Search
Search results
Sundrademe (1 KP) rated Ready Player One (2018) in Movies
Apr 1, 2018 (Updated Apr 1, 2018)
A blast from the past every nerd can appreciate. (1 more)
Good pacing.
Who are these people? Little character development. (1 more)
Only surface deep. Don't look for a message here.
Not surprised by Spielberg
I'll have to admit, when I first saw the trailer for this movie I turned to my fiancé and said "that looks so stupid!" After seeing a few more trailers I started to notice things. Is that the Iron Giant? Did I just see Harley Quinn? Who has enough pull to get rights to all these characters? Of course! this is a piece from the master of adventure, Steven Spielberg. Okay, now I've got to see this.
For anyone who's seen a Spielberg movie will recognize the common themes; a young hero with empty pockets but a brave heart who's destined for adventure, a rag-tag group of friends, and a dying dream that they must save at all costs. Sorry that's The Goonies, well same difference.
This is the story of Wade Watts, a teenager in 2045, who's dirt poor but like most people, escapes his reality by going into the virtual world called The Oasis. In the Oasis you can be anyone (or anything), go anywhere, and do just about anything. The late creator of the Oasis has hidden an Easter Egg (for non geeks, this is a fun piece of side content a director hides within a game or movie), and the person who finds the egg will win all of the creators shares in the company.
Wade belongs to a clever group of friends on the fringes of society who like most people are searching for this egg. What makes them so special outside of everyone else in the world? Eh, heart? Anyway, follow along the mystery and adventure, where you will see how they find the egg-because we all know they will.
Look, this movie is awesome. Spielberg is the king of pop culture and he really shines here. everyone will love the use of old and new characters from comics, games and all corners of media; the odd mix of music as far back as the 70s till now; and the obvious-not-so-obvious references to cult classics. It's cute, it's easy to swallow and it's a lot of fun.
Don't expect this to be your new favorite movie or to have long talks about it later on with friends. Nor will you walk away enamored with any of the characters because they aren't that interesting. Sure, you'll probably want to see it again but probably once it hits DVD.
For anyone who's seen a Spielberg movie will recognize the common themes; a young hero with empty pockets but a brave heart who's destined for adventure, a rag-tag group of friends, and a dying dream that they must save at all costs. Sorry that's The Goonies, well same difference.
This is the story of Wade Watts, a teenager in 2045, who's dirt poor but like most people, escapes his reality by going into the virtual world called The Oasis. In the Oasis you can be anyone (or anything), go anywhere, and do just about anything. The late creator of the Oasis has hidden an Easter Egg (for non geeks, this is a fun piece of side content a director hides within a game or movie), and the person who finds the egg will win all of the creators shares in the company.
Wade belongs to a clever group of friends on the fringes of society who like most people are searching for this egg. What makes them so special outside of everyone else in the world? Eh, heart? Anyway, follow along the mystery and adventure, where you will see how they find the egg-because we all know they will.
Look, this movie is awesome. Spielberg is the king of pop culture and he really shines here. everyone will love the use of old and new characters from comics, games and all corners of media; the odd mix of music as far back as the 70s till now; and the obvious-not-so-obvious references to cult classics. It's cute, it's easy to swallow and it's a lot of fun.
Don't expect this to be your new favorite movie or to have long talks about it later on with friends. Nor will you walk away enamored with any of the characters because they aren't that interesting. Sure, you'll probably want to see it again but probably once it hits DVD.
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.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated The Girl in the Spider's Web (2018) in Movies
Feb 18, 2020 (Updated Feb 18, 2020)
Tangled
I love the american verison of "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo". And even the Swedish series was good. But i like the american verison better. So what about this film, its dull. It cant live up to the pervious film/series. I give Clarie Foy credit she was good as Lisbeth, but both Noomi Rapace and Rooney Mara were both excellent as Lisbeth and Clarie was a step down from them. She was the only good part of this film. The plot, the supporting charcters, the twist, the action were all dull and cant live up to the pervious movies.
The plot: Fired from the National Security Agency, Frans Balder recruits hacker Lisbeth Salander to steal FireWall, a computer programme that can access codes for nuclear weapons worldwide. The download soon draws attention from an NSA agent who traces the activity to Stockholm. Further problems arise when Russian thugs take Lisbeth's laptop and kidnap a math whiz who can make FireWall work. Now, Lisbeth and an unlikely ally must race against time to save the boy and recover the codes to avert disaster.
So this film acts as both a soft-reboot and a sequel to David Fincher's The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. Which is confusing cause in the film Lisbeth already knows Mikael and has alredy a realtionship with him. Which was confusing to me and still is.
Also this film came out seven years later from "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo". For those who dont know, in December 2011, Fincher stated that the creative team involved planned to film the sequels The Girl Who Played with Fire and The Girl Who Kicked the Hornets' Nest, "back to back. There was an announced release date of 2013 for a film version of The Girl Who Played with Fire, although by August 2012 it was delayed due to changes being done to the script, being written by Steven Zaillian. The following year, Fincher stated that a script for The Girl that Played with Fire had been written and that it was "extremely different from the book," and that "despite the long delay, he was confident that the film would be made given that the studio already has spent millions of dollars on the rights and the script". And than in 2015, their just decided to reboot the franchise and by 2017, their decided to have a whole new cast.
I whould of loved to see David Fincher's verison of "The Girl Who Played With Fire" and "The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet's Nest". Cause like i said Rooney Mara was excellent as Lisbeth and Daniel Craig as excellent as Mikeal.
So overall is movie was dull and didnt live up to its pervious movies.
The plot: Fired from the National Security Agency, Frans Balder recruits hacker Lisbeth Salander to steal FireWall, a computer programme that can access codes for nuclear weapons worldwide. The download soon draws attention from an NSA agent who traces the activity to Stockholm. Further problems arise when Russian thugs take Lisbeth's laptop and kidnap a math whiz who can make FireWall work. Now, Lisbeth and an unlikely ally must race against time to save the boy and recover the codes to avert disaster.
So this film acts as both a soft-reboot and a sequel to David Fincher's The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. Which is confusing cause in the film Lisbeth already knows Mikael and has alredy a realtionship with him. Which was confusing to me and still is.
Also this film came out seven years later from "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo". For those who dont know, in December 2011, Fincher stated that the creative team involved planned to film the sequels The Girl Who Played with Fire and The Girl Who Kicked the Hornets' Nest, "back to back. There was an announced release date of 2013 for a film version of The Girl Who Played with Fire, although by August 2012 it was delayed due to changes being done to the script, being written by Steven Zaillian. The following year, Fincher stated that a script for The Girl that Played with Fire had been written and that it was "extremely different from the book," and that "despite the long delay, he was confident that the film would be made given that the studio already has spent millions of dollars on the rights and the script". And than in 2015, their just decided to reboot the franchise and by 2017, their decided to have a whole new cast.
I whould of loved to see David Fincher's verison of "The Girl Who Played With Fire" and "The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet's Nest". Cause like i said Rooney Mara was excellent as Lisbeth and Daniel Craig as excellent as Mikeal.
So overall is movie was dull and didnt live up to its pervious movies.
JT (287 KP) rated The Little Things (2021) in Movies
Feb 6, 2021
The opening of The Little Things promises a lot but ultimately the tension that is driven during the first ten minutes is nowhere to be seen for the rest of the run time.
With three Oscar-winning actors and a genre that I absolutely love I couldn’t have been more excited, but that excitement started to take a nosedive when ‘The Little Things‘ started to get a ‘little dull’. Joe ‘Deke’ Deacon (Denzel Washington) is former Los Angeles cop turned local county sheriff, whose content with chasing small-time criminals. When he is asked to go back to the city to pick up some evidence for another case he crosses paths with Jim Baxter (Rami Malek) who is on the hunt for a sadistic serial killer.
Baxter realising that he is in the presence of greatness asks Deacon to accompany him to a crime scene, at which point Deke’s instincts point to someone potentially far more dangerous. Set in the 90s this is raw police work and the use of technology is limited, this is about assessing a crime scene in-depth, or in this case why the killer posed his victims in specific ways or returned to the crime scene later to move them.
Director John Lee Hancock wrote the script 30 years ago which is where it has remained until now. At one point Steven Spielberg and Clint Eastwood were rumoured to direct. The film bears resemblance to such thrillers as Se7en and Zodiac, however, The Little Things might be 30 years too late. The atmosphere and ambience is a neo-noir, at one point Deke is lying on a bed in a run-down motel room starring at polaroid photos of past victims on the wall. An obsession burning inside to catch the killer, which during flashbacks, he has encountered before.
And then there is Albert Sparma (Jared Leto) the prime suspect, or is he? Such is the film’s ambiguity that the third act will leave you scratching your head, trying to piece the evidence together yourself in a bid to catch the killer. Sparma has all the tendencies of a serial killer, he certainly has the look and demeanour. But he may also be a self-obsessed crime buff, with a morbid fascination for death and crime scenes.
All three actors give a solid account of themselves, with Leto making the biggest impression. He’s creepy in a way that will get under your skin. The film is bursting with ideas and places to ramp up the tension but it falls short which is such a shame. As someone who is very fond of a good psychological thriller, this was definitely a missed opportunity.
With three Oscar-winning actors and a genre that I absolutely love I couldn’t have been more excited, but that excitement started to take a nosedive when ‘The Little Things‘ started to get a ‘little dull’. Joe ‘Deke’ Deacon (Denzel Washington) is former Los Angeles cop turned local county sheriff, whose content with chasing small-time criminals. When he is asked to go back to the city to pick up some evidence for another case he crosses paths with Jim Baxter (Rami Malek) who is on the hunt for a sadistic serial killer.
Baxter realising that he is in the presence of greatness asks Deacon to accompany him to a crime scene, at which point Deke’s instincts point to someone potentially far more dangerous. Set in the 90s this is raw police work and the use of technology is limited, this is about assessing a crime scene in-depth, or in this case why the killer posed his victims in specific ways or returned to the crime scene later to move them.
Director John Lee Hancock wrote the script 30 years ago which is where it has remained until now. At one point Steven Spielberg and Clint Eastwood were rumoured to direct. The film bears resemblance to such thrillers as Se7en and Zodiac, however, The Little Things might be 30 years too late. The atmosphere and ambience is a neo-noir, at one point Deke is lying on a bed in a run-down motel room starring at polaroid photos of past victims on the wall. An obsession burning inside to catch the killer, which during flashbacks, he has encountered before.
And then there is Albert Sparma (Jared Leto) the prime suspect, or is he? Such is the film’s ambiguity that the third act will leave you scratching your head, trying to piece the evidence together yourself in a bid to catch the killer. Sparma has all the tendencies of a serial killer, he certainly has the look and demeanour. But he may also be a self-obsessed crime buff, with a morbid fascination for death and crime scenes.
All three actors give a solid account of themselves, with Leto making the biggest impression. He’s creepy in a way that will get under your skin. The film is bursting with ideas and places to ramp up the tension but it falls short which is such a shame. As someone who is very fond of a good psychological thriller, this was definitely a missed opportunity.
Acanthea Grimscythe (300 KP) rated It in Books
May 16, 2018
As seen first on <a href="http://theghastlygrimoire.com/"; target="_new"><i>The Ghastly Grimoire</i></a>.
If you're looking for an absolute tome of horror to read, It by Stephen King definitely fits that bill. I still prefer The Stand over this book, though. Wrought with the horrific trials visited upon children in the town of Derry, Maine, readers learn to love and loathe an extremely wide range of characters. While much of this book is entertaining, there are a few things I simply cannot condone.
There's a few scenes in here that are sexually graphic. This isn't uncommon in the horror market, and normally doesn't bother me. Only, I made the mistake of laughing off one of my ex's remarks regarding pre-pubescent intercourse and circle-jerking. I'm throwing that out there, in case it's something my readers wish to steer clear of. Not only that, but... Let's just say I prefer the movie's approach to Bev not being afraid, to the actual... what happened in the book, and we'll leave it at that. I cannot stomach some of the scenes of this book, not because they are terrifying, but because they are downright wrong, disgusting, and rather unnecessary.
That rant aside, this massive tome tells two stories alongside one another: the past and present battles with Pennywise the Dancing Clown mingle and cross between one another and, perhaps because I was listening to the audiobook (a whopping 45 hour track, if we're rounding), this made it difficult for me to keep the two straight. In fact, I had to rewind now and then to make sure I was hearing things properly (i.e. aforementioned rant). I've said it before, and I'll say it again: alternating time periods in this manner between the same characters in a story is maddeningly distracting for me.
King's character depth will always astound me. He makes even the briefest characters of his books memorable, giving them a backstory that is fully developed. There are several times he managed to goad emotions out of me that I didn't want to feel, and I love that. Ben Hanscom is by far my favorite, perhaps because in many ways, we share similar childhoods. Parents that care, the bullies, the blossoming from pre-pubescent torture - though the entire Loser's Club endured this, I feel Hanscom had it worst. Not counting Eddie's run in with Henry. His heartfelt devotion for Bev is mesmerizing, and I can only hope they had their happy-ending.
Which... is heartbreaking, in its own right. While I have no doubt there are many things about the sewers of Derry that would be horrible to live with for the rest of your life, can you imagine forgetting chunks of your life, of your past? It has to be absolutely disorienting, and readers can feel it in the conclusion of Bill and Audra's future. They'll never know the incident that happened, nor will they remember their childhood friends whom they loved.
On a brighter note, Steven Weber, the narrator for several of King's books, puts on a dazzling performance in It. He's easily carried away now and then, and it's nice to have a reader that is truly invested into the material he's recording. Weber earns a spot right next to Amanda Dolan as one of my all-time favorite narrators and this production is amazing.
Reluctantly, I have compromised with myself to give this a mid-grade rating. I am a tough critic, and this is something that has caused disagreements between myself and other readers, but in the end, there are elements of this book I simply cannot accept, no matter whose hand wrote them.
Fun fact: My fear of clowns began when I was eight years old and witnessed Tim Curry's Pennywise. It ended with Bill Skarsgard's.
If you're looking for an absolute tome of horror to read, It by Stephen King definitely fits that bill. I still prefer The Stand over this book, though. Wrought with the horrific trials visited upon children in the town of Derry, Maine, readers learn to love and loathe an extremely wide range of characters. While much of this book is entertaining, there are a few things I simply cannot condone.
There's a few scenes in here that are sexually graphic. This isn't uncommon in the horror market, and normally doesn't bother me. Only, I made the mistake of laughing off one of my ex's remarks regarding pre-pubescent intercourse and circle-jerking. I'm throwing that out there, in case it's something my readers wish to steer clear of. Not only that, but... Let's just say I prefer the movie's approach to Bev not being afraid, to the actual... what happened in the book, and we'll leave it at that. I cannot stomach some of the scenes of this book, not because they are terrifying, but because they are downright wrong, disgusting, and rather unnecessary.
That rant aside, this massive tome tells two stories alongside one another: the past and present battles with Pennywise the Dancing Clown mingle and cross between one another and, perhaps because I was listening to the audiobook (a whopping 45 hour track, if we're rounding), this made it difficult for me to keep the two straight. In fact, I had to rewind now and then to make sure I was hearing things properly (i.e. aforementioned rant). I've said it before, and I'll say it again: alternating time periods in this manner between the same characters in a story is maddeningly distracting for me.
King's character depth will always astound me. He makes even the briefest characters of his books memorable, giving them a backstory that is fully developed. There are several times he managed to goad emotions out of me that I didn't want to feel, and I love that. Ben Hanscom is by far my favorite, perhaps because in many ways, we share similar childhoods. Parents that care, the bullies, the blossoming from pre-pubescent torture - though the entire Loser's Club endured this, I feel Hanscom had it worst. Not counting Eddie's run in with Henry. His heartfelt devotion for Bev is mesmerizing, and I can only hope they had their happy-ending.
Which... is heartbreaking, in its own right. While I have no doubt there are many things about the sewers of Derry that would be horrible to live with for the rest of your life, can you imagine forgetting chunks of your life, of your past? It has to be absolutely disorienting, and readers can feel it in the conclusion of Bill and Audra's future. They'll never know the incident that happened, nor will they remember their childhood friends whom they loved.
On a brighter note, Steven Weber, the narrator for several of King's books, puts on a dazzling performance in It. He's easily carried away now and then, and it's nice to have a reader that is truly invested into the material he's recording. Weber earns a spot right next to Amanda Dolan as one of my all-time favorite narrators and this production is amazing.
Reluctantly, I have compromised with myself to give this a mid-grade rating. I am a tough critic, and this is something that has caused disagreements between myself and other readers, but in the end, there are elements of this book I simply cannot accept, no matter whose hand wrote them.
Fun fact: My fear of clowns began when I was eight years old and witnessed Tim Curry's Pennywise. It ended with Bill Skarsgard's.
Fred (860 KP) rated Star Wars: Resistance in TV
Oct 31, 2018
Animation is terrible (2 more)
Characters are not memorable
Tries too much to be funny
The force is not with this one
I love Star Wars. I love the original movies, the prequels & the Disney era films as well. I loved the Clone Wars cartoon as well as Rebels. So, along comes Resistance. A show I had not even heard of until the day it was going to air. I was excited for a new show. That was, until I saw the trailer.
See, this show is done in CGI drawn animation. Usually this kind of animation is limited to maybe vehicles or robots & the rest is done with traditional hand-drawn animation. This can be jarring to view as the CGI animation usually moves choppy & slow. I could see where this kind of animation seems like it should work. A "3-D" object can be moved & turned easily, the animation should be smooth. but it's not. Can't stand this animation. I find I can't watch more than a few minutes before it gets too annoying. Anyway, I was gong to go on about other shows that use this animation, but this is about Resistance. So, this entire show uses this kind of animation. Fortunately, the animation is at least smooth moving, but the characters all suffer from an unnatural movement. Character design is also horrible & that doesn't help.
That's problem one. So, now to the next. The show is not memorable in the least. The characters, stories, situations, nothing. After 4 episodes, there is nothing that stuck out to me, where as I can still pick out dozens of scenes from both Clone Wars & Rebels. Star Wars memorable scenes. maybe that's it. Resistance doesn't feel like Star Wars. Even with the cameos by Poe Dameron, Leia, Captain Phasma & C-3PO were so brief & completely forgettable. In fact, I forgot C-3PO even appeared until I looked up the cast on IMDB.
Next problem. A lot of people thought The Last Jedi had too much humor in it. They thought that this was fine for a Disney film, but not a Star Wars film. I could see that, however, I didn't think it was too much & enjoyed the film very much. There are times when I do think it's too much, like in the horrendous new Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles cartoon. Every 2 seconds, a joke bombarding us. It's just too much. There's a guy who does the voice of Donatello on that show that also does a voice on Resistance. I bring that up because his character on Resistance may be the worst character in the Star Wars universe. His name is Neeku. He's a Rodian character who is so dumb, he makes Jar Jar Binks look like Steven Hawking. Yes, he's worse than Binks. He's annoying & supposedly the comic relief. Which brings me to my next point. Every character is comic relief in this show. Yes, just like the new TMNT, the show is joke after joke. As bad as that is thought, Neeku takes the cake as the "please, kill him" character.
So, you ask me why am I watching this show if it's so bad? Well, because it's canon & I'm a Star Wars fanatic. However, it doesn't seem to have any consequence on the Star Wars universe at all. There's no weaving of the stories in the greater, larger world at all. I watch in hope that it does. I do re-watch Clone Wars & Rebels, but this show will probably be the first in my Star Wars filled life, that I just watch once & forget it ever happened.
See, this show is done in CGI drawn animation. Usually this kind of animation is limited to maybe vehicles or robots & the rest is done with traditional hand-drawn animation. This can be jarring to view as the CGI animation usually moves choppy & slow. I could see where this kind of animation seems like it should work. A "3-D" object can be moved & turned easily, the animation should be smooth. but it's not. Can't stand this animation. I find I can't watch more than a few minutes before it gets too annoying. Anyway, I was gong to go on about other shows that use this animation, but this is about Resistance. So, this entire show uses this kind of animation. Fortunately, the animation is at least smooth moving, but the characters all suffer from an unnatural movement. Character design is also horrible & that doesn't help.
That's problem one. So, now to the next. The show is not memorable in the least. The characters, stories, situations, nothing. After 4 episodes, there is nothing that stuck out to me, where as I can still pick out dozens of scenes from both Clone Wars & Rebels. Star Wars memorable scenes. maybe that's it. Resistance doesn't feel like Star Wars. Even with the cameos by Poe Dameron, Leia, Captain Phasma & C-3PO were so brief & completely forgettable. In fact, I forgot C-3PO even appeared until I looked up the cast on IMDB.
Next problem. A lot of people thought The Last Jedi had too much humor in it. They thought that this was fine for a Disney film, but not a Star Wars film. I could see that, however, I didn't think it was too much & enjoyed the film very much. There are times when I do think it's too much, like in the horrendous new Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles cartoon. Every 2 seconds, a joke bombarding us. It's just too much. There's a guy who does the voice of Donatello on that show that also does a voice on Resistance. I bring that up because his character on Resistance may be the worst character in the Star Wars universe. His name is Neeku. He's a Rodian character who is so dumb, he makes Jar Jar Binks look like Steven Hawking. Yes, he's worse than Binks. He's annoying & supposedly the comic relief. Which brings me to my next point. Every character is comic relief in this show. Yes, just like the new TMNT, the show is joke after joke. As bad as that is thought, Neeku takes the cake as the "please, kill him" character.
So, you ask me why am I watching this show if it's so bad? Well, because it's canon & I'm a Star Wars fanatic. However, it doesn't seem to have any consequence on the Star Wars universe at all. There's no weaving of the stories in the greater, larger world at all. I watch in hope that it does. I do re-watch Clone Wars & Rebels, but this show will probably be the first in my Star Wars filled life, that I just watch once & forget it ever happened.
Rat (1 KP) rated Peaky Blinders - Season 1 in TV
Mar 28, 2018
Forget everything you think you know about period drama
It would be easy to dismiss Peaky Blinders as just a British drama. It would be easy to dismiss it as just a period piece. It would be easy to claim that it was just a British Boardwalk Empire. You'd be so wrong to do so.
Every part of Peaky Blinders is perfection. From the superb acting of its regular cast (Cillian Murphy on a tv show? Sign me up!) to a roster of featured guests (Sam Neill? Tom Hardy? Adrien Brody? Who did the casting director sell their soul to, anyway?) to the use of colour and an outlaw music soundtrack that shouldn't work, but does (Nick Cave? PJ Harvey? Tom Waits? David Bowie? On a period drama? What is this? Freaking genius, that's what.)
Shortly after the end of the first World War, a family of Irish gypsy (their word, not mine) - blooded Birmingham bookmakers tries to recover from the horrors of that war and build up their business. Second oldest, Tommy Shelby (played expertly by Cillian Murphy who manages to play a gangster who is both ruthless and fragile with the ability to break your heart with a single look), came back from the war broken by his experiences, but determined to rise far beyond the limitations of his Small Heath upbringing. Not only does he have the expected clashes with those who want to keep him from growing his business (both criminal rivals and the police) but he has a family to run (with all the interpersonal conflicts that entails). All of this is set against a backdrop of political turmoil from the IRA and the rise of communist sympathy in the UK.
You shouldn't like Tommy Shelby, but he is written and acted so well that you won't be able to not like him. The same can be said for older brother, Arthur, younger siblings John, Ada, and Finn. If you don't love Aunt Polly, then you must have a problem with strong female characters.
Steven Knight has taken a world told to him through family legend and turned it into a world that you will be eager to inhabit an hour (or, if you're like everyone I know, a season) at a time. He writes a period drama that doesn't feel dated. The characters and their struggles are as relevant today as they were nearly a hundred years ago.
Take a chance on the show with the weird name and discover why there are very few casual Peaky Blinders fans. There's a reason why the late, great David Bowie was a huge fan and made sure that they would have a song from his last album before he died. There's a reason the show's dated fashion and hairstyles are making a comeback, why Peaky Blinders pubs and pub nights are popping up all over. It's that good. Check it out for yourself.
Every part of Peaky Blinders is perfection. From the superb acting of its regular cast (Cillian Murphy on a tv show? Sign me up!) to a roster of featured guests (Sam Neill? Tom Hardy? Adrien Brody? Who did the casting director sell their soul to, anyway?) to the use of colour and an outlaw music soundtrack that shouldn't work, but does (Nick Cave? PJ Harvey? Tom Waits? David Bowie? On a period drama? What is this? Freaking genius, that's what.)
Shortly after the end of the first World War, a family of Irish gypsy (their word, not mine) - blooded Birmingham bookmakers tries to recover from the horrors of that war and build up their business. Second oldest, Tommy Shelby (played expertly by Cillian Murphy who manages to play a gangster who is both ruthless and fragile with the ability to break your heart with a single look), came back from the war broken by his experiences, but determined to rise far beyond the limitations of his Small Heath upbringing. Not only does he have the expected clashes with those who want to keep him from growing his business (both criminal rivals and the police) but he has a family to run (with all the interpersonal conflicts that entails). All of this is set against a backdrop of political turmoil from the IRA and the rise of communist sympathy in the UK.
You shouldn't like Tommy Shelby, but he is written and acted so well that you won't be able to not like him. The same can be said for older brother, Arthur, younger siblings John, Ada, and Finn. If you don't love Aunt Polly, then you must have a problem with strong female characters.
Steven Knight has taken a world told to him through family legend and turned it into a world that you will be eager to inhabit an hour (or, if you're like everyone I know, a season) at a time. He writes a period drama that doesn't feel dated. The characters and their struggles are as relevant today as they were nearly a hundred years ago.
Take a chance on the show with the weird name and discover why there are very few casual Peaky Blinders fans. There's a reason why the late, great David Bowie was a huge fan and made sure that they would have a song from his last album before he died. There's a reason the show's dated fashion and hairstyles are making a comeback, why Peaky Blinders pubs and pub nights are popping up all over. It's that good. Check it out for yourself.
<i>This eBook was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review</i>
Everyone is constantly reminded to never judge a book by its cover. The book jacket designer of Steven Camden’s contemporary novel <i>Tape</i> has done an excellent job using colour and hand-rendered images to capture people’s attention; the story, however, remained rather dull in comparison.
The novel is split into two time periods, twenty years apart. In 2013, Ameliah is struggling to cope with the sudden loss of her mother, and shortly after her father, whilst she moves in with her Nan. In the spare bedroom lies a mammoth job of boxes to sort out containing all of her parents’ belongings. Ameliah first discovers an ancient boom box along with a large collection of music tapes. Amongst these is an unlabeled one, and when she plays it she can hear a young boy talking to her – he also says her mother’s name, “Eve”.
Twenty years earlier it is 1993 and thirteen-year-old Ryan is keeping a verbal diary as he records himself talking to his mother who has unfortunately passed away. His father has remarried and Ryan also has to struggle to live with stepbrother Nathan who seems to be determined to create a scene at every given opportunity. On a day out with his best friend Liam, he meets an Irish girl named Eve who he instantly falls in love with, but is devastated to learn that she will be returning home to Ireland soon.
It is clear from the beginning that Ryan and the voice on Ameliah’s tape are one and the same person; but the question is how are they connected? The connection is emphasized by the similarities in the lives of these two youngsters. Ryan meets a girl… Ameliah meets a boy… They both have to learn to deal with certain people being in their lives. For Ryan that is Nathan but for Ameliah that is a stranger who turns up one day claiming that he was a friend of her father.
After a while the storyline becomes predictable, and despite suspecting a plot twist, there is not one. The characters come across as a bit childish and annoying, which makes them difficult to relate to - although that may not be an issue with younger readers. Twelve and thirteen are far too young to be thinking about romantic relationships, especially for a boy in the early nineties: a flaw in the storyline.
Camden has done well to reduce the potential confusion of changing from one character and decade to another by using two different typefaces, so there is no issue there. But, overall it was rather disappointing. It was a great idea for a narrative with so much potential, however it fell flat and dreary through the writing.
Everyone is constantly reminded to never judge a book by its cover. The book jacket designer of Steven Camden’s contemporary novel <i>Tape</i> has done an excellent job using colour and hand-rendered images to capture people’s attention; the story, however, remained rather dull in comparison.
The novel is split into two time periods, twenty years apart. In 2013, Ameliah is struggling to cope with the sudden loss of her mother, and shortly after her father, whilst she moves in with her Nan. In the spare bedroom lies a mammoth job of boxes to sort out containing all of her parents’ belongings. Ameliah first discovers an ancient boom box along with a large collection of music tapes. Amongst these is an unlabeled one, and when she plays it she can hear a young boy talking to her – he also says her mother’s name, “Eve”.
Twenty years earlier it is 1993 and thirteen-year-old Ryan is keeping a verbal diary as he records himself talking to his mother who has unfortunately passed away. His father has remarried and Ryan also has to struggle to live with stepbrother Nathan who seems to be determined to create a scene at every given opportunity. On a day out with his best friend Liam, he meets an Irish girl named Eve who he instantly falls in love with, but is devastated to learn that she will be returning home to Ireland soon.
It is clear from the beginning that Ryan and the voice on Ameliah’s tape are one and the same person; but the question is how are they connected? The connection is emphasized by the similarities in the lives of these two youngsters. Ryan meets a girl… Ameliah meets a boy… They both have to learn to deal with certain people being in their lives. For Ryan that is Nathan but for Ameliah that is a stranger who turns up one day claiming that he was a friend of her father.
After a while the storyline becomes predictable, and despite suspecting a plot twist, there is not one. The characters come across as a bit childish and annoying, which makes them difficult to relate to - although that may not be an issue with younger readers. Twelve and thirteen are far too young to be thinking about romantic relationships, especially for a boy in the early nineties: a flaw in the storyline.
Camden has done well to reduce the potential confusion of changing from one character and decade to another by using two different typefaces, so there is no issue there. But, overall it was rather disappointing. It was a great idea for a narrative with so much potential, however it fell flat and dreary through the writing.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Concussion (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Concussion has quite a few big names starring in it, as well as a few I
had never heard of.
The main cast is as follows: Will Smith as Dr. Bennet Omalu, Gugu
Mbatha-Raw as Prema Mutiso, Alec Baldwin as Dr. Julian Bailes, Albert
Brooks as Dr. Cyril Wecht, David Morse
as Mike Webster, Matthew Willig as Justin Strezelczyk, Paul Reiser as
Dr. Elliot Pellman, Arliss Howard as Dr. Joseph Maroon, Luke Wilson as
Roger Goodell, Mike O’Malley as Daniel Sullivan, Hill Harper as Spellman
Jones, Eddie Marsan as Dr. Steven DeKosky, Stephen Moyer as Dr. Ron
Hamilton, and Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje as Dave Duerson.
Dr. Bennet Omalu works at the Pittsburgh coroner’s office as a forensic
pathologist along with Dr. Cyril Wecht and Daniel Sullivan. Omalu, a
highly educated Doctor hailing from Nigeria, strives to stride in the
footsteps of Dr. Wecht, and must contend with the derision thrown his
way by Sullivan.
Based on true events, the story follows Omalu in his quest to find out
the true cause of death of “Iron Mike” Webster, and subsequently team
mates and other football players that seem to go crazy for no obvious
reason.
Will Smith takes this role and immerses himself in it. His accent is
believable, his mannerisms are believable, his portrayal of the
character as a whole drew me and made me BELIEVE it.
The supporting cast are all really really great as well. Gugu Mbatha-Raw
as Smiths love interest, Prema is probably one of the quietest
characters in the movie, yet she portrays herself as Omalu’s staunch
supporter straight through the whole film.
Albert Brooks as Dr. Cyril Wecht gave a brilliant performance as a cut
and dry no-nonsense Chief Medical Examiner as well. He supports Omalu’s
research even when he must see that it may be detrimental to his own
career, and indeed, in the end, his support of Omalu does almost cost
him his entire career.
Dr. Omalus research, spending his own money to run testing in order to
find the cause of death of Mike Webster, puts him directly in the
crosshairs of the NFL. His subsequent discovery of and diagnoses of CTE
(Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy) in Webster, and other NFL players
that died by their own hands or in tragic accidents due to basically
going crazy, threatened the NFL and its entire existence, or so they
thought.
Alec Baldwin gives a great performance as a man struggling between his
love of a sport and his guilt over sending players back into a game when
they were hurt. Early in the film he is shown to say “what am I
missing”. He has run the tests he knows to run, but cannot get to the
bottom of what is clearly affecting his players. He helps Dr. Omalu in
his quest to bring the truth before the NFL and the media and the
public.
Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje as Dave Duerson has only brief moments on film,
but his contribution to the movie and his final contribution to Omalus
research at the time of his death, helps bring CTE to the forefront of
the media eye, which in turn forces the NFL to address the findings, at
least ion some level.
Will Smith is up for a Golden Globe for his role in this film and I have
to say that in my opinion it is well deserved.
I loved the movie, it had my full attention from beginning to end, and I
thought that it was very well done. It showed the seedy underside of the
NFL and the extents to which big multi-million dollar companies will go
to in order to hide any truths that might threaten their way of doing
business. During the movie I murmured under my breath to my husband
“This reminds me of the crap the tobacco industry pulled when it was
trying to deny that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer”, and I was not
surprised when in some of the later clips there were voice overs heard
from a congressional hearing basically saying the same thing.
I would give this movie 5 out of 5 stars.
had never heard of.
The main cast is as follows: Will Smith as Dr. Bennet Omalu, Gugu
Mbatha-Raw as Prema Mutiso, Alec Baldwin as Dr. Julian Bailes, Albert
Brooks as Dr. Cyril Wecht, David Morse
as Mike Webster, Matthew Willig as Justin Strezelczyk, Paul Reiser as
Dr. Elliot Pellman, Arliss Howard as Dr. Joseph Maroon, Luke Wilson as
Roger Goodell, Mike O’Malley as Daniel Sullivan, Hill Harper as Spellman
Jones, Eddie Marsan as Dr. Steven DeKosky, Stephen Moyer as Dr. Ron
Hamilton, and Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje as Dave Duerson.
Dr. Bennet Omalu works at the Pittsburgh coroner’s office as a forensic
pathologist along with Dr. Cyril Wecht and Daniel Sullivan. Omalu, a
highly educated Doctor hailing from Nigeria, strives to stride in the
footsteps of Dr. Wecht, and must contend with the derision thrown his
way by Sullivan.
Based on true events, the story follows Omalu in his quest to find out
the true cause of death of “Iron Mike” Webster, and subsequently team
mates and other football players that seem to go crazy for no obvious
reason.
Will Smith takes this role and immerses himself in it. His accent is
believable, his mannerisms are believable, his portrayal of the
character as a whole drew me and made me BELIEVE it.
The supporting cast are all really really great as well. Gugu Mbatha-Raw
as Smiths love interest, Prema is probably one of the quietest
characters in the movie, yet she portrays herself as Omalu’s staunch
supporter straight through the whole film.
Albert Brooks as Dr. Cyril Wecht gave a brilliant performance as a cut
and dry no-nonsense Chief Medical Examiner as well. He supports Omalu’s
research even when he must see that it may be detrimental to his own
career, and indeed, in the end, his support of Omalu does almost cost
him his entire career.
Dr. Omalus research, spending his own money to run testing in order to
find the cause of death of Mike Webster, puts him directly in the
crosshairs of the NFL. His subsequent discovery of and diagnoses of CTE
(Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy) in Webster, and other NFL players
that died by their own hands or in tragic accidents due to basically
going crazy, threatened the NFL and its entire existence, or so they
thought.
Alec Baldwin gives a great performance as a man struggling between his
love of a sport and his guilt over sending players back into a game when
they were hurt. Early in the film he is shown to say “what am I
missing”. He has run the tests he knows to run, but cannot get to the
bottom of what is clearly affecting his players. He helps Dr. Omalu in
his quest to bring the truth before the NFL and the media and the
public.
Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje as Dave Duerson has only brief moments on film,
but his contribution to the movie and his final contribution to Omalus
research at the time of his death, helps bring CTE to the forefront of
the media eye, which in turn forces the NFL to address the findings, at
least ion some level.
Will Smith is up for a Golden Globe for his role in this film and I have
to say that in my opinion it is well deserved.
I loved the movie, it had my full attention from beginning to end, and I
thought that it was very well done. It showed the seedy underside of the
NFL and the extents to which big multi-million dollar companies will go
to in order to hide any truths that might threaten their way of doing
business. During the movie I murmured under my breath to my husband
“This reminds me of the crap the tobacco industry pulled when it was
trying to deny that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer”, and I was not
surprised when in some of the later clips there were voice overs heard
from a congressional hearing basically saying the same thing.
I would give this movie 5 out of 5 stars.
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.