost his way until he’s given a second chance by returnee Mako (Kikuchi). It’s nice to see her and both Charlie Day’s Newton Geiszler and Burn Gorman’s Hermann Gottlieb return to this new series.
The inclusion of the film’s previous stars doesn’t feel unnecessarily shoe-horned in and this is a welcome change to many other films that try the same trick. Gorman and Day in particular provide some decent comic relief throughout. The weakest link over the course of the film is Scott Eastwood’s Ranger Lambert. His forced backstory with Boyega’s Pentecost isn’t particularly engaging.
The finale is punch-the-air fun and beautifully filmed in and around Tokyo
Setting the action a decade after the events of the first film is a good way to freshen things up and Uprising feels all the better for it. The world is continuing to recover from the previous war and this change in atmosphere lends a new dynamic to the film. It certainly looks and sounds a lot like its predecessor, but Uprising is a very different beast, both in storytelling and the way it presents that story.
Where Pacific Rimwas a paint-by-numbers adventure transformed by Del Toro’s stunning visual acuity, Uprising is a well-plotted movie that lacks its previous director’s soft touch. Director Steven S. DeKnight rightly carves his own path with the visuals but sometimes this is at the cost of the charm that made the original such an unexpected delight. The plot is actually much better than that of its predecessor with numerous twists and turns that create a fun atmosphere for the audience, but with four writers working on it, you’d expect nothing less.
There are some Del-Toro-isms still present however and these remind us that this is very much more than a Michael Bay Transformers film. The special effects are excellent and with De Knight’s decision to film as much as possible during the day (a stark contrast to Del Toro) there really is nowhere to hide. The jaegers and Kaiju are all as detailed as you would expect from a movie costing $150million.
At 111 minutes, Pacific Rim: Uprising zips along briskly and rarely leaves you wanting. The finale is punch-the-air fun and beautifully filmed in and around Tokyo. It may be a cynical marketing ploy to set portions of the film in Japan and China in order to appease international audiences, but it does lend itself to some lovely scenery.
Overall, Pacific Rim: Uprising is a film that manages to build upon its predecessor’s strong foundations, yet still manages to feel very much part of its universe. Sequels, especially to films that don’t perform well are risky business as movie studios try to save as much cash as possible, but thankfully Uprising is a fully-realised and confidently filmed second instalment. It’s loud, brash and completely unashamed of what it tries to be, but sometimes that’s all you want from a visit to the cinema. Call it Classy Transformers and you won’t be far from spot on.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/03/24/pacific-rim-uprising-absolutely-bonkers/
For those movie buffs reading this, you’ll of course know the film was directed by the Oscar-winning Guillermo Del Toro and with that came his signature quirks and visual sense of style. Oh yes, Pacific Rim was much more than a mish-mash of action.
A sequel looked very unlikely given the mediocre reception it received and then Del Toro passed on the idea altogether, instead focusing on the film that earned him a Best Director award at this year’s Oscars, The Shape of Water. I’m not going to pretend that was the wrong decision because it clearly wasn’t.
Nevertheless, Universal and Legendary pictures, with help from Del Toro handpicked little-known director Steven S. DeKnight to helm this second instalment in the new series, Pacific Rim: Uprising. It’s taken five years and $150million to get here. Was it worth it?
Jake Pentecost (John Boyega) is a once-promising Jaeger pilot whose legendary father gave his life to secure humanity’s victory against the monstrous Kaiju. Jake has since abandoned his training only to become caught up in a criminal underworld. But when an even more unstoppable threat is unleashed to tear through cities and bring the world to its knees, Jake is given one last chance by his estranged sister, Mako Mori (Rinko Kikuchi), to live up to his father’s legacy.
Coming hot off the heels of his performance in Star Wars: The Last Jedi, John Boyega channels his franchise father, Idris Elba, reasonably well and his estranged relationship with the former jaeger pilot is discussed, albeit briefly. Boyega is still discovering himself as a leading star and it’s films like Pacific Rim and Star Wars that he continues to impress in.
Here, he plays a cocky, arrogant young man who has lost his way until he’s given a second chance by returnee Mako (Kikuchi). It’s nice to see her and both Charlie Day’s Newton Geiszler and Burn Gorman’s Hermann Gottlieb return to this new series.
The inclusion of the film’s previous stars doesn’t feel unnecessarily shoe-horned in and this is a welcome change to many other films that try the same trick. Gorman and Day in particular provide some decent comic relief throughout. The weakest link over the course of the film is Scott Eastwood’s Ranger Lambert. His forced backstory with Boyega’s Pentecost isn’t particularly engaging.
The finale is punch-the-air fun and beautifully filmed in and around Tokyo
Setting the action a decade after the events of the first film is a good way to freshen things up and Uprising feels all the better for it. The world is continuing to recover from the previous war and this change in atmosphere lends a new dynamic to the film. It certainly looks and sounds a lot like its predecessor, but Uprising is a very different beast, both in storytelling and the way it presents that story.
Where Pacific Rimwas a paint-by-numbers adventure transformed by Del Toro’s stunning visual acuity, Uprising is a well-plotted movie that lacks its previous director’s soft touch. Director Steven S. DeKnight rightly carves his own path with the visuals but sometimes this is at the cost of the charm that made the original such an unexpected delight. The plot is actually much better than that of its predecessor with numerous twists and turns that create a fun atmosphere for the audience, but with four writers working on it, you’d expect nothing less.
There are some Del-Toro-isms still present however and these remind us that this is very much more than a Michael Bay Transformers film. The special effects are excellent and with De Knight’s decision to film as much as possible during the day (a stark contrast to Del Toro) there really is nowhere to hide. The jaegers and Kaiju are all as detailed as you would expect from a movie costing $150million.
At 111 minutes, Pacific Rim: Uprising zips along briskly and rarely leaves you wanting. The finale is punch-the-air fun and beautifully filmed in and around Tokyo. It may be a cynical marketing ploy to set portions of the film in Japan and China in order to appease international audiences, but it does lend itself to some lovely scenery.
Overall, Pacific Rim: Uprising is a film that manages to build upon its predecessor’s strong foundations, yet still manages to feel very much part of its universe. Sequels, especially to films that don’t perform well are risky business as movie studios try to save as much cash as possible, but thankfully Uprising is a fully-realised and confidently filmed second instalment. It’s loud, brash and completely unashamed of what it tries to be, but sometimes that’s all you want from a visit to the cinema. Call it Classy Transformers and you won’t be far from spot on.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/03/24/pacific-rim-uprising-absolutely-bonkers/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Spencer (2021) in Movies
Nov 11, 2021
Diana hits rock bottom… as does the script.
Discordant strings sound as the royal party arrives at Sandringham for Christmas. “Is she here yet” intones the Queen. “No ma’am” her major domo replies. “Then she’s late”. Cut to a soulful choral version of “Perfect Day” as Diana Princess of Wales (née Spencer) arrives via a dramatic aerial shot. Hugs go to her sons William and Harry before she unhappily stalks through the corridors like a hunted animal.
This is the second movie in a row that I’ve intro’d via a positive emotional response to a great trailer. In the last case – for “Last Night in Soho” – the movie more than lived up to my high expectations from the trailer. But here – oh dear! It comes to something where the very best thing about the film is the trailer.
For, unfortunately for me, this came across as pretentious, vaguely insulting and with a dreadful script.
Plot Summary:
It’s Christmas 1991 at the Sandringham estate. Diana (Kristen Stewart) is the black sheep of the royal family, flouting tradition and always late for every formal event. She sees conspiracies at every turn, suspecting the household coordinator Major Gregory (Timothy Spall) of plotting against her. Her only allies that she can talk to are head chef Darren (Sean Harris) and her dresser Maggie (Sally Hawkins).
Mentally unstable, bulimic and self-harming, Diana must survive a tumultuous three days without destroying the Christmas spirit for her two sons and irreparably damaging her relationship with the wider royal family.
Certification:
US: R. UK: 12A.
Talent:
Starring: Kristen Stewart, Timothy Spall, Sally Hawkins, Jack Farthing, Sean Harris.
Directed by: Pablo Larraín.
Written by: Steven Knight.
“Spencer” Review: Positives:
Kristen Stewart does a simply fabulous job of impersonating Diana. She’s clearly studied a lot of video of the lady in getting to mimic the way she looks, walks and dances. Although I didn’t rate the film, the performance is a cut-above.
It’s an ironic touch that in all of her driving scenes, Diana never wears a seat-belt.
Negatives:
Oh man, Steven Knight’s dialogue here I found to be simply atrocious. Head-in-the-hands bad. I decided about half way through this monstrosity that “The Room” had had its day as a cult student classic, and that “Spencer” should take over in that role.
These things evolve organically over time, but I came up with the following basic rules for a student showing:
Every time Kristen Stewart does a ‘simp’ look to camera, down a shot;
When Darren utters the line “What are you going to do with wirecutters?” the audience yells as one “CUT WIRE!” **;
When Diana intones “Beauty is useless. Beauty is clothing”** the audience should strip to their underwear;
Every time a member of the hunt shouts “PULL!” you throw a stuffed pheasant in the air. Otherwise you keep the stuffed pheasant next to you, and engage in studious conversation with it as the film progresses;
Whenever Anne Boleyn appears, shout “OFF WITH HER HEAD”;
When a character says to Diana “I love you. And yes, in that way”**, the audience must shout “Aye aye” and every female audience member needs to passionately kiss another female audience member; and finally…
When Diana says “Leave Me. I want to masturbate”**, the audience throws dildos at the screen.
** I’d really like to pretend that I made these lines up. They might be paraphrased a bit, but honestly, that’s the gist!
Oh yes. It’s a sure-fire student classic of the future. You read it here first folks! I can see the filmmakers lauding me with praise for turning their movie into a post-release sleeper hit. “WHAT A CULT” they shout at me. “WHAT A CULT”!
The rest of the cast do a good enough job with what they have, but have the general vibe of being embarrassed to deliver the dialogue they’ve been given. Sean Harris – a fine actor – inexplicably spouts Shakespeare like Christopher Plummer in “Star Trek VI”! And one can only assume that Timothy Spall was given direction to act as if he had a whole lemon stuck inside his mouth for the whole movie.
I’ve been a fan of Jonny Greenwood’s music in other movies like “Phantom Thread“. I’ve seen Mark Kermode describe this soundtrack as “fantastic”. But, for me, the intrusive atonal strings and laid-back jazz vibe just didn’t work for me at all.
Summary Thoughts on “Spencer”
As you can probably tell, I hated this one. And the illustrious Mrs Movie Man 100% agrees with me in this assessment. The trailer promised a lot, but the movie delivered very little for me. It just all felt to me like an affront to the memory of Diana. Making a highly fictitious “fable based on a real life tragedy” just feels wrong. This seems particularly the case when the Queen, Prince Charles and (particularly) William and Harry are alive to watch it. What must they think if and when they get to view this?
I was a big fan of Larrain’s 2017 biopic on Jackie Kennedy – “Jackie” – which really covered the very similar ground, of a lady in the focus of publicity struggling with mental illness. But at least that had the benefit of historical distance.
I seem to be swimming against the critical tide here, since the movie currently has an IMDB rating of 7.4/10. But frankly, for me, I thought the recent series of “The Crown” did this so much better.
This is the second movie in a row that I’ve intro’d via a positive emotional response to a great trailer. In the last case – for “Last Night in Soho” – the movie more than lived up to my high expectations from the trailer. But here – oh dear! It comes to something where the very best thing about the film is the trailer.
For, unfortunately for me, this came across as pretentious, vaguely insulting and with a dreadful script.
Plot Summary:
It’s Christmas 1991 at the Sandringham estate. Diana (Kristen Stewart) is the black sheep of the royal family, flouting tradition and always late for every formal event. She sees conspiracies at every turn, suspecting the household coordinator Major Gregory (Timothy Spall) of plotting against her. Her only allies that she can talk to are head chef Darren (Sean Harris) and her dresser Maggie (Sally Hawkins).
Mentally unstable, bulimic and self-harming, Diana must survive a tumultuous three days without destroying the Christmas spirit for her two sons and irreparably damaging her relationship with the wider royal family.
Certification:
US: R. UK: 12A.
Talent:
Starring: Kristen Stewart, Timothy Spall, Sally Hawkins, Jack Farthing, Sean Harris.
Directed by: Pablo Larraín.
Written by: Steven Knight.
“Spencer” Review: Positives:
Kristen Stewart does a simply fabulous job of impersonating Diana. She’s clearly studied a lot of video of the lady in getting to mimic the way she looks, walks and dances. Although I didn’t rate the film, the performance is a cut-above.
It’s an ironic touch that in all of her driving scenes, Diana never wears a seat-belt.
Negatives:
Oh man, Steven Knight’s dialogue here I found to be simply atrocious. Head-in-the-hands bad. I decided about half way through this monstrosity that “The Room” had had its day as a cult student classic, and that “Spencer” should take over in that role.
These things evolve organically over time, but I came up with the following basic rules for a student showing:
Every time Kristen Stewart does a ‘simp’ look to camera, down a shot;
When Darren utters the line “What are you going to do with wirecutters?” the audience yells as one “CUT WIRE!” **;
When Diana intones “Beauty is useless. Beauty is clothing”** the audience should strip to their underwear;
Every time a member of the hunt shouts “PULL!” you throw a stuffed pheasant in the air. Otherwise you keep the stuffed pheasant next to you, and engage in studious conversation with it as the film progresses;
Whenever Anne Boleyn appears, shout “OFF WITH HER HEAD”;
When a character says to Diana “I love you. And yes, in that way”**, the audience must shout “Aye aye” and every female audience member needs to passionately kiss another female audience member; and finally…
When Diana says “Leave Me. I want to masturbate”**, the audience throws dildos at the screen.
** I’d really like to pretend that I made these lines up. They might be paraphrased a bit, but honestly, that’s the gist!
Oh yes. It’s a sure-fire student classic of the future. You read it here first folks! I can see the filmmakers lauding me with praise for turning their movie into a post-release sleeper hit. “WHAT A CULT” they shout at me. “WHAT A CULT”!
The rest of the cast do a good enough job with what they have, but have the general vibe of being embarrassed to deliver the dialogue they’ve been given. Sean Harris – a fine actor – inexplicably spouts Shakespeare like Christopher Plummer in “Star Trek VI”! And one can only assume that Timothy Spall was given direction to act as if he had a whole lemon stuck inside his mouth for the whole movie.
I’ve been a fan of Jonny Greenwood’s music in other movies like “Phantom Thread“. I’ve seen Mark Kermode describe this soundtrack as “fantastic”. But, for me, the intrusive atonal strings and laid-back jazz vibe just didn’t work for me at all.
Summary Thoughts on “Spencer”
As you can probably tell, I hated this one. And the illustrious Mrs Movie Man 100% agrees with me in this assessment. The trailer promised a lot, but the movie delivered very little for me. It just all felt to me like an affront to the memory of Diana. Making a highly fictitious “fable based on a real life tragedy” just feels wrong. This seems particularly the case when the Queen, Prince Charles and (particularly) William and Harry are alive to watch it. What must they think if and when they get to view this?
I was a big fan of Larrain’s 2017 biopic on Jackie Kennedy – “Jackie” – which really covered the very similar ground, of a lady in the focus of publicity struggling with mental illness. But at least that had the benefit of historical distance.
I seem to be swimming against the critical tide here, since the movie currently has an IMDB rating of 7.4/10. But frankly, for me, I thought the recent series of “The Crown” did this so much better.
Connor Sheffield (293 KP) rated Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope (1977) in Movies
Apr 20, 2017
The beginning of an era that will last a life time (3 more)
Character
Special Effects
Movie Score that is highly recognizable
Han Shot First!!!
Star Wars...the movie no one believed would become anywhere close to the success it is today. Not even George Lucas believed it would be as big as it is, but that's the beauty of it.
Star Wars wasn't just the beginning of a new fandom, it was also the beginning of a new era for film itself. Skywalker Sound revolutionized special sound effects and and the CGI used in Star Wars (during it's original release) made directors like Steven Spielberg realise they can bring their dreams to life, such as the film Jurassic Park which then revolutionized film even further.
Introducing new and original characters such as Luke Skywalker, Princess Leia, Han Solo, Chewbacca, Darth Vader and so many more! The film introduced the strong female role model in what is actually a kid's film. Carrie Fisher portrayed Princess Leia and there has never been anyone quite as brilliant as her since, because at only 19 years old during the first film, she became an icon and one of the strongest woman on screen.
All 3 of the main cast went on to take on great roles. Mark Hamill is probably most famous for his voice over work in cartoon shows such as Batman the Animated series where he has become the most famous voice for The Joker, taking on the role multiple times including in the Batman Arkham video games. Harrison Ford went on to star in many famous roles in big blockbuster films such as Indiana Jones, Apocalypse Now, Blade Runner and many more. Carrie Fisher went on to star in When Harry Met Sally, Drop Dead Fred, and Scream 3.
The villain of the film quickly became one of the most badass and recognizable villains to ever appear on the big screen...Darth Vader! He was menacing, manipulative, and powerful.
The visuals of this film were incredible for the time, from the space battles to the lightsabers. Not to mention that a lot of the space ships, and the death star trench are all models with actual (mini) explosions.
Star Wars is so popular these days that it has been parodied and praised by countless other films, TV shows, sketches, art, porn and almost anything you can think of.
It even has a holiday after it 'May the 4th be with you' (May the force be with you), now known simply as May the 4th. Along with conventions and celebrations, Star Wars has become more of a way of life for a lot of people and not just a fandom.
Star Wars wasn't just the beginning of a new fandom, it was also the beginning of a new era for film itself. Skywalker Sound revolutionized special sound effects and and the CGI used in Star Wars (during it's original release) made directors like Steven Spielberg realise they can bring their dreams to life, such as the film Jurassic Park which then revolutionized film even further.
Introducing new and original characters such as Luke Skywalker, Princess Leia, Han Solo, Chewbacca, Darth Vader and so many more! The film introduced the strong female role model in what is actually a kid's film. Carrie Fisher portrayed Princess Leia and there has never been anyone quite as brilliant as her since, because at only 19 years old during the first film, she became an icon and one of the strongest woman on screen.
All 3 of the main cast went on to take on great roles. Mark Hamill is probably most famous for his voice over work in cartoon shows such as Batman the Animated series where he has become the most famous voice for The Joker, taking on the role multiple times including in the Batman Arkham video games. Harrison Ford went on to star in many famous roles in big blockbuster films such as Indiana Jones, Apocalypse Now, Blade Runner and many more. Carrie Fisher went on to star in When Harry Met Sally, Drop Dead Fred, and Scream 3.
The villain of the film quickly became one of the most badass and recognizable villains to ever appear on the big screen...Darth Vader! He was menacing, manipulative, and powerful.
The visuals of this film were incredible for the time, from the space battles to the lightsabers. Not to mention that a lot of the space ships, and the death star trench are all models with actual (mini) explosions.
Star Wars is so popular these days that it has been parodied and praised by countless other films, TV shows, sketches, art, porn and almost anything you can think of.
It even has a holiday after it 'May the 4th be with you' (May the force be with you), now known simply as May the 4th. Along with conventions and celebrations, Star Wars has become more of a way of life for a lot of people and not just a fandom.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated The Goonies (1985) in Movies
Feb 25, 2019
Classic
Contains spoilers, click to show
I first watched this seminal 80's classic in 1988, when it first appeared on TV and I was blown away by it. I was 10, roughly the same age as the lads and here was a film with a raucous sense of humour, strong child characters and large-scale plot which has made this film a multi-generational classic, with our parents, us as parents and our children all investing in the spirit of adventure of The Goonies.
Named after the Goon Docks of which they inhabit, a group of kids, after finding a treasure map, decide that this is their last chance to save the town, which is to knocked down in favour of a Country Club. This leads them on an adventure through the booby-trapped underground catacombs of the town, as they follow the map to One Eyed Willie's treasure.
They get mixed up with the Fratelli's, a matriarchal crime family who get wind of the treasure and follows them into the caves.
The first ting that struck me about this, is after all these years what that it was still fun, enjoyable and even though I might not bother watching by myself, I would defiantly enjoy seeing again with the right audience. The raucous nature of a group of children together in a room is captured so expertly here, with a young Sean Austin, now famous for his portrayal of Samwise Gamgee in the Lord Of The Rings trilogy, holding the pack together; but the chaos is portrayed perfectly.
The language is good here too, with casual swearing amongst the kids, meaning that this must be one of the rare family films to truly capture the interplay between tweenage and teenage kids. Overall, this is a classic for all the right reasons, with the story by Steven Spielberg with only goes to further reinforce his status as one of Hollywood's greatest visionaries and a sharp, tight screenplay by Chris Columbus, who penned Gremlins the previous year and went on to direct the first two, but the weakest two Harry Potter movies.
There is also the questionable issue of the way that the Fratelli's treat Chunk. When you think about it he is threatened with torture after being kidnapped and spending time with the murdered corpse of two 'Feds' who have been shot in the head, murdered in cold blood.
I love this, treating the horror in a mature way, allowing it to used as humour but in a way to playfully scare kids, which it does. It is fun, but I do wonder where the PC brigade would let some of these plot points go in to a child friendly romp in 2011? I hope so, as it is the combination of elements that made this film what it is today.
Named after the Goon Docks of which they inhabit, a group of kids, after finding a treasure map, decide that this is their last chance to save the town, which is to knocked down in favour of a Country Club. This leads them on an adventure through the booby-trapped underground catacombs of the town, as they follow the map to One Eyed Willie's treasure.
They get mixed up with the Fratelli's, a matriarchal crime family who get wind of the treasure and follows them into the caves.
The first ting that struck me about this, is after all these years what that it was still fun, enjoyable and even though I might not bother watching by myself, I would defiantly enjoy seeing again with the right audience. The raucous nature of a group of children together in a room is captured so expertly here, with a young Sean Austin, now famous for his portrayal of Samwise Gamgee in the Lord Of The Rings trilogy, holding the pack together; but the chaos is portrayed perfectly.
The language is good here too, with casual swearing amongst the kids, meaning that this must be one of the rare family films to truly capture the interplay between tweenage and teenage kids. Overall, this is a classic for all the right reasons, with the story by Steven Spielberg with only goes to further reinforce his status as one of Hollywood's greatest visionaries and a sharp, tight screenplay by Chris Columbus, who penned Gremlins the previous year and went on to direct the first two, but the weakest two Harry Potter movies.
There is also the questionable issue of the way that the Fratelli's treat Chunk. When you think about it he is threatened with torture after being kidnapped and spending time with the murdered corpse of two 'Feds' who have been shot in the head, murdered in cold blood.
I love this, treating the horror in a mature way, allowing it to used as humour but in a way to playfully scare kids, which it does. It is fun, but I do wonder where the PC brigade would let some of these plot points go in to a child friendly romp in 2011? I hope so, as it is the combination of elements that made this film what it is today.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated The Butterfly Effect (2004) in Movies
Mar 7, 2019
Deeper than it first appears...
Contains spoilers, click to show
Having always being a fan of Time Travel and Science Fiction, I was always keen on seeing this film upon its initial release, seven years ago, now. But for one reason or another, this just didn't happen, leaving me to watch this on TV a couple of years later.
I was left disappointed. This was mainly because the film was very gritty, at times dower and not what I or many would have expected from a film in this genre. But with repeat viewings and finally watching this version, the Director's Cut, with a more downbeat and tragic conclusion, I realised that I was wrong.
Yes, this film does not tick the correct boxes for a film of this time, but that is because it is not playing it safe. It is doing what any great groundbreaking films should do and that is to find the truth of the story and tell it, show it and help the audience engage and feel it, in an uncompromising way.
*** SPOILERS *** The film deals with troubled childhoods of four kids, two of whom grow up to become Ashton Kutcher and Amy Smart. (Not literally, of course!) Kutcher's lead, has the ability to travel back to his own past for brief moments by reading his childhood journals or in some cases, watching home movies or looking at photos.
His intention upon discovering this gift, is to repair some of the damage that these events have cause to the group, who have sustained several traumas and left them in various states of dis-functionality as adults. But, as the metaphor relating to Chaos Theory states, "Does the flap of a butterfly's wings in Brazil set off a tornado in Texas?" Philip Merilees: We witness several distinct changes in then present as a result of his tampering and this often results in more pain, in one way or another.
This is a gripping film, with a true sense of itself, philosophy and needs of the narrative to justify its own dower conclusions, and ultimately, Kutcher's final decisions.
The sound design, cinematography general direction are outstanding here, with power use of all the key elements to give us a naturalistic feel, not dis-similar from something that Steven Spielberg might produce.
The Theatrical Cut was good, but this version is superior, with a new and more appropriate ending more in keeping the with the general tone of the film, this should be a true Sci-Fi classic, in the same league as the likes of "Planet Of The Apes", "The Day The Earth Caught Fire" and in to a lesser extent, this being a more widely accepted addition, "Donnie Darko".
Highly recommended.
I was left disappointed. This was mainly because the film was very gritty, at times dower and not what I or many would have expected from a film in this genre. But with repeat viewings and finally watching this version, the Director's Cut, with a more downbeat and tragic conclusion, I realised that I was wrong.
Yes, this film does not tick the correct boxes for a film of this time, but that is because it is not playing it safe. It is doing what any great groundbreaking films should do and that is to find the truth of the story and tell it, show it and help the audience engage and feel it, in an uncompromising way.
*** SPOILERS *** The film deals with troubled childhoods of four kids, two of whom grow up to become Ashton Kutcher and Amy Smart. (Not literally, of course!) Kutcher's lead, has the ability to travel back to his own past for brief moments by reading his childhood journals or in some cases, watching home movies or looking at photos.
His intention upon discovering this gift, is to repair some of the damage that these events have cause to the group, who have sustained several traumas and left them in various states of dis-functionality as adults. But, as the metaphor relating to Chaos Theory states, "Does the flap of a butterfly's wings in Brazil set off a tornado in Texas?" Philip Merilees: We witness several distinct changes in then present as a result of his tampering and this often results in more pain, in one way or another.
This is a gripping film, with a true sense of itself, philosophy and needs of the narrative to justify its own dower conclusions, and ultimately, Kutcher's final decisions.
The sound design, cinematography general direction are outstanding here, with power use of all the key elements to give us a naturalistic feel, not dis-similar from something that Steven Spielberg might produce.
The Theatrical Cut was good, but this version is superior, with a new and more appropriate ending more in keeping the with the general tone of the film, this should be a true Sci-Fi classic, in the same league as the likes of "Planet Of The Apes", "The Day The Earth Caught Fire" and in to a lesser extent, this being a more widely accepted addition, "Donnie Darko".
Highly recommended.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Creed II (2018) in Movies
Dec 7, 2018
Good Enough
By my count, this is the 8th time that Sylvester Stallone has put on the character of Rocky Balboa. This time it comes after the resurgence of this character (and franchise) with the introduction of Adonis Creed (Michael B. Jordan) and a script that allowed Stallone to explore the character in a way that he had not previously been able to - and garnered him a well-deserved Oscar nomination for his efforts.
In CREED II we are back to an above average by-the-numbers boxing picture with Jordan's Adonis Creed character starting the picture on top, losing it all when he loses himself (and stops listening to Rocky) in his success only to go on a journey of redemption (by following Rocky's advice) at the end. This is, in essence, a regurgitation of ROCKY III and I was somewhat bored by it.
That is, until the final bout, then (gosh darnnit) I was drawn right into the melodrama, pomp and pageantry of the fight and was cheering along with the rest of the audience at all the appropriate moments.
In Creed II, Apollo Creed's son battles Ivan Drago's son. For those of you not up on your Rocky history, Drago (Dolph Lundgren, reprising his role) was the boxer that killed Apollo Creed (Adonis' father) in the ring all those years ago.
Jordan is properly cocky, arrogant, stubborn, shell-shocked, morose, repentant and cocky (again) as the script would indicate. Tessa Thompson (as his wife) deserves better material than what she is given as does Stallone, who falls back to "being Rocky" without anything really new here. Surprisingly, Dolph Lundgren does a nice job as the washed-up boxer who's life was "ruined" when he lost to Rocky at the end of Rocky IV (not a spoiler). Finally, Russel Horsnby (as the "I just want to earn money" promoter of the fight) and Phylicia Rashad (as Adonis' mother/Apollo's wife) are both really good in roles that deserved to be much bigger - and more fleshed out - than they were.
My biggest disappointment from this film is the ommision of Director Ryan Coogler. He brought a visceral attitude to the series in the first CREED film and I felt that this spark of energy was just missing throughout this film with Steven Caple, Jr at the helm. It seemed, to me, that this series is quickly devolving into "paycheck" movies for Stallone and that really saddens me.
All-in-all a rather above average "by-the-numbers" boxing flick with a really good fight at the end of the film that is well worth sticking around for.
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
In CREED II we are back to an above average by-the-numbers boxing picture with Jordan's Adonis Creed character starting the picture on top, losing it all when he loses himself (and stops listening to Rocky) in his success only to go on a journey of redemption (by following Rocky's advice) at the end. This is, in essence, a regurgitation of ROCKY III and I was somewhat bored by it.
That is, until the final bout, then (gosh darnnit) I was drawn right into the melodrama, pomp and pageantry of the fight and was cheering along with the rest of the audience at all the appropriate moments.
In Creed II, Apollo Creed's son battles Ivan Drago's son. For those of you not up on your Rocky history, Drago (Dolph Lundgren, reprising his role) was the boxer that killed Apollo Creed (Adonis' father) in the ring all those years ago.
Jordan is properly cocky, arrogant, stubborn, shell-shocked, morose, repentant and cocky (again) as the script would indicate. Tessa Thompson (as his wife) deserves better material than what she is given as does Stallone, who falls back to "being Rocky" without anything really new here. Surprisingly, Dolph Lundgren does a nice job as the washed-up boxer who's life was "ruined" when he lost to Rocky at the end of Rocky IV (not a spoiler). Finally, Russel Horsnby (as the "I just want to earn money" promoter of the fight) and Phylicia Rashad (as Adonis' mother/Apollo's wife) are both really good in roles that deserved to be much bigger - and more fleshed out - than they were.
My biggest disappointment from this film is the ommision of Director Ryan Coogler. He brought a visceral attitude to the series in the first CREED film and I felt that this spark of energy was just missing throughout this film with Steven Caple, Jr at the helm. It seemed, to me, that this series is quickly devolving into "paycheck" movies for Stallone and that really saddens me.
All-in-all a rather above average "by-the-numbers" boxing flick with a really good fight at the end of the film that is well worth sticking around for.
Letter Grade: B
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)