Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Two Popes (2019) in Movies
Jan 26, 2020 (Updated Jan 26, 2020)
Fantastic performances from two old acting pros.
Being inaugurated as a new pope in the last century must have been a source of enormous pride. But there must also have been a nagging thought... at some point you are going to be paraded, stiff as a board, around your work courtyard before being taken back inside to your place of work and buried there!
All that changed in 2013 when Pope Benedict XVI resigned, the first pope to voluntarily do so since Pope Celestine V in 1294. (Pope Gregory XII also resigned in 1415, but he was effectively forced to).
This movie tells the story of that curious situation, when Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio (played by Jonathan Pryce) ended up as Pope Francis while Benedict (Anthony Hopkins) was still alive. The official reason for the pope's resignation appears to have been his advanced age. But the film paints a rather different picture.
The movie starts back in 2005 as we enter the papal conclave. Benedict (Cardinal Ratzinger, as was) is the highly-political German cardinal who desperately wants the papacy; Bergoglio is the highly respected Argentinian cardinal who doesn't seek the office but might have it thrust upon him. (Clearly, when the white smoke clears, history has dictated the outcome).
But flash forward to 2013 and Bergoglio will get another bite of the cherry. Is he worthy of the role? Through flashbacks we return to Perón's unsettling rule over Argentina and the events that made the man.
The two stars are simply outstanding together, and it's no surprise at all that both have been nominated in the Oscar acting categories. They are almost joint leads. But - perhaps to give the film its best awards-season shot - Pryce is down for Best Actor and Hopkins is down for Best Supporting Actor.
Anthony Hopkins in particular for me shone with the brilliant quietness and subtle facial movements that are the mark of a truly confident actor. Less is more.
I was enjoying this movie enormously up until we flashed back to the Argentinian sub-plot. Set in the time of Perón's "Dirty War" when a huge number of people - estimates range from 9,000 to 30,000 - simply went "missing". There's nothing wrong with this sequence of the film. For example, a reunion of Bergoglio with a persecuted priest, Father Jalics (Lisandro Fiks) - is brilliantly and movingly done. It's just that for me it seemed so disjointed. It was jarring to switch from this Evita-era drama to the gentle drama of the papal plot.
If the movie had been 30 minutes shorter and focused on the mental struggles of Benedict I would have preferred it. Curiously - we don't really get to fully understand his divergence from the faith. Bergoglio gets no end of back-story. But Ratzinger's is probably just as interesting, but not explored.
This is still a really fine movie and will appeal to older folks who like a story rich with character acting and not heavy on the action or special effects. The director is Fernando Meirelles (who interestingly directed the Rio Olympics opening ceremony!) and it's written by Anthony McCarten, the man behind the screenplays for "The Theory of Everything", "Darkest Hour" and "Bohemian Rhapsody".
You may still be able to find this in selected cinemas (e.g. Curzon) but it is also streaming on Netflix, which is where I had to watch it.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies at https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/26/one-manns-movies-film-review-the-two-popes-2019/ ).
All that changed in 2013 when Pope Benedict XVI resigned, the first pope to voluntarily do so since Pope Celestine V in 1294. (Pope Gregory XII also resigned in 1415, but he was effectively forced to).
This movie tells the story of that curious situation, when Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio (played by Jonathan Pryce) ended up as Pope Francis while Benedict (Anthony Hopkins) was still alive. The official reason for the pope's resignation appears to have been his advanced age. But the film paints a rather different picture.
The movie starts back in 2005 as we enter the papal conclave. Benedict (Cardinal Ratzinger, as was) is the highly-political German cardinal who desperately wants the papacy; Bergoglio is the highly respected Argentinian cardinal who doesn't seek the office but might have it thrust upon him. (Clearly, when the white smoke clears, history has dictated the outcome).
But flash forward to 2013 and Bergoglio will get another bite of the cherry. Is he worthy of the role? Through flashbacks we return to Perón's unsettling rule over Argentina and the events that made the man.
The two stars are simply outstanding together, and it's no surprise at all that both have been nominated in the Oscar acting categories. They are almost joint leads. But - perhaps to give the film its best awards-season shot - Pryce is down for Best Actor and Hopkins is down for Best Supporting Actor.
Anthony Hopkins in particular for me shone with the brilliant quietness and subtle facial movements that are the mark of a truly confident actor. Less is more.
I was enjoying this movie enormously up until we flashed back to the Argentinian sub-plot. Set in the time of Perón's "Dirty War" when a huge number of people - estimates range from 9,000 to 30,000 - simply went "missing". There's nothing wrong with this sequence of the film. For example, a reunion of Bergoglio with a persecuted priest, Father Jalics (Lisandro Fiks) - is brilliantly and movingly done. It's just that for me it seemed so disjointed. It was jarring to switch from this Evita-era drama to the gentle drama of the papal plot.
If the movie had been 30 minutes shorter and focused on the mental struggles of Benedict I would have preferred it. Curiously - we don't really get to fully understand his divergence from the faith. Bergoglio gets no end of back-story. But Ratzinger's is probably just as interesting, but not explored.
This is still a really fine movie and will appeal to older folks who like a story rich with character acting and not heavy on the action or special effects. The director is Fernando Meirelles (who interestingly directed the Rio Olympics opening ceremony!) and it's written by Anthony McCarten, the man behind the screenplays for "The Theory of Everything", "Darkest Hour" and "Bohemian Rhapsody".
You may still be able to find this in selected cinemas (e.g. Curzon) but it is also streaming on Netflix, which is where I had to watch it.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies at https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/01/26/one-manns-movies-film-review-the-two-popes-2019/ ).
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated The Boys - Season 2 in TV
Jan 22, 2021
As I have already stated in my review of season one of The Boys, it is a show that I have found compelling to watch without actually liking or thinking it is necessarily very good. The premise was intriguing, and threw up some pretty interesting dramatic conflicts in the first season. But it was obvious from very early on that this show wanted to make the most of its 18 certificate and use gore, violence and shock tactics to really make fans of those things gasp.
In season two they have taken that key point of difference and turned the volume up to ten! All I remember from it, some three months now since I finished it, is blood, exploding and crushed heads, severed limbs, gross out deaths and lots more blood. Which, you know, turns some people on, but after the first ten times I got pretty sick of it – almost literally – and was just riding it out to the finish mostly.
Performance wise, there isn’t really a stand out, and the writing doesn’t really offer the opportunity (yet) for true emotional depth. Antony Starr, as the deplorably egotistical maniac “hero” Homelander, is the one you love to hate though! Rarely have I found myself wanting a character to get his dues so much! He is utterly loathsome and repulsive, so much credit for that creation. Depending on where they take things in season 3 and beyond, he could emerge as one of the iconic characters of this era of streaming TV.
In terms of story progression, a decent job has been made by introducing Aya Cash as Stormfront, a depraved love interest for Homelander with a big secret and a great plot device. Most of the events have revolved around her introduction, development, backstory reveal and consequences of that on the show’s main man. Meanwhile the storyline around Karl Urban as Billy Butcher becomes more and more forgettable and sometimes irrelevant.
That is the problem with this show really; it has set itself up as being Superheros that are actually assholes vs renegade anti-heros that want to stop them… but, it knows that as soon as that conflict is resolved and satisfied the show is over. So, they drag the story along with very minimal contact as yet between the two. Plenty of inner turmoil within the two groups, but no action as such against one another.
And that is why the build up to this season’s climax felt mostly anti-climactic. Although it did land a half decent cliff-hanger right at the end. I don’t know… I just feel as if it’s a show to let wash over you without that much value in analysing it. And that wash always makes me feel slightly grubbier than I was before. If redemption, conflict and resolution are on the cards they need to get a dose of it into season three, or I will probably lose interest fast.
Amazon Prime has a lot of shows a lot better than this one, but probably none that appeal as much to boys and men under 30. It has its place on the vast entertainment schedule, but personally I am craving more meaning and less of the puerile dependence on gore. However, if that is what its audience talk about, then its gonna increase not decrease. They have set their own bloody bar now and my fear is this is what the future of the show holds: more and more original ways to gross us out. I’d like to be proved wrong, but I don’t feel in a huge rush about it either way.
In season two they have taken that key point of difference and turned the volume up to ten! All I remember from it, some three months now since I finished it, is blood, exploding and crushed heads, severed limbs, gross out deaths and lots more blood. Which, you know, turns some people on, but after the first ten times I got pretty sick of it – almost literally – and was just riding it out to the finish mostly.
Performance wise, there isn’t really a stand out, and the writing doesn’t really offer the opportunity (yet) for true emotional depth. Antony Starr, as the deplorably egotistical maniac “hero” Homelander, is the one you love to hate though! Rarely have I found myself wanting a character to get his dues so much! He is utterly loathsome and repulsive, so much credit for that creation. Depending on where they take things in season 3 and beyond, he could emerge as one of the iconic characters of this era of streaming TV.
In terms of story progression, a decent job has been made by introducing Aya Cash as Stormfront, a depraved love interest for Homelander with a big secret and a great plot device. Most of the events have revolved around her introduction, development, backstory reveal and consequences of that on the show’s main man. Meanwhile the storyline around Karl Urban as Billy Butcher becomes more and more forgettable and sometimes irrelevant.
That is the problem with this show really; it has set itself up as being Superheros that are actually assholes vs renegade anti-heros that want to stop them… but, it knows that as soon as that conflict is resolved and satisfied the show is over. So, they drag the story along with very minimal contact as yet between the two. Plenty of inner turmoil within the two groups, but no action as such against one another.
And that is why the build up to this season’s climax felt mostly anti-climactic. Although it did land a half decent cliff-hanger right at the end. I don’t know… I just feel as if it’s a show to let wash over you without that much value in analysing it. And that wash always makes me feel slightly grubbier than I was before. If redemption, conflict and resolution are on the cards they need to get a dose of it into season three, or I will probably lose interest fast.
Amazon Prime has a lot of shows a lot better than this one, but probably none that appeal as much to boys and men under 30. It has its place on the vast entertainment schedule, but personally I am craving more meaning and less of the puerile dependence on gore. However, if that is what its audience talk about, then its gonna increase not decrease. They have set their own bloody bar now and my fear is this is what the future of the show holds: more and more original ways to gross us out. I’d like to be proved wrong, but I don’t feel in a huge rush about it either way.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Life Itself (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Love Actually with all the saccharine squeezed out.
Not the documentary of the same name from 2014 about the critic Rogert Ebert. This is an Amazon Studios/Sky Cinema Original Film (trying to follow where Netflix is boldly going), and as such it only had a very limited release in UK cinemas which I managed to miss.
The plot.
This is an anthology film in the style of “Crash” or – actually, “Love Actually” – featuring a series of inter-linked stories. We start with a depressed Will (Oscar Isaac) flashing back to his apparently idyllic life with pregnant wife Abby (Olivia Wilde). Apparantly? Well, perhaps the narrator is unreliable. So what actually happened? Where is Abby now? Where is his child?
Mid-film we switch into a Spanish-language section, set in Spain, featuring an ambitious olive-picker Javier González (Sergio Peris-Mencheta), his sweetheart Isabel (Laia Costa) and his employer Mr. Saccione (Antonio Banderas).
(“What the F!”, you are saying to yourself at this point, “How is this all related?”).
To say any more would provide spoilers: but, confused as you may be, it’s a journey worth sticking with.
Messing with time and your mind.
The film plays fast and loose with chronology and we zap backwards and forwards through the story which can be unsettling. It’s a film that keeps you on your toes, and you need to listen to director/writer Dan Fogelman‘s dialogue as there are clues as to where you are going next. It’s certainly not the ‘sit-back-and-relax’ “rom-com” that I mistakenly sold it to my wife as for our evening viewing!
A star of the film is the editor Julie Monroe (“Midnight Special“). There are some significant twists in the film, some of which are well signposted; others very much not so!
The turns
Has Oscar Isaac done a bad film? (I’m sure some haters of the latest Star Wars episodes might have an answer!). Here he has to execute an enormous range and he just about pulls it off. Olivia Wilde is also convincing as Abby.
In the Spanish section, Antonio Banderas is as impressive as you expect, and Laia Costa – an actress not previously known to me – is initially good as the young love interest, but I thought she was rather over-extended in the later scenes in her story.
Elsewhere, the rising star Olivia Cooke again impresses as a troubled teen; Annette Bening is a psychologist; “Homeland”‘s Mandy Patinkin plays Will’s father; and an f-ing and blinding Samuel L Jackson even appears at the start of the film (a blink and you’d miss it line of dialogue explains the context).
Good?
I wasn’t expecting to, but I really enjoyed this one. I’ve read some completely eviscerating reviews of the movie, but I’ve not sure where those were coming from. I found it a non-standard journey requiring a level of intelligence to appreciate the nuances of the script. My guess would be that many of the naysayers on IMDB never made it past the Spanish interlude. Others will not have liked the coincidence in the final reel (no spoilers). I do appreciate that it needs a suspension of belief. But this is a movie about the random coincidences of life. I remember running into a work colleague on the backstreets of Lone Pine in California, 5,271 miles away from where we both worked. Coincidences DO happen.
I’m not a fan of this whole new “almost straight to streaming” approach: I wish I could have seen this one on the big screen. But my view would be that it’s well worth catching if you have access to Amazon or Sky services (Sky or Now TV in the UK).
The plot.
This is an anthology film in the style of “Crash” or – actually, “Love Actually” – featuring a series of inter-linked stories. We start with a depressed Will (Oscar Isaac) flashing back to his apparently idyllic life with pregnant wife Abby (Olivia Wilde). Apparantly? Well, perhaps the narrator is unreliable. So what actually happened? Where is Abby now? Where is his child?
Mid-film we switch into a Spanish-language section, set in Spain, featuring an ambitious olive-picker Javier González (Sergio Peris-Mencheta), his sweetheart Isabel (Laia Costa) and his employer Mr. Saccione (Antonio Banderas).
(“What the F!”, you are saying to yourself at this point, “How is this all related?”).
To say any more would provide spoilers: but, confused as you may be, it’s a journey worth sticking with.
Messing with time and your mind.
The film plays fast and loose with chronology and we zap backwards and forwards through the story which can be unsettling. It’s a film that keeps you on your toes, and you need to listen to director/writer Dan Fogelman‘s dialogue as there are clues as to where you are going next. It’s certainly not the ‘sit-back-and-relax’ “rom-com” that I mistakenly sold it to my wife as for our evening viewing!
A star of the film is the editor Julie Monroe (“Midnight Special“). There are some significant twists in the film, some of which are well signposted; others very much not so!
The turns
Has Oscar Isaac done a bad film? (I’m sure some haters of the latest Star Wars episodes might have an answer!). Here he has to execute an enormous range and he just about pulls it off. Olivia Wilde is also convincing as Abby.
In the Spanish section, Antonio Banderas is as impressive as you expect, and Laia Costa – an actress not previously known to me – is initially good as the young love interest, but I thought she was rather over-extended in the later scenes in her story.
Elsewhere, the rising star Olivia Cooke again impresses as a troubled teen; Annette Bening is a psychologist; “Homeland”‘s Mandy Patinkin plays Will’s father; and an f-ing and blinding Samuel L Jackson even appears at the start of the film (a blink and you’d miss it line of dialogue explains the context).
Good?
I wasn’t expecting to, but I really enjoyed this one. I’ve read some completely eviscerating reviews of the movie, but I’ve not sure where those were coming from. I found it a non-standard journey requiring a level of intelligence to appreciate the nuances of the script. My guess would be that many of the naysayers on IMDB never made it past the Spanish interlude. Others will not have liked the coincidence in the final reel (no spoilers). I do appreciate that it needs a suspension of belief. But this is a movie about the random coincidences of life. I remember running into a work colleague on the backstreets of Lone Pine in California, 5,271 miles away from where we both worked. Coincidences DO happen.
I’m not a fan of this whole new “almost straight to streaming” approach: I wish I could have seen this one on the big screen. But my view would be that it’s well worth catching if you have access to Amazon or Sky services (Sky or Now TV in the UK).
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Army of Thieves (2021) in Movies
Nov 4, 2021
“Did He Just Say Gulp?”
I have Covid-19, and am confined to quarters. So time to catch up on some streaming films. New on Netflix is “Army of Thieves”, a quirky prequel, of sorts, to Zac Snyder’s “Army of the Dead“.
Plot Summary:
Sebastian Schlencht-Wöhnert (Matthias Schweighöfer) is a geek obsessed with the work of legendary safe-manufacturer Hans Wagner whose magnum opus was a series of four intricate safes named after the four parts of his namesake’s Ring cycle: The Rhinegold, The Valkyrie, Siegfried and Götterdämmerung.
Seeking more the glory of cracking the legendary safes (rather than the riches within), high-class jewel-thief Gwendoline (Nathalie Emmanuel) teams with Sebastian to crack the three known safes (in Paris, Prague and St Moritz) before they are officially ‘retired’. Together with Korina (Ruby O. Fee), muscle-man Brad (Stuart Martin) and getaway driver Rolph (Guz Khan) the gang try to stay one step ahead of obsessed Interpol agent Delacroix (Jonathan Cohen).
Certification:
US: TV-MA. UK: 15.
Talent:
Starring: Matthias Schweighöfer, Nathalie Emmanuel, Ruby O. Fee, Stuart Martin, Guz Khan, Jonathan Cohen.
Directed by: Matthias Schweighöfer.
Written by: Shay Hatten (from a story by Shay Hatten and Zack Snyder).
“Army of Thieves” Review: Positives:
I really wasn’t expecting much from this offering. For me, the character of Dieter in “Army of the Dead” was an annoyingly quirky comedy character in a zombie-actioner that you just wanted to punch in the face…. repeatedly. But in contrast, this Dieter-centric film is deliberately quirky throughout and it just all worked for me. Under his own direction, Schweighöfer’s Sebastian/Dieter becomes a genuinely quirky, lovelorn and loveable loser that you want to root for.
The look and feel of the film is utterly glorious. The wonderful cinematography by Bernhard Jasper makes the introduction to the European locations feel Bond-like and the combination of Production Design and Special Effects make the safe-cracking scenes tense, dynamic and beautiful to watch. It’s all nicely rounded off by a quirky Steve Mazzaro / Hans Zimmer score.
Shay Hatten’s script delivers a nice balance of action and exposition. It actually – shock horror – takes time to flesh out some character behind the generic heist-movie stereotypes. Setting the movie in the same timeline as the emerging Nevada zombie-apocalypse as “Army of the Dead” is neat: (although those expecting extensive zombie-action will feel short-changed). And having the Las Vegas safe as the mythical Götterdämmerung is a nice touch. Above all – “SURPRISE!!!” – the script surpassed the essential six-laughs test.
The acting is above par, with Schweighöfer putting in a fabulous turn and the stunningly beautiful Nathalie Emmanuel (best known for being Ramsey in the Fast and Furious series) gets to be a lot more than mere window-dressing here. Stuart Martin is notable here for looking astonishingly like Hugh Jackman…. I mean, really, they could be twins.
Negatives:
I mean, honestly, there are more holes in this story than a St Moritz swiss-cheese. Why would all of the safes, owned by different private institutions, be being “decommissioned” due to a Zombie outbreak on the other side of the world? Can the Interpol team really be that incompetent? And however clever he is, I don’t buy that you can open safes like that!
Although I liked the balance of the script overall, the story is pretty simplistic and linear.
Summary Thoughts on “Army of Thieves”
Sometimes a little movie appears that surprises and delights you, and this was one of those for me. It’s not big and it’s not clever. But it is very nicely made, thoroughly entertained me and was – for me – way better than its source movie. A recommended watch on Netflix.
Plot Summary:
Sebastian Schlencht-Wöhnert (Matthias Schweighöfer) is a geek obsessed with the work of legendary safe-manufacturer Hans Wagner whose magnum opus was a series of four intricate safes named after the four parts of his namesake’s Ring cycle: The Rhinegold, The Valkyrie, Siegfried and Götterdämmerung.
Seeking more the glory of cracking the legendary safes (rather than the riches within), high-class jewel-thief Gwendoline (Nathalie Emmanuel) teams with Sebastian to crack the three known safes (in Paris, Prague and St Moritz) before they are officially ‘retired’. Together with Korina (Ruby O. Fee), muscle-man Brad (Stuart Martin) and getaway driver Rolph (Guz Khan) the gang try to stay one step ahead of obsessed Interpol agent Delacroix (Jonathan Cohen).
Certification:
US: TV-MA. UK: 15.
Talent:
Starring: Matthias Schweighöfer, Nathalie Emmanuel, Ruby O. Fee, Stuart Martin, Guz Khan, Jonathan Cohen.
Directed by: Matthias Schweighöfer.
Written by: Shay Hatten (from a story by Shay Hatten and Zack Snyder).
“Army of Thieves” Review: Positives:
I really wasn’t expecting much from this offering. For me, the character of Dieter in “Army of the Dead” was an annoyingly quirky comedy character in a zombie-actioner that you just wanted to punch in the face…. repeatedly. But in contrast, this Dieter-centric film is deliberately quirky throughout and it just all worked for me. Under his own direction, Schweighöfer’s Sebastian/Dieter becomes a genuinely quirky, lovelorn and loveable loser that you want to root for.
The look and feel of the film is utterly glorious. The wonderful cinematography by Bernhard Jasper makes the introduction to the European locations feel Bond-like and the combination of Production Design and Special Effects make the safe-cracking scenes tense, dynamic and beautiful to watch. It’s all nicely rounded off by a quirky Steve Mazzaro / Hans Zimmer score.
Shay Hatten’s script delivers a nice balance of action and exposition. It actually – shock horror – takes time to flesh out some character behind the generic heist-movie stereotypes. Setting the movie in the same timeline as the emerging Nevada zombie-apocalypse as “Army of the Dead” is neat: (although those expecting extensive zombie-action will feel short-changed). And having the Las Vegas safe as the mythical Götterdämmerung is a nice touch. Above all – “SURPRISE!!!” – the script surpassed the essential six-laughs test.
The acting is above par, with Schweighöfer putting in a fabulous turn and the stunningly beautiful Nathalie Emmanuel (best known for being Ramsey in the Fast and Furious series) gets to be a lot more than mere window-dressing here. Stuart Martin is notable here for looking astonishingly like Hugh Jackman…. I mean, really, they could be twins.
Negatives:
I mean, honestly, there are more holes in this story than a St Moritz swiss-cheese. Why would all of the safes, owned by different private institutions, be being “decommissioned” due to a Zombie outbreak on the other side of the world? Can the Interpol team really be that incompetent? And however clever he is, I don’t buy that you can open safes like that!
Although I liked the balance of the script overall, the story is pretty simplistic and linear.
Summary Thoughts on “Army of Thieves”
Sometimes a little movie appears that surprises and delights you, and this was one of those for me. It’s not big and it’s not clever. But it is very nicely made, thoroughly entertained me and was – for me – way better than its source movie. A recommended watch on Netflix.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore (2022) in Movies
Apr 30, 2022
The Magic is Fading
Alas, the magic is fading in the Wizarding World
The 3rd installment of the Fantastic Beasts saga, THE SECRETS OF DUMBLEDORE is satisfying enough for fans of the ongoing Wizarding World of Harry Potter universe and will be time well spent for those of you that have watched all 8 Harry Potter films and the first 2 FANTASTIC BEASTS films, but it is nothing…magical.
Picking up where the 2nd film (THE CRIMES OF GRINDEWALD) left off, the arch-nemesis of Dumbledore (a game Jude Law) is in power and looking to start a war with the Muggles (non-magic folk). A ragtag group of heroes (are there any other kind) led by Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) are humanity’s only hope.
And…while this worked well in the first series of film…this setup falls rather flat as it has a “been there done that” feel to it that is not really elevated above the ordinary.
The reason are numerous:
First, Newt Scamander is no Harry Potter. While Eddie Redymayne plays an interesting, quirky, central character - a character who’s unique skills were needed to defeat the bad guy in the first film - he is, really, a secondary character, yet he is the one we follow throughout the film. Kind of like watching the Harry Potter films through the eyes of Neville Longbottom.
Secondly, Grindewald (this time played by Mads Mikkelsen, replacing Johnny Depp) is no Voldemort. Grindewald was an interesting character set up in the first film, but by this film, he is pretty bland (and pretty blandly played by Mikkeslen who is, frankly, miscast).
Thirdly, Dumbledore (Jude Law in a very good performance, one that needed to be larger and more central) is sidelined for most of this film - a film about the battle between Grindewald and Dumbledore, a stumble (plotwise) to be sure in an awkward attempt to keeping the Newt Scamander character front and center.
Fortunately, the supporting cast is strong from Dan Fogler’s muggle, Jacob Kowalski to his love, Queenie (Alison Sudol) to Newt’s brother, Theseus (Callum Turner) to Newt’s assistant Bunty (Victoria Yeates) to Dumbledore’s brother, Aberforth (Richard Coyle) - all have their moments and are interesting (enough) to watch.
Unfortunately, Ezra Miller’s conflicted villain, Credence is poorly written with a crescendo to his character that lands with a thud. And, the inexplicable reason that Katherine Waterston’s main character of Tina is sidelined (rumors are she conflicted with J.K. Rowling) just doesn’t land, so, consequently, 2 major pieces from the first 2 films just don’t work.
What does work in this film is the magical sequences, as handled by Harry Potter veteran David Yates (who has now helmed 6 films in the Wizarding World franchise), the magical scenes are truly…magical. They are fun to watch and the real reason to watch this film, but the story is weak with a misguided viewpoint character that diminishes the fantasy for all.
Rumors are that this was supposed to be a 5 film franchise, but with box office diminishing for each successive Fantastic Beasts films, the filmmakers wisely decided to wrap up most storylines in this film.
It’s time to say goodbye to FANTASTIC BEASTS, but it should be time for the Wizarding World to go the way of Star Wars, Marvel and Star Trek - streaming TV series that breathes new life - and new, interesting characters - to a sagging franchise.
In the meantime, FANTASTIC BEASTS: THE SECRETS OF DUMBLEDORE is “good enough” and since it is all we have at the moment, it will have to do.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The 3rd installment of the Fantastic Beasts saga, THE SECRETS OF DUMBLEDORE is satisfying enough for fans of the ongoing Wizarding World of Harry Potter universe and will be time well spent for those of you that have watched all 8 Harry Potter films and the first 2 FANTASTIC BEASTS films, but it is nothing…magical.
Picking up where the 2nd film (THE CRIMES OF GRINDEWALD) left off, the arch-nemesis of Dumbledore (a game Jude Law) is in power and looking to start a war with the Muggles (non-magic folk). A ragtag group of heroes (are there any other kind) led by Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) are humanity’s only hope.
And…while this worked well in the first series of film…this setup falls rather flat as it has a “been there done that” feel to it that is not really elevated above the ordinary.
The reason are numerous:
First, Newt Scamander is no Harry Potter. While Eddie Redymayne plays an interesting, quirky, central character - a character who’s unique skills were needed to defeat the bad guy in the first film - he is, really, a secondary character, yet he is the one we follow throughout the film. Kind of like watching the Harry Potter films through the eyes of Neville Longbottom.
Secondly, Grindewald (this time played by Mads Mikkelsen, replacing Johnny Depp) is no Voldemort. Grindewald was an interesting character set up in the first film, but by this film, he is pretty bland (and pretty blandly played by Mikkeslen who is, frankly, miscast).
Thirdly, Dumbledore (Jude Law in a very good performance, one that needed to be larger and more central) is sidelined for most of this film - a film about the battle between Grindewald and Dumbledore, a stumble (plotwise) to be sure in an awkward attempt to keeping the Newt Scamander character front and center.
Fortunately, the supporting cast is strong from Dan Fogler’s muggle, Jacob Kowalski to his love, Queenie (Alison Sudol) to Newt’s brother, Theseus (Callum Turner) to Newt’s assistant Bunty (Victoria Yeates) to Dumbledore’s brother, Aberforth (Richard Coyle) - all have their moments and are interesting (enough) to watch.
Unfortunately, Ezra Miller’s conflicted villain, Credence is poorly written with a crescendo to his character that lands with a thud. And, the inexplicable reason that Katherine Waterston’s main character of Tina is sidelined (rumors are she conflicted with J.K. Rowling) just doesn’t land, so, consequently, 2 major pieces from the first 2 films just don’t work.
What does work in this film is the magical sequences, as handled by Harry Potter veteran David Yates (who has now helmed 6 films in the Wizarding World franchise), the magical scenes are truly…magical. They are fun to watch and the real reason to watch this film, but the story is weak with a misguided viewpoint character that diminishes the fantasy for all.
Rumors are that this was supposed to be a 5 film franchise, but with box office diminishing for each successive Fantastic Beasts films, the filmmakers wisely decided to wrap up most storylines in this film.
It’s time to say goodbye to FANTASTIC BEASTS, but it should be time for the Wizarding World to go the way of Star Wars, Marvel and Star Trek - streaming TV series that breathes new life - and new, interesting characters - to a sagging franchise.
In the meantime, FANTASTIC BEASTS: THE SECRETS OF DUMBLEDORE is “good enough” and since it is all we have at the moment, it will have to do.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
DiscoStu (6 KP) rated Bright (2017) in Movies
Jan 8, 2018 (Updated Jan 8, 2018)
“A competent buddy cop movie that offers solid pacing and character portrayals at the expense of building up the films (admittedly) interesting universe”.
Contains spoilers, click to show
Netflix’s ‘Bright’, directed by David Ayer (Suicide Squad) and starring Will Smith and Joel Edgerton, brings the big budget box office trappings of a fully fledged cinema release to their home streaming subscription service and arguably the end result is a fun and enjoyable, if slightly flawed, buddy-cop-movie-with-a-twist that sets up a universe you’ll likely want to see more of.
Smith plays Daryl Ward, a weary veteran L.A. cop reluctantly partnered with orc partner Nick, the first and only orc to make the force in this alternate earth story. The film opens with Ward taking a round of buckshot from an orc thug whilst Nick looks on waiting for a burrito from a street vendor. The incident leaves a distrust between Ward and Nick, with Ward unsure whether his partner really has his back after Nick not only failed to step up and prevent the shooting but also failed to apprehend the orc perpetrator during the ensuing foot chase. Ward also finds himself at odds with other members of the force who don’t share the police’s ‘progressive’ attitudes of allowing orcs into the force.
The film briefly touches on a two thousand year old conflict between the nine armies and the Dark Lord who was defeated when various races allied to defeat him. In the established lore the orcs allied with the Dark Lord and have been subjugated ever since. The film attempts to portray the orcs through a social commentary that reflects the black community today and how heavy handed the film tackles the subject will probably depend on the viewer. For me it was handled sensitively enough without being too in your face.
The film sees the two protagonists dispatched to a disturbance that quickly escalates to a situation that goes from bad to worse. Finding themselves on the run with a Bright, the film’s titular white haired magic wielders, and a coveted magic wand Ward and Nick have to navigate hostile L.A. gang land environments whilst pursued by Inferni (the magic version of the Illuminati), the police and human and orc gangsters, all who have their own plans for the wand.
The film is shot well, with plenty of scenery that builds up the shared world of humans, orcs, elves , centaurs and the other races that we don’t get to spend any time with. A montage at the start of the film shows various L.A. scenery graffiti tagged with striking imagery depicting the struggle of orcs in an oppressed landscape. Evidently, orc lives matter. The film also doesn’t struggle for pacing. The two hour runtime services the story well enough, even if some of the world building and character exploration suffers as a result. I would have liked to have spent more time exploring the shared history of the various races and understanding the motivations of the stories’ villains but sadly these elements are undersold in favour of a shorter runtime that hurries the narrative along. To the credit of the writers and the director this world bares revisiting and at the time of writing it sounds like Netflix know this too with a sequel already greenlit.
Bright is a fun jaunt in a world I’d like to get to know better. Smith and Edgerton are strong leads who share a strong chemistry and make you care about their characters. The bad guys don’t fare as well here, especially disappointing given that Noomi Rapace is the lead antagonist but hopefully a sequel will correct some of these missteps. Bright feels like a £20 cinema ticket movie and gives enough to the viewer that you’ll want to discuss it with friends afterwards. As a film bundled with your Netflix subscription it’s hard to be too critical.
Smith plays Daryl Ward, a weary veteran L.A. cop reluctantly partnered with orc partner Nick, the first and only orc to make the force in this alternate earth story. The film opens with Ward taking a round of buckshot from an orc thug whilst Nick looks on waiting for a burrito from a street vendor. The incident leaves a distrust between Ward and Nick, with Ward unsure whether his partner really has his back after Nick not only failed to step up and prevent the shooting but also failed to apprehend the orc perpetrator during the ensuing foot chase. Ward also finds himself at odds with other members of the force who don’t share the police’s ‘progressive’ attitudes of allowing orcs into the force.
The film briefly touches on a two thousand year old conflict between the nine armies and the Dark Lord who was defeated when various races allied to defeat him. In the established lore the orcs allied with the Dark Lord and have been subjugated ever since. The film attempts to portray the orcs through a social commentary that reflects the black community today and how heavy handed the film tackles the subject will probably depend on the viewer. For me it was handled sensitively enough without being too in your face.
The film sees the two protagonists dispatched to a disturbance that quickly escalates to a situation that goes from bad to worse. Finding themselves on the run with a Bright, the film’s titular white haired magic wielders, and a coveted magic wand Ward and Nick have to navigate hostile L.A. gang land environments whilst pursued by Inferni (the magic version of the Illuminati), the police and human and orc gangsters, all who have their own plans for the wand.
The film is shot well, with plenty of scenery that builds up the shared world of humans, orcs, elves , centaurs and the other races that we don’t get to spend any time with. A montage at the start of the film shows various L.A. scenery graffiti tagged with striking imagery depicting the struggle of orcs in an oppressed landscape. Evidently, orc lives matter. The film also doesn’t struggle for pacing. The two hour runtime services the story well enough, even if some of the world building and character exploration suffers as a result. I would have liked to have spent more time exploring the shared history of the various races and understanding the motivations of the stories’ villains but sadly these elements are undersold in favour of a shorter runtime that hurries the narrative along. To the credit of the writers and the director this world bares revisiting and at the time of writing it sounds like Netflix know this too with a sequel already greenlit.
Bright is a fun jaunt in a world I’d like to get to know better. Smith and Edgerton are strong leads who share a strong chemistry and make you care about their characters. The bad guys don’t fare as well here, especially disappointing given that Noomi Rapace is the lead antagonist but hopefully a sequel will correct some of these missteps. Bright feels like a £20 cinema ticket movie and gives enough to the viewer that you’ll want to discuss it with friends afterwards. As a film bundled with your Netflix subscription it’s hard to be too critical.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Cloverfield Paradox (2018) in Movies
Feb 22, 2018
A fun "who-will-survive" flick
During the Super Bowl, a "surprise" trailer dropped for a new entry in the Cloverfield family of films. The good news is that the film was dropping on Netflix the next day, so fanboys immediately jumped on-line and then started hating on it (again, on-line) because it wasn't exactly what they thought it would be.
Which is too bad, for THE CLOVERFIELD PARADOX is a very fun, very well made, very well acted "10 Little Indians" style Sci-Fi film (you know, the type of film where a finite group of folks are marooned someplace - like and island or an isolated, creepy mansion and are picked off one by one). This time, they are on a space station, and when an experiment goes awry, bad things start to happen.
I stated that this film is another entry in the "Cloverfield family of films", so let me explain that. The overseer of these films is none other than JJ Abrams and he has stated that there will be a series of films - very different in style, type and substance - that will (somehow) be related in the Cloverfield Universe. And, so far, he has fulfilled his promise (at least to me) - for those that just want "more of the same", he has alienated.
The first film, CLOVERFIELD, is a "found footage" film about a giant monster (think Godzilla) rampaging through modern day New York City. Of the 3 films,thus far, in the Cloverfield family, this one (for me) was the least effective (especially because I am not a big fan of "found footage" films). The 2nd film was 2016's 10 CLOVERFIELD LANE and was a very effective psychological horror/drama starring John Goodman as a fellow who has rescued/captured (kidnapped?) Mary Elizabeth Winstead and has locked her in his survival bunker in order to - he says - save her from the monster above. The film effectively goes back and forth with wondering what is scarier - the monster above or the monster (Goodman) below. If you haven't seen 10 CLOVERFIELD LANE, I highly recommend it.
The third installment, then, is THE CLOVERFIELD PARADOX, a prequel of sorts about a group of scientists aboard a space station conducting a desperate, highly dangerous power experiments to solve the world's energy crisis. When something goes wrong, bad things happen. And since this is in the Cloverfield family, you gotta know it has some connection with how the Cloverfield monster got on Earth.
But this film doesn't really concern itself with the Cloverfield monster - which is what I think is angering the "fanboys" - this film is about the survival of the charismatic, international scientists that are stranded on this space station after the accident. Almost every one of the actors in this film are "oh...that guy" type actors - all very good. From German actor Daniel Bruhl (RUSH) to Chinese actress Ziyi Zhang (CROUCHING TIGER...) to Englishman David Oyelowo (SELMA) to good ol' John Ortiz (a million different things) - the cast is strong, fun to watch and easy to root for. They all are in service to the plot devices (and predicaments they are in) and they serve the plot (and the film) well.
Special notice should be made for Chris O'Dowd (BRIDESMAIDS) who brings some much needed levity via his deadpan humor approach to everything as the ship's handyman and, especially, Gugu Mbatha-Raw (BELLE) as the heroine of the adventure from through who's eyes we encounter the events of the film.
I have stated before that I am a sucker for these types of "10 Little Indians who-will-survive" films and this one is no exception. Go in with no preconceived notions, roll with what the film throws at you and you'll have a good time time, too.
THE CLOVERFIELD PARADOX is now streaming on Netflix.
Letter Grade: B (it is the very definition of a "B" movie).
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Which is too bad, for THE CLOVERFIELD PARADOX is a very fun, very well made, very well acted "10 Little Indians" style Sci-Fi film (you know, the type of film where a finite group of folks are marooned someplace - like and island or an isolated, creepy mansion and are picked off one by one). This time, they are on a space station, and when an experiment goes awry, bad things start to happen.
I stated that this film is another entry in the "Cloverfield family of films", so let me explain that. The overseer of these films is none other than JJ Abrams and he has stated that there will be a series of films - very different in style, type and substance - that will (somehow) be related in the Cloverfield Universe. And, so far, he has fulfilled his promise (at least to me) - for those that just want "more of the same", he has alienated.
The first film, CLOVERFIELD, is a "found footage" film about a giant monster (think Godzilla) rampaging through modern day New York City. Of the 3 films,thus far, in the Cloverfield family, this one (for me) was the least effective (especially because I am not a big fan of "found footage" films). The 2nd film was 2016's 10 CLOVERFIELD LANE and was a very effective psychological horror/drama starring John Goodman as a fellow who has rescued/captured (kidnapped?) Mary Elizabeth Winstead and has locked her in his survival bunker in order to - he says - save her from the monster above. The film effectively goes back and forth with wondering what is scarier - the monster above or the monster (Goodman) below. If you haven't seen 10 CLOVERFIELD LANE, I highly recommend it.
The third installment, then, is THE CLOVERFIELD PARADOX, a prequel of sorts about a group of scientists aboard a space station conducting a desperate, highly dangerous power experiments to solve the world's energy crisis. When something goes wrong, bad things happen. And since this is in the Cloverfield family, you gotta know it has some connection with how the Cloverfield monster got on Earth.
But this film doesn't really concern itself with the Cloverfield monster - which is what I think is angering the "fanboys" - this film is about the survival of the charismatic, international scientists that are stranded on this space station after the accident. Almost every one of the actors in this film are "oh...that guy" type actors - all very good. From German actor Daniel Bruhl (RUSH) to Chinese actress Ziyi Zhang (CROUCHING TIGER...) to Englishman David Oyelowo (SELMA) to good ol' John Ortiz (a million different things) - the cast is strong, fun to watch and easy to root for. They all are in service to the plot devices (and predicaments they are in) and they serve the plot (and the film) well.
Special notice should be made for Chris O'Dowd (BRIDESMAIDS) who brings some much needed levity via his deadpan humor approach to everything as the ship's handyman and, especially, Gugu Mbatha-Raw (BELLE) as the heroine of the adventure from through who's eyes we encounter the events of the film.
I have stated before that I am a sucker for these types of "10 Little Indians who-will-survive" films and this one is no exception. Go in with no preconceived notions, roll with what the film throws at you and you'll have a good time time, too.
THE CLOVERFIELD PARADOX is now streaming on Netflix.
Letter Grade: B (it is the very definition of a "B" movie).
7 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Lee (2222 KP) rated Yesterday (2019) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Rocketman recently did a great job of reminding us just how good Elton John songs are, making us want to dust off our vinyl/plastic/streaming service collection and reacquaint ourselves with his back catalogue all over again. Last year the Bohemian Rhapsody movie did a similar thing for the music of Queen and now it's the turn of The Beatles, with Yesterday. Written by Richard Curtis, and directed by Danny Boyle, Yesterday doesn't go down the musical/biopic route, instead taking classic Beatles songs and weaving them into a high concept romantic comedy.
Yesterday follows struggling musician Jack (Himesh Patel) and his long-term best friend/manager Ellie (Lily James). Gigging in pubs is getting him nowhere and he's resigned himself to the fact that he might have to give it all up and return to teaching. He lands a spot on the Suffolk stage at Latitude festival, expecting it to be his big break, but only his friends and a handful of bored kids show up to watch him play.
But then, while riding home on his bike that night, something mysterious happens. An unexplained 12 second power cut hits the entire globe and in the resulting chaos, Jack is struck by a bus and flung from his bike. When he awakes in hospital, bruised and missing a couple of front teeth, he plays a Beatles song to Ellie and his friends, who all think it's amazing, claiming to have never heard of the song before, or even The Beatles. After a bit of Googling, it becomes clear that The Beatles never actually existed, and only Jack is able to remember them. There are a few other things which crop up as we go along, that also turn out never to have existed, in what is a bit of a running gag throughout the movie.
Jack immediately realises his chance of success at last and sets about trying to remember as many of The Beatles songs and music as he can. His friends love the new songs, and there's a hilarious scene where he tries to introduce his parents to a Beatles song too (The Kumars, Sanjeev Bhaskar and Meera Syal on top form here), but it's still not really working out for him at the pub gigs and weddings where he performs them. It's only when he gets the chance to professionally lay down his tracks, and starts handing out free CDs to customers at the store he works at, that things really take off for Jack, drawing the attentions of none other than Mr Ed Sheeran. Ed has fun sending himself up, and actually features quite heavily in the movie, particularly in these early stages - turning up at Jack's house, asking him to come and support him on tour, arranging a 10 minute songwriting challenge between him and Jack. I'm not really a fan of Ed Sheeran but he actually turns out to be responsible for a lot of the movies humour as he eventually concedes that Jack is a better songwriter than him.
As Jack starts to hit the big time, traveling to LA and being managed by Ed's manager Debra (Kate McKinnon), we hit a bit of a mid-movie slump. Luckily though, Himesh Patel portrays Jack with such a relatable and likeable charm - his bewilderment and frustrations at the ridiculousness of the music industry, not to mention the building pressures of living the lie that his success has come from using someone else's work, guides us nicely through the slower moments of the movie. The romance part of the story continues to play out too, with Jack and Ellie both clearly loving each other for 20 years now, but with neither of them committing to taking it further. Lily James is once again wonderful, despite being very underused in this role, and it's the love story element of the movie which isn't quite as strong as the rest of it.
The movie does manage to pull things together nicely for the final act, resolving the unease and tension that dominates much of the movie. It could have done with a bit more rom and a bit more com, but is still an enjoyable movie and a perfect reminder of just how great The Beatles are.
Yesterday follows struggling musician Jack (Himesh Patel) and his long-term best friend/manager Ellie (Lily James). Gigging in pubs is getting him nowhere and he's resigned himself to the fact that he might have to give it all up and return to teaching. He lands a spot on the Suffolk stage at Latitude festival, expecting it to be his big break, but only his friends and a handful of bored kids show up to watch him play.
But then, while riding home on his bike that night, something mysterious happens. An unexplained 12 second power cut hits the entire globe and in the resulting chaos, Jack is struck by a bus and flung from his bike. When he awakes in hospital, bruised and missing a couple of front teeth, he plays a Beatles song to Ellie and his friends, who all think it's amazing, claiming to have never heard of the song before, or even The Beatles. After a bit of Googling, it becomes clear that The Beatles never actually existed, and only Jack is able to remember them. There are a few other things which crop up as we go along, that also turn out never to have existed, in what is a bit of a running gag throughout the movie.
Jack immediately realises his chance of success at last and sets about trying to remember as many of The Beatles songs and music as he can. His friends love the new songs, and there's a hilarious scene where he tries to introduce his parents to a Beatles song too (The Kumars, Sanjeev Bhaskar and Meera Syal on top form here), but it's still not really working out for him at the pub gigs and weddings where he performs them. It's only when he gets the chance to professionally lay down his tracks, and starts handing out free CDs to customers at the store he works at, that things really take off for Jack, drawing the attentions of none other than Mr Ed Sheeran. Ed has fun sending himself up, and actually features quite heavily in the movie, particularly in these early stages - turning up at Jack's house, asking him to come and support him on tour, arranging a 10 minute songwriting challenge between him and Jack. I'm not really a fan of Ed Sheeran but he actually turns out to be responsible for a lot of the movies humour as he eventually concedes that Jack is a better songwriter than him.
As Jack starts to hit the big time, traveling to LA and being managed by Ed's manager Debra (Kate McKinnon), we hit a bit of a mid-movie slump. Luckily though, Himesh Patel portrays Jack with such a relatable and likeable charm - his bewilderment and frustrations at the ridiculousness of the music industry, not to mention the building pressures of living the lie that his success has come from using someone else's work, guides us nicely through the slower moments of the movie. The romance part of the story continues to play out too, with Jack and Ellie both clearly loving each other for 20 years now, but with neither of them committing to taking it further. Lily James is once again wonderful, despite being very underused in this role, and it's the love story element of the movie which isn't quite as strong as the rest of it.
The movie does manage to pull things together nicely for the final act, resolving the unease and tension that dominates much of the movie. It could have done with a bit more rom and a bit more com, but is still an enjoyable movie and a perfect reminder of just how great The Beatles are.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Greta (2019) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Sep 25, 2019)
I sat down to write up my notes for the weekend's films and I had already forgotten this one. I quite enjoyed it and yet it hasn't really stuck with me at all.
Frances, played by Chloë Grace Moretz, finds a handbag on the subway, unable to hand it in to lost property she takes it home with the intention of returning it the next day. Greta is a lonely widow whose daughter is abroad and she has nothing but her piano and photos for company. When the pair meet they connect immediately and their friendship grows. To say Greta is clingy would be an understatement and when Frances discovers a cupboard full of identical "missing" handbags she knows she needs to get some distance.
Right, so, the idea here relies on someone returning her handbag, admittedly a handbag is less suspicious than a rucksack or a suitcase, but I'm still not convinced. It relies on no one seeing her leave it when she gets up to leave, and no one spotting it when they get on at the stop, and then not a single member of staff being in the subway station to take the bag. Erica says it best, "you call the bomb squad"... yes you do, Erica.
I very much enjoyed the idea of this film, as thrillers go it's a good set up. I'm becoming increasingly frustrated by trailers though, and in this instance I think they gave you too many moments that would have given a greater impact as a surprise. It also exposed an inconsistency.
The trailer shows Frances stuck in a lift as it's being crushed. In the context of the full film it made sense, sort of, but it left the question in the trailer of whether it was slightly sci-fi. While I knew what the whole scene was trying to achieve I felt that it was too confusing given the tone everywhere else.
Isabelle Huppert gives her character of Greta a delightfully creepy vibe, always pleasant and threatening at the same time and Chloë Grace Moretz played the naive Frances convincingly, but... I didn't think either particularly hit the spot. Greta was crazy but not devious enough and Frances was bordering on cliche when it came to her naivety.
There are lots of things that caused me issues, the passage of time being a major one. There's no clear idea of how long anything takes, how long their friendship went for, how long she was kidnapped, and it's surprisingly frustrating. I also am at a loss as to why her father resorts to a private investigator over the police, in my head it's because the police are saying she's a grown up and the messages suggest she's fine, but I don't think that's ever explicitly said.
I was getting very mixed tones from the film, first it was a drama, then a thriller, and then it seemed to want to be a horror. There's one point where it gets a little gruesome and it stuck out like a sore thumb. The very end as well, without trying to give spoilers, shows something I would fully expect to see in a horror movie, and in that setting it's a great way to finish it but in Greta seemed like a step in the wrong direction.
I've mentioned before that I don't over think the film while I'm watching it, I try not to look for the twists in advance, but I actually wrote the ending in my notes. While it was satisfying I was right, it was irritating that it was so obvious.
Like I mentioned above, the concept was great and it left a lot of opportunities for a brilliant thriller, but I feel like it just kept missing the point. A lot of the intrigue was stolen by the trailer and the identity crisis with the genre just held it back from what it could have achieved.
What you should do
It's not a bad watch, certainly catch it when it goes to streaming services.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
The ability to keep a home clutter free like Erica and Frances.
Frances, played by Chloë Grace Moretz, finds a handbag on the subway, unable to hand it in to lost property she takes it home with the intention of returning it the next day. Greta is a lonely widow whose daughter is abroad and she has nothing but her piano and photos for company. When the pair meet they connect immediately and their friendship grows. To say Greta is clingy would be an understatement and when Frances discovers a cupboard full of identical "missing" handbags she knows she needs to get some distance.
Right, so, the idea here relies on someone returning her handbag, admittedly a handbag is less suspicious than a rucksack or a suitcase, but I'm still not convinced. It relies on no one seeing her leave it when she gets up to leave, and no one spotting it when they get on at the stop, and then not a single member of staff being in the subway station to take the bag. Erica says it best, "you call the bomb squad"... yes you do, Erica.
I very much enjoyed the idea of this film, as thrillers go it's a good set up. I'm becoming increasingly frustrated by trailers though, and in this instance I think they gave you too many moments that would have given a greater impact as a surprise. It also exposed an inconsistency.
The trailer shows Frances stuck in a lift as it's being crushed. In the context of the full film it made sense, sort of, but it left the question in the trailer of whether it was slightly sci-fi. While I knew what the whole scene was trying to achieve I felt that it was too confusing given the tone everywhere else.
Isabelle Huppert gives her character of Greta a delightfully creepy vibe, always pleasant and threatening at the same time and Chloë Grace Moretz played the naive Frances convincingly, but... I didn't think either particularly hit the spot. Greta was crazy but not devious enough and Frances was bordering on cliche when it came to her naivety.
There are lots of things that caused me issues, the passage of time being a major one. There's no clear idea of how long anything takes, how long their friendship went for, how long she was kidnapped, and it's surprisingly frustrating. I also am at a loss as to why her father resorts to a private investigator over the police, in my head it's because the police are saying she's a grown up and the messages suggest she's fine, but I don't think that's ever explicitly said.
I was getting very mixed tones from the film, first it was a drama, then a thriller, and then it seemed to want to be a horror. There's one point where it gets a little gruesome and it stuck out like a sore thumb. The very end as well, without trying to give spoilers, shows something I would fully expect to see in a horror movie, and in that setting it's a great way to finish it but in Greta seemed like a step in the wrong direction.
I've mentioned before that I don't over think the film while I'm watching it, I try not to look for the twists in advance, but I actually wrote the ending in my notes. While it was satisfying I was right, it was irritating that it was so obvious.
Like I mentioned above, the concept was great and it left a lot of opportunities for a brilliant thriller, but I feel like it just kept missing the point. A lot of the intrigue was stolen by the trailer and the identity crisis with the genre just held it back from what it could have achieved.
What you should do
It's not a bad watch, certainly catch it when it goes to streaming services.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
The ability to keep a home clutter free like Erica and Frances.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Military Wives (2020) in Movies
Feb 17, 2020
Even having just seen the trailer I knew I would cry at this, it's classic tear-fodder.
On-base life can be difficult for the wives and partners of soldiers serving abroad. Lisa has inherited the job of organising the wives while everyone is deployed but it's not an activity she's keen on, she'd rather just make it through to the other side and have her husband back. Luckily [though it seems anything but] for her Kate wants to take on a role in those duties, she's a veteran wide and has a very proper way of looking at how they should conduct themselves. The two women take an instant dislike for the other's attitude making life stressful in the social circle.
This doesn't change once they pick an activity the group are all interested in and they struggle to find a rhythm together. Can the pair separate their differences for the wellbeing of the group and each other?
Military Wives is something that we seem to be able to churn out consistently over here. You want an emotionally uplifting (while devastating) drama? The Brits have got you covered. I cried over Wild Rose, Finding Your Feet, Fisherman's Friends and Juliet, Naked, all have that similar quality to them that makes them a surprisingly comforting watch.
At the centre we focus on Kate and Lisa, both women are looking to forget and just get through it all for different reasons. The two are chalk and cheese and Kristin Scott Thomas and Sharon Horgan thrive in their roles against one another. You can feel the agony they both suffer with and yet it's quite difficult to sympathise with either when for most of the film they are quite dislikable.
Even when we see Lisa interact with the other wives she's still grumpy and brash, it fits with what the character is going through on the inside but challenging to like. The same goes for Kate, her position afforded to her by her husband's position and her take charge attitude reminds me of that one person who always wants it their way, and that feeling instantly overrides everything else that's happening.
That's not to say that you don't feel for them, you definitely do towards the end, but getting there is a struggle.
We have a lot of peripheral characters who come in for both drama and comedy, they're all handled nicely for the most part and the nature of the story means that they can come and go quite easily without many issues. The emotion from Amy James-Kelly as Sarah was great but there's a point where it really feels like a scene is cut n the middle as the tone changes, Laura Checkley as Maz was very funny and Gaby French as Jess comes in with humour and impact in her choir lead. There was just one notable oddity and that was the character of Dawn played by Roxy Faridany. The shy and quiet member of the choir gets brought up a couple of times and yet doesn't feature in any of the foreground scenes properly. This again felt like we were missing scenes where she featured more. Bringing in the soldier contingent we have Jason Flemyng (I love him, he needs to be in more things) who is the base commander (I'm not up on my ranks so I apologise if I got it wrong) and though it's not a large role it's a funny one. The look on his face in the scene under the bridge was a picture. He fits into the cast nicely and it was a good balance of screen time within the story.
Military Wives is a story of personal struggle and friendship at its core, and as expected I spent a significant amount of time with tears streaming down my face. It handles the grieving and coping struggles in a respectful way and the interactions between characters felt very real. The uncertainty, the hatred, the feat and horror, it was all there in the actors' performances. The film takes a long time to get to what you might say is the pay off, but the journey is well thought out and it comes together for a charming and emotional watch.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/02/military-wives-movie-review.html
On-base life can be difficult for the wives and partners of soldiers serving abroad. Lisa has inherited the job of organising the wives while everyone is deployed but it's not an activity she's keen on, she'd rather just make it through to the other side and have her husband back. Luckily [though it seems anything but] for her Kate wants to take on a role in those duties, she's a veteran wide and has a very proper way of looking at how they should conduct themselves. The two women take an instant dislike for the other's attitude making life stressful in the social circle.
This doesn't change once they pick an activity the group are all interested in and they struggle to find a rhythm together. Can the pair separate their differences for the wellbeing of the group and each other?
Military Wives is something that we seem to be able to churn out consistently over here. You want an emotionally uplifting (while devastating) drama? The Brits have got you covered. I cried over Wild Rose, Finding Your Feet, Fisherman's Friends and Juliet, Naked, all have that similar quality to them that makes them a surprisingly comforting watch.
At the centre we focus on Kate and Lisa, both women are looking to forget and just get through it all for different reasons. The two are chalk and cheese and Kristin Scott Thomas and Sharon Horgan thrive in their roles against one another. You can feel the agony they both suffer with and yet it's quite difficult to sympathise with either when for most of the film they are quite dislikable.
Even when we see Lisa interact with the other wives she's still grumpy and brash, it fits with what the character is going through on the inside but challenging to like. The same goes for Kate, her position afforded to her by her husband's position and her take charge attitude reminds me of that one person who always wants it their way, and that feeling instantly overrides everything else that's happening.
That's not to say that you don't feel for them, you definitely do towards the end, but getting there is a struggle.
We have a lot of peripheral characters who come in for both drama and comedy, they're all handled nicely for the most part and the nature of the story means that they can come and go quite easily without many issues. The emotion from Amy James-Kelly as Sarah was great but there's a point where it really feels like a scene is cut n the middle as the tone changes, Laura Checkley as Maz was very funny and Gaby French as Jess comes in with humour and impact in her choir lead. There was just one notable oddity and that was the character of Dawn played by Roxy Faridany. The shy and quiet member of the choir gets brought up a couple of times and yet doesn't feature in any of the foreground scenes properly. This again felt like we were missing scenes where she featured more. Bringing in the soldier contingent we have Jason Flemyng (I love him, he needs to be in more things) who is the base commander (I'm not up on my ranks so I apologise if I got it wrong) and though it's not a large role it's a funny one. The look on his face in the scene under the bridge was a picture. He fits into the cast nicely and it was a good balance of screen time within the story.
Military Wives is a story of personal struggle and friendship at its core, and as expected I spent a significant amount of time with tears streaming down my face. It handles the grieving and coping struggles in a respectful way and the interactions between characters felt very real. The uncertainty, the hatred, the feat and horror, it was all there in the actors' performances. The film takes a long time to get to what you might say is the pay off, but the journey is well thought out and it comes together for a charming and emotional watch.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/02/military-wives-movie-review.html