Search
Search results
Lee (2222 KP) rated Blinded by the Light (2019) in Movies
Jul 10, 2019
Not the feel good hit I was expecting
Blinded by the Light is based on a memoir by Guardian journalist Sarfaz Manzoor (who is also one of the screenwriters on the movie) and is directed by Gurinder Chadha (also one of the screenwriters), who had a hit back in 2002 with Bend it like Beckham. I remember seeing the trailer for this before watching Rocketman recently and it certainly looked like a pretty enjoyable 80s based British movie, set to a soundtrack of Bruce Springsteen songs. Unfortunately though, this turned out to be just a fairly average and generic drama, enjoyable at times, but kind of just meandering along and not really working for me.
The movie takes place in Luton during 1987, focusing on Pakistani teenager Javed (Viveik Kalra) as he struggles to find balance and purpose in his life against the backdrop of a Britain that's ruled by Margaret Thatcher and dominated by unemployment, uncertainty and racial tension. His father has very old fashioned views and his expectations for Javed begin to conflict with his own. Tensions within the family increase when his father is made redundant from the Vauxhall factory he has worked at for many years and Javed's dreams of becoming a writer don't really sit well with his father in terms of being a worthwhile career route. Javed begins sixth form college where his eyes are soon opened to a much bigger world, full of potential. And full of girls!
Everything comes to a head for Javed on the night of the famous UK storm of 1987. We see the infamous Michael Fish weather forecast on TV and a frustrated Javed, having dumped all of his poems outside in the bin, returning to his room and plugging into his Walkman the Bruce Springsteen cassette borrowed from his friend Roops. The song lyrics immediately click and resonate with Javed and we see them flashing up on the screen as he listens, swirling around his head or flashing up on walls. At the same time we see him remembering earlier scenes from the movie, elements of his life with which connect him with the message within the music, in a kind of low-key 80s music video style. It gives the impression of a major turning point in the movie, and the kind of uplifting musical direction in which the movie is heading. In a way, it kind of is, particularly with regard to Javed's 'awakening'. However, in terms of the musical sequences beyond this one, they're more along the lines of random singing and dancing at school or out on the town. It's more awkward and confusing than uplifting and enjoyable.
Blinded by the Light felt like the combination of a number movies I've seen before, with nothing really elevating it beyond those in terms of originality. So many generic characters - from the father stuck in his ways, dictating how his son should live his life, to the supportive and encouraging teacher (Hayley Atwell, on fine form here). And so many clichéd moments too - the best example being when an emotional Javed is arguing with his angry father and repeatedly waving in front of him the concert tickets he just bought without his knowledge. Three guesses as to what happens next...!
Overall, I didn't completely dislike this movie. I liked the 80s school setting, as that was the period that I was in secondary school, so could relate to that. But it also feels like the kind of movie drama that they used to make in the 80s too, and I expect more from my cinema experience these days. It also seems to be getting the usual "one of the best movies this year" phrase thrown at it though, something which I think is bandied around a little too freely at the moment. I put it squarely in the same camp as another movie from this year - Wild Rose, another movie that didn't really do it for me - so if you were one of the many people who enjoyed that movie, then Blinded by the Light will be well worth your time.
The movie takes place in Luton during 1987, focusing on Pakistani teenager Javed (Viveik Kalra) as he struggles to find balance and purpose in his life against the backdrop of a Britain that's ruled by Margaret Thatcher and dominated by unemployment, uncertainty and racial tension. His father has very old fashioned views and his expectations for Javed begin to conflict with his own. Tensions within the family increase when his father is made redundant from the Vauxhall factory he has worked at for many years and Javed's dreams of becoming a writer don't really sit well with his father in terms of being a worthwhile career route. Javed begins sixth form college where his eyes are soon opened to a much bigger world, full of potential. And full of girls!
Everything comes to a head for Javed on the night of the famous UK storm of 1987. We see the infamous Michael Fish weather forecast on TV and a frustrated Javed, having dumped all of his poems outside in the bin, returning to his room and plugging into his Walkman the Bruce Springsteen cassette borrowed from his friend Roops. The song lyrics immediately click and resonate with Javed and we see them flashing up on the screen as he listens, swirling around his head or flashing up on walls. At the same time we see him remembering earlier scenes from the movie, elements of his life with which connect him with the message within the music, in a kind of low-key 80s music video style. It gives the impression of a major turning point in the movie, and the kind of uplifting musical direction in which the movie is heading. In a way, it kind of is, particularly with regard to Javed's 'awakening'. However, in terms of the musical sequences beyond this one, they're more along the lines of random singing and dancing at school or out on the town. It's more awkward and confusing than uplifting and enjoyable.
Blinded by the Light felt like the combination of a number movies I've seen before, with nothing really elevating it beyond those in terms of originality. So many generic characters - from the father stuck in his ways, dictating how his son should live his life, to the supportive and encouraging teacher (Hayley Atwell, on fine form here). And so many clichéd moments too - the best example being when an emotional Javed is arguing with his angry father and repeatedly waving in front of him the concert tickets he just bought without his knowledge. Three guesses as to what happens next...!
Overall, I didn't completely dislike this movie. I liked the 80s school setting, as that was the period that I was in secondary school, so could relate to that. But it also feels like the kind of movie drama that they used to make in the 80s too, and I expect more from my cinema experience these days. It also seems to be getting the usual "one of the best movies this year" phrase thrown at it though, something which I think is bandied around a little too freely at the moment. I put it squarely in the same camp as another movie from this year - Wild Rose, another movie that didn't really do it for me - so if you were one of the many people who enjoyed that movie, then Blinded by the Light will be well worth your time.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Crazy Rich Asians (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Singapore Bling.
I’ve been catching up on films that I missed at the cinema during 2018. And this is one of the ones I most wanted to see but missed due to work commitments.
The Plot.
Rachel (Constance Wu) and Nick (Henry Golding) are young New Yorker professionals in love: Rachel is a successful economics professor and Nick… well, I’m not sure we ever find out what Nick ever does for a job, but his dress and confidence imply he’s doing well. Nick has an announcement: that his best friend Colin (Chris Pang) is getting married in Singapore and he invites Rachel to join him and meet his parents.
The trip discloses something previously hidden to Rachel: that Nick is actually heir to one of the richest families in Singapore. Indeed, as they got their money from property, the family effectively BUILT Singapore! But once in Singapore, life becomes hard for Rachel. She has to deal with the “not good enough for my Nick” disapproval of Nick’s family (led by Nick’s mother, the imperious Eleanor (Michelle Yeoh). Not only that, but thanks to Nick’s eligible-batchelor status and the pervasive nature of social media, everyone in Singapore knows about Nick and Rachel. As such, many of the ‘hens’ of Colin’s fiancee Araminta have it in for Rachel. (Araminta is played by Sonoya Mizuno, so memorable in “Ex Machina“).
Layers of rich characters.
This is not your average rom-com. Because here there’s a depth of characters within Nick’s broader family to entertain, each with their own set of quirks and issues. The dynamic of the family matriarch, grandmother (Lisa Lu), with the rest of the family is also fascinating; Friend or foe for Rachel? – it’s often difficult to tell.
Also entertaining is the introduction of Rachel’s old college room-mate Peil Lin Goh (a superbly over-the-top bonkers performance by Awkwafina) and her ‘nouveau-riche’ family. Her father (Ken Jeong) is simply hilarious in a bat-shit crazy sort of way.
But it’s the two engaging leads that impress most, particularly Henry Golding. Prior to this – his debut movie role – he was a Malaysian TV travel reporter! (He of course followed this performance up a month later with his equally impressive role as Blake Lively’s husband in “A Simple Favour“).
As sponsored by the Singapore tourist board.
Much of the action could be lifted from “My Best Friend’s Wedding”, “Meet the Parents” or “Mean Girls”. But it’s all given a refreshing asian facelift with its Singapore setting.
Singapore is one of my favourite cities: safe, clean and vibrant and with drop-dead gorgeous architecture. And I actually saw this movie while flying back out of Singapore itself. As such, I reflected on just what a great promotional flick for the tourist industry it was. From the wedding party at the Gardens by the Bay to the utterly jaw-dropping infinity pool at the “ship-hotel” (the Marina Bay Sands hotel, featured through a stunning fireworks-infused drone shot), all convey the excitement of the place.
A fun feel-good classic.
What’s impressive about the sharp writing is that this is the movie screenplay debut for co-writers Peter Chiarelli and Adele Lim. It’s a movie that makes you occasionally sit up and go ‘wow’. As an example, there’s a quirky ‘social media tsunami’ scene in the first 10 minutes. But the movie then builds with character-development stories that, while not particularly novel, are engagingly well-written and well delivered by the enthusiastic ensemble cast.
The director is John M Chu, whose less-than-stellar CV includes “GI: Joe” and “Now You See Me 2”, but here delivers a breathless momentum that lasts to the final scene.
The perfect wife and the perfect husband? Michael (Pierre Png), the boy who married well (which feels a plot borrowed from “Lost”), with the lovely Astrid (Gemma Chan). (Source: Warner Brothers).
And it’s that denouement that got to me. I don’t tend to get slushy about these sort of romantic comedies. But there’s a “reveal” in the final few minutes of the movie that completely surprised me (even though it should have been obvious!). It actually made me well-up!
It didn’t make a big dent in the awards nominations. But for fans of quirky romantic comedies it’s a recommended watch. It’s really difficult to dislike!
The Plot.
Rachel (Constance Wu) and Nick (Henry Golding) are young New Yorker professionals in love: Rachel is a successful economics professor and Nick… well, I’m not sure we ever find out what Nick ever does for a job, but his dress and confidence imply he’s doing well. Nick has an announcement: that his best friend Colin (Chris Pang) is getting married in Singapore and he invites Rachel to join him and meet his parents.
The trip discloses something previously hidden to Rachel: that Nick is actually heir to one of the richest families in Singapore. Indeed, as they got their money from property, the family effectively BUILT Singapore! But once in Singapore, life becomes hard for Rachel. She has to deal with the “not good enough for my Nick” disapproval of Nick’s family (led by Nick’s mother, the imperious Eleanor (Michelle Yeoh). Not only that, but thanks to Nick’s eligible-batchelor status and the pervasive nature of social media, everyone in Singapore knows about Nick and Rachel. As such, many of the ‘hens’ of Colin’s fiancee Araminta have it in for Rachel. (Araminta is played by Sonoya Mizuno, so memorable in “Ex Machina“).
Layers of rich characters.
This is not your average rom-com. Because here there’s a depth of characters within Nick’s broader family to entertain, each with their own set of quirks and issues. The dynamic of the family matriarch, grandmother (Lisa Lu), with the rest of the family is also fascinating; Friend or foe for Rachel? – it’s often difficult to tell.
Also entertaining is the introduction of Rachel’s old college room-mate Peil Lin Goh (a superbly over-the-top bonkers performance by Awkwafina) and her ‘nouveau-riche’ family. Her father (Ken Jeong) is simply hilarious in a bat-shit crazy sort of way.
But it’s the two engaging leads that impress most, particularly Henry Golding. Prior to this – his debut movie role – he was a Malaysian TV travel reporter! (He of course followed this performance up a month later with his equally impressive role as Blake Lively’s husband in “A Simple Favour“).
As sponsored by the Singapore tourist board.
Much of the action could be lifted from “My Best Friend’s Wedding”, “Meet the Parents” or “Mean Girls”. But it’s all given a refreshing asian facelift with its Singapore setting.
Singapore is one of my favourite cities: safe, clean and vibrant and with drop-dead gorgeous architecture. And I actually saw this movie while flying back out of Singapore itself. As such, I reflected on just what a great promotional flick for the tourist industry it was. From the wedding party at the Gardens by the Bay to the utterly jaw-dropping infinity pool at the “ship-hotel” (the Marina Bay Sands hotel, featured through a stunning fireworks-infused drone shot), all convey the excitement of the place.
A fun feel-good classic.
What’s impressive about the sharp writing is that this is the movie screenplay debut for co-writers Peter Chiarelli and Adele Lim. It’s a movie that makes you occasionally sit up and go ‘wow’. As an example, there’s a quirky ‘social media tsunami’ scene in the first 10 minutes. But the movie then builds with character-development stories that, while not particularly novel, are engagingly well-written and well delivered by the enthusiastic ensemble cast.
The director is John M Chu, whose less-than-stellar CV includes “GI: Joe” and “Now You See Me 2”, but here delivers a breathless momentum that lasts to the final scene.
The perfect wife and the perfect husband? Michael (Pierre Png), the boy who married well (which feels a plot borrowed from “Lost”), with the lovely Astrid (Gemma Chan). (Source: Warner Brothers).
And it’s that denouement that got to me. I don’t tend to get slushy about these sort of romantic comedies. But there’s a “reveal” in the final few minutes of the movie that completely surprised me (even though it should have been obvious!). It actually made me well-up!
It didn’t make a big dent in the awards nominations. But for fans of quirky romantic comedies it’s a recommended watch. It’s really difficult to dislike!
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Bridget Jones's Baby (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Come the F*** on Bridget… who’s the Daddy?
The world’s favourite lonely-hearts diarist is back. Bridget (Renée Zellweger) once again starts the film ‘all by herself’, haunted by occasional meetings with ex-flame Mark D’Arcy (Colin Firth) – now married to Camilla (Agni Scott) – and facing the natural discomfort of the early funeral of another friend who has died way too young. And at 43, Bridget’s biological clock is also ticking towards parental midnight.
Proving that enormous ditzyness and lack of talent need not be an impediment to a successful career, Bridget is now a top TV floor manager on a cable news station, anchored by friend Miranda (an excellent Sarah Solemani). In an effort to shake Bridget out of her malaise, Miranda takes her to a music festival (featuring some fun cameos!) where she has a one-night-stand with the delectable (speaking at least for all the women in my audience) Jack (Patrick Dempsey). Following another one-night-stand with D’Arcy and finding herself pregnant, a comedy of farce follows with one expectant mother and two prospective fathers competing for Bridget’s affections.
OK. So it’s not bloody Shakespeare. But it is an extremely well-crafted comedy, and as a British rom-com it significantly out-does many of the efforts of the rom-com king – Richard Curtis – in recent years. As a series its just amazing how many of the original cast have been reunited after 2004’s rather lacklustre “Bridget Jones: Edge of Reason”. Particularly effective are Bridget’s parents, played by the delectably Tory Gemma Jones and the ever-perfect Jim Broadbent. And Bridget’s trio of irreverent friends: Shazzer (Sally Phillips), Jude (Shirley Henderson) and Tom (James Callis) are all back. All are either well into parenthood or have impending parenthood, adding to the pressure on Bridget’s aching ovaries.
New to the cast, and brilliant in every scene she’s in, is the ever-radiant Emma Thompson as Bridget’s doctor. Is there any actress in the movies today that can deliver a comic line better-timed than Thompson? I doubt it. Just superb. And Thompson also co-wrote the screenplay, together with Bridget author Helen Fielding and – an unlikely contributor – Ali G collaborator Dan Mazer. All contribute to a sizzling script – not based on Fielding’s poorly received story – that zips along and makes the 123 minute run-time fly by. My one reservation would be – despite the film being set in the current day – lapses into internet memes like Hitler Cats and song crazes that are at least five years out of date. But I forgive that for the Colin Firth ‘Gangnam’ line, for me the funniest in the whole film.
Zellweger looks fantastic, pulling off the 4 year age difference from her character with ease. And isn’t it wonderful to see a middle-aged character as the centre of a rom-com for once? Hollywood would be well to remember that romance is not restricted to the 20-somethings. Certainly the packed cinema – filled with probably 90% (well oiled) women – certainly thought so, in what was a raucous and entertaining showing!
The music is superbly supported by an epic soundtrack of well-chosen tracks from Ellie Goulding, Years and Years, Jess Glynne, Lily Allen (with very funny adult content!) and classic oldies, all wrappered with nice themes by the brilliant and underrated Craig “Love Actually” Armstrong.
Sharon Maguire – the director of the original “Diary” – has delivered here a fun, absorbing and enormously entertaining piece of fluff that deserves to do well. And it has in the UK, making $11M in its opening weekend here and playing to packed showings. However – incomprehensibly – it has bombed in the US with only $8M coming in. Hopefully it might prove a bit of a sleeper hit there: come on America… we go to see all of the rubbish rom-coms you send over here, and this is way better than most of those!
This was a film I was determined to be sniffy about with my rating. But as a) I enjoyed it very much and b) a packed audience of women can’t be wrong…
Proving that enormous ditzyness and lack of talent need not be an impediment to a successful career, Bridget is now a top TV floor manager on a cable news station, anchored by friend Miranda (an excellent Sarah Solemani). In an effort to shake Bridget out of her malaise, Miranda takes her to a music festival (featuring some fun cameos!) where she has a one-night-stand with the delectable (speaking at least for all the women in my audience) Jack (Patrick Dempsey). Following another one-night-stand with D’Arcy and finding herself pregnant, a comedy of farce follows with one expectant mother and two prospective fathers competing for Bridget’s affections.
OK. So it’s not bloody Shakespeare. But it is an extremely well-crafted comedy, and as a British rom-com it significantly out-does many of the efforts of the rom-com king – Richard Curtis – in recent years. As a series its just amazing how many of the original cast have been reunited after 2004’s rather lacklustre “Bridget Jones: Edge of Reason”. Particularly effective are Bridget’s parents, played by the delectably Tory Gemma Jones and the ever-perfect Jim Broadbent. And Bridget’s trio of irreverent friends: Shazzer (Sally Phillips), Jude (Shirley Henderson) and Tom (James Callis) are all back. All are either well into parenthood or have impending parenthood, adding to the pressure on Bridget’s aching ovaries.
New to the cast, and brilliant in every scene she’s in, is the ever-radiant Emma Thompson as Bridget’s doctor. Is there any actress in the movies today that can deliver a comic line better-timed than Thompson? I doubt it. Just superb. And Thompson also co-wrote the screenplay, together with Bridget author Helen Fielding and – an unlikely contributor – Ali G collaborator Dan Mazer. All contribute to a sizzling script – not based on Fielding’s poorly received story – that zips along and makes the 123 minute run-time fly by. My one reservation would be – despite the film being set in the current day – lapses into internet memes like Hitler Cats and song crazes that are at least five years out of date. But I forgive that for the Colin Firth ‘Gangnam’ line, for me the funniest in the whole film.
Zellweger looks fantastic, pulling off the 4 year age difference from her character with ease. And isn’t it wonderful to see a middle-aged character as the centre of a rom-com for once? Hollywood would be well to remember that romance is not restricted to the 20-somethings. Certainly the packed cinema – filled with probably 90% (well oiled) women – certainly thought so, in what was a raucous and entertaining showing!
The music is superbly supported by an epic soundtrack of well-chosen tracks from Ellie Goulding, Years and Years, Jess Glynne, Lily Allen (with very funny adult content!) and classic oldies, all wrappered with nice themes by the brilliant and underrated Craig “Love Actually” Armstrong.
Sharon Maguire – the director of the original “Diary” – has delivered here a fun, absorbing and enormously entertaining piece of fluff that deserves to do well. And it has in the UK, making $11M in its opening weekend here and playing to packed showings. However – incomprehensibly – it has bombed in the US with only $8M coming in. Hopefully it might prove a bit of a sleeper hit there: come on America… we go to see all of the rubbish rom-coms you send over here, and this is way better than most of those!
This was a film I was determined to be sniffy about with my rating. But as a) I enjoyed it very much and b) a packed audience of women can’t be wrong…
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Viceroy's House (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
The 80:20 Rule.
India, 1947. Churchill’s government has sent Lord Grantham – – sorry — Lord Louis Mountbatten of Burma (Hugh Bonneville, “The Monuments Men“) as the new Viceroy. His mission is to make sure he is the last ever Viceroy, for India is to be returned to independence. But racial tensions between the Hindu and minority Muslim populations are brittle and deteriorating fast. Can India survive as a single country, or will Mountbatten be forced to partition the country along religious lines to avoid civil-war and countless deaths?
Of course, there is little tension in this plot line since we know Pakistan was indeed founded by Muhammad Ali Jinnah (played by Denzil Smith) on August 14th 1947. (In reality, Jinnah’s victory was short lived as he died of TB the following year). The rest of India went on to be ruled by Jawaharlal Nehru (played by Tanveer Ghani). What the film does remind this generation of is the extreme cost of that partition, with riots, mass abductions and rapes, over a million estimated deaths and one of the biggest migrations of populations ever seen. (All of this is largely shown through original newsreel footage, which is effectively inter-weaved with the film).
So as an educational documentary it is useful. However, as an entertaining movie night out? Not so much. After coming out of the film we needed to buy some milk at Tesco and I was put on the spot by the checkout lady to sum-up the film: “Worthy but dull” was what I came up with, which with further time to reflect still seems a good summary.
This shouldn’t have been the case, since the film is directed by the well-respected Gurinder Chadha (“Bend it like Beckham) and boasts a stellar cast, with Bonneville supported by Gillian Anderson (“The X Files”) as Lady Mountbatten; Michael Gambon (“Harry Potter”) as General Ismay (Mountbatten’s chief of staff); Simon Callow (“Four Weddings and a Funeral”) as Radcliffe (the drawer of ‘the new map’); and Om Puri (“The Hundred Foot Journey“) as former political prisoner Ali Rahim Noor. Playing Mountbatten’s daughter is Lily Travers (“Kingsman: The Secret Service“): Virginia McKenna’s granddaughter.
But unfortunately, for me at least, the film lumbers from scene to scene, seldom engaging with me. Bonneville’s Mountbatten, whilst perfectly sound, was just a re-tread of Downton with added humidity and curry; Anderson’s (probably extremely accurate) crystal-glass English accent quickly becomes tiresome; and elsewhere a lot of the acting of the broader Indian cast is, I’m sorry to comment, rather sub-par. For me, only Om Puri, who sadly died in January, delivers an effective and moving performance as the blind father (literally) unable to see that the arranged marriage for his daughter Aalia (Huma Qureshi) is heading for trouble thanks to Mountbatten’s man-servant. And no, that isn’t a euphemism…. I’m talking about his real manservant, Jeet Kumar (Manish Dayal)!!
As an aside, the late Puri (probably most famous in western cinema for “East is East”) has made over 270 feature films in his prolific career, over and above his many appearances on Indian TV. And he still has another 6 films to be released! May he rest in peace.
Probably realising that the historical plot is not enough to sustain the film, the screenwriters Paul Mayeda Berges (“Bend it like Beckham”), Moira Buffini (“Tamara Drewe”) and Gurinder Chadha try to add more substance with the illicit romance between the Hindu Jeet and the Muslim Aalia. Unfortunately this is clunky at best, with an incessant 30 minutes-worth of longing looks before anything of substance happens. Even the “Lion“-style denouement (also with a railway train connection) is unconvincing.
After that, the film just tends to peter out, with a ‘real-life photograph’ segue delivering a rather tenuous connection between a character not even featured in the film and the director!
Mrs. Chadha has clearly corralled an army of extras to deliver some of the scenes in the film, in the hope of delivering a historical epic of the scale of Attenborough’s “Gandhi”. For me, she misses by a considerable margin. But that’s just my view….. if you like historical dramas, its a film you might enjoy: as the great man himself said “Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress”.
Of course, there is little tension in this plot line since we know Pakistan was indeed founded by Muhammad Ali Jinnah (played by Denzil Smith) on August 14th 1947. (In reality, Jinnah’s victory was short lived as he died of TB the following year). The rest of India went on to be ruled by Jawaharlal Nehru (played by Tanveer Ghani). What the film does remind this generation of is the extreme cost of that partition, with riots, mass abductions and rapes, over a million estimated deaths and one of the biggest migrations of populations ever seen. (All of this is largely shown through original newsreel footage, which is effectively inter-weaved with the film).
So as an educational documentary it is useful. However, as an entertaining movie night out? Not so much. After coming out of the film we needed to buy some milk at Tesco and I was put on the spot by the checkout lady to sum-up the film: “Worthy but dull” was what I came up with, which with further time to reflect still seems a good summary.
This shouldn’t have been the case, since the film is directed by the well-respected Gurinder Chadha (“Bend it like Beckham) and boasts a stellar cast, with Bonneville supported by Gillian Anderson (“The X Files”) as Lady Mountbatten; Michael Gambon (“Harry Potter”) as General Ismay (Mountbatten’s chief of staff); Simon Callow (“Four Weddings and a Funeral”) as Radcliffe (the drawer of ‘the new map’); and Om Puri (“The Hundred Foot Journey“) as former political prisoner Ali Rahim Noor. Playing Mountbatten’s daughter is Lily Travers (“Kingsman: The Secret Service“): Virginia McKenna’s granddaughter.
But unfortunately, for me at least, the film lumbers from scene to scene, seldom engaging with me. Bonneville’s Mountbatten, whilst perfectly sound, was just a re-tread of Downton with added humidity and curry; Anderson’s (probably extremely accurate) crystal-glass English accent quickly becomes tiresome; and elsewhere a lot of the acting of the broader Indian cast is, I’m sorry to comment, rather sub-par. For me, only Om Puri, who sadly died in January, delivers an effective and moving performance as the blind father (literally) unable to see that the arranged marriage for his daughter Aalia (Huma Qureshi) is heading for trouble thanks to Mountbatten’s man-servant. And no, that isn’t a euphemism…. I’m talking about his real manservant, Jeet Kumar (Manish Dayal)!!
As an aside, the late Puri (probably most famous in western cinema for “East is East”) has made over 270 feature films in his prolific career, over and above his many appearances on Indian TV. And he still has another 6 films to be released! May he rest in peace.
Probably realising that the historical plot is not enough to sustain the film, the screenwriters Paul Mayeda Berges (“Bend it like Beckham”), Moira Buffini (“Tamara Drewe”) and Gurinder Chadha try to add more substance with the illicit romance between the Hindu Jeet and the Muslim Aalia. Unfortunately this is clunky at best, with an incessant 30 minutes-worth of longing looks before anything of substance happens. Even the “Lion“-style denouement (also with a railway train connection) is unconvincing.
After that, the film just tends to peter out, with a ‘real-life photograph’ segue delivering a rather tenuous connection between a character not even featured in the film and the director!
Mrs. Chadha has clearly corralled an army of extras to deliver some of the scenes in the film, in the hope of delivering a historical epic of the scale of Attenborough’s “Gandhi”. For me, she misses by a considerable margin. But that’s just my view….. if you like historical dramas, its a film you might enjoy: as the great man himself said “Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress”.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Jackie (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Spoiler! Her husband gets shot.
“Jackie” tells the story of the spiralling grief, loss and anger of Jackie Kennedy driven by the assassination of JFK in Dallas in November 1963. Hopping backwards and forwards in flashback, the film centres on the first interview given by Jackie (Natalie Portman, “Black Swan”) to a ‘Time’ journalist (Billy Crudup, “Watchmen”, “Spotlight”).
Through this interview we flashback to see Jackie as the young First Lady engaged in recording a TV special for a tour of the White House: nervous, unsure of herself and with a ‘baby girl’ voice. This contrasts with her demeanour in the interview which – although subject to emotional outburst and grief – is assured, confident and above all extremely assertive. We live the film through Jackie’s eyes as she experiences the arrival in Dallas, the traumatic events of November 22nd in Dealey Plaza, the return home to Washington and the complicated arrangement of the President’s funeral.
This is an acting tour de force for Natalie Portman, who is astonishingly emotional as the grief-stricken ex-first lady. She nails this role utterly and completely. Having already won the Golden Globe for an actress in a dramatic role, you would be a foolish man to bet against her not taking the Oscar. (I know I said just the other week that I though Emma Stone should get it for “La La Land” – as another Golden Globe winner, for the Comedy/Musical category – and a large part of my heart would still really like to see Stone win it…. But excellent as that performance was, this is a far more challenging role.)
In a key supporting role is Peter Sarsgaard (“The Magnificent Seven”) as Bobby Kennedy (although his lookalike is not one of the best: that accolade I would give to Gaspard Koenig, in an un-speaking role, as the young Ted Kennedy).
Also providing interesting support as Jackie’s priest is John Hurt (“Alien”, “Dr Who”) and, as Jackie’s close friend, the artist Bill Walton, is Richard E Grant (“Withnail and I”, who as he grows older is looking more and more like Geoffrey Rush – I was sure it was him!).
Director Pablo Larraín (whose previous work I am not familiar with) automatically assumes that EVERYONE has the background history to understand the narrative without further explanation: perhaps as this happened 54 years ago, this is a bit of a presumption for younger viewers? Naturally for people of my advanced years, these events are as burned into our collective psyches as the images in the Zapruder film.
While the film focuses predominantly, and brilliantly, on Jackie’s mental state, the film does gently question (via an outburst from Bobby) as to what JFK actually achieved in his all too short presidency – ‘Will he be remembered for resolving the Cuban missile crisis: something he originally created?’ rants Bobby. In reality, JFK is remembered in history for this assassination and the lost potential for what he might have done. I would have liked the script to have delved a little bit further into that collective soul-searching.
This is a very sombre movie in tone, from the bleak opening, with a soundtrack of sonorous strings, to the bleak weather-swept scenes at Arlington cemetery. The cinematography (by Stéphane Fontaine, “Rust and Bone”) cleverly contrasts between the vibrant hues of Jackie’s “Camelot” to the washed-out blueish tones of the post-assassination events. If you don’t feel depressed going into this film, you probably will be coming out! But the journey is a satisfying one nonetheless, and the script by Noah Oppenheim – in a SIGNIFICANT departure from his previous teen-flick screenplays for “Allegiant” and “The Maze Runner” – is both tight and thought-provoking.
Overall, a recommended watch which comes with a prediction: “And the Oscar goes to… Natalie Portman”.
Finally, note that for those of a squeamish disposition, there is a very graphic depiction of the assassination from Jackie’s point-of-view…. but this is not until nearly the end of the film, so you are reasonably safe until then!
Also as a final general whinge, could directors PLEASE place an embargo on the logos of more than two production companies coming up at the start of a film? This has about six of them and is farcical, aping the (very amusing) parody in “Family Guy” (as shown here).
Through this interview we flashback to see Jackie as the young First Lady engaged in recording a TV special for a tour of the White House: nervous, unsure of herself and with a ‘baby girl’ voice. This contrasts with her demeanour in the interview which – although subject to emotional outburst and grief – is assured, confident and above all extremely assertive. We live the film through Jackie’s eyes as she experiences the arrival in Dallas, the traumatic events of November 22nd in Dealey Plaza, the return home to Washington and the complicated arrangement of the President’s funeral.
This is an acting tour de force for Natalie Portman, who is astonishingly emotional as the grief-stricken ex-first lady. She nails this role utterly and completely. Having already won the Golden Globe for an actress in a dramatic role, you would be a foolish man to bet against her not taking the Oscar. (I know I said just the other week that I though Emma Stone should get it for “La La Land” – as another Golden Globe winner, for the Comedy/Musical category – and a large part of my heart would still really like to see Stone win it…. But excellent as that performance was, this is a far more challenging role.)
In a key supporting role is Peter Sarsgaard (“The Magnificent Seven”) as Bobby Kennedy (although his lookalike is not one of the best: that accolade I would give to Gaspard Koenig, in an un-speaking role, as the young Ted Kennedy).
Also providing interesting support as Jackie’s priest is John Hurt (“Alien”, “Dr Who”) and, as Jackie’s close friend, the artist Bill Walton, is Richard E Grant (“Withnail and I”, who as he grows older is looking more and more like Geoffrey Rush – I was sure it was him!).
Director Pablo Larraín (whose previous work I am not familiar with) automatically assumes that EVERYONE has the background history to understand the narrative without further explanation: perhaps as this happened 54 years ago, this is a bit of a presumption for younger viewers? Naturally for people of my advanced years, these events are as burned into our collective psyches as the images in the Zapruder film.
While the film focuses predominantly, and brilliantly, on Jackie’s mental state, the film does gently question (via an outburst from Bobby) as to what JFK actually achieved in his all too short presidency – ‘Will he be remembered for resolving the Cuban missile crisis: something he originally created?’ rants Bobby. In reality, JFK is remembered in history for this assassination and the lost potential for what he might have done. I would have liked the script to have delved a little bit further into that collective soul-searching.
This is a very sombre movie in tone, from the bleak opening, with a soundtrack of sonorous strings, to the bleak weather-swept scenes at Arlington cemetery. The cinematography (by Stéphane Fontaine, “Rust and Bone”) cleverly contrasts between the vibrant hues of Jackie’s “Camelot” to the washed-out blueish tones of the post-assassination events. If you don’t feel depressed going into this film, you probably will be coming out! But the journey is a satisfying one nonetheless, and the script by Noah Oppenheim – in a SIGNIFICANT departure from his previous teen-flick screenplays for “Allegiant” and “The Maze Runner” – is both tight and thought-provoking.
Overall, a recommended watch which comes with a prediction: “And the Oscar goes to… Natalie Portman”.
Finally, note that for those of a squeamish disposition, there is a very graphic depiction of the assassination from Jackie’s point-of-view…. but this is not until nearly the end of the film, so you are reasonably safe until then!
Also as a final general whinge, could directors PLEASE place an embargo on the logos of more than two production companies coming up at the start of a film? This has about six of them and is farcical, aping the (very amusing) parody in “Family Guy” (as shown here).
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Jurassic World: Dominion (2022) in Movies
Jun 10, 2022
Time For This To Go Extinct
Like it was millions of years ago, the time of the dinosaurs is coming to a close. With JURASSIC WORLD DOMINION, we end the Jurassic World trilogy (after having the Jurassic Park trilogy) and it is high time we do so.
A retro-film (as I’ve been calling these nostalgia-flicks that bring back old actors/characters from previously beloved properties), JURARSSIC WORLD DOMINION is entertaining enough - but the creative brains behind this franchise is just running out of clever ways to put the same group of characters in danger of being eaten by a dinosaur.
Written by Emily Carmichael based on a story by Derek Connolly and Colin Trevorrow and Directed by Trevorrow (returning to helm this franchise after Directing the first Jurassic World flick, but not the 2nd), JURASSIC WORLD DOMINION follows our favorite bickering couple, Clare (Bryce Dallas Howard) and Owen (Chris Pratt) and their pseudo-pet Velociraptor, Blue as they, once again, go into the Jurassic World fighting a money-grubbing Corporate Billionaire who wants the genetic technology for his own, greedy purposes and not what might be for the good of all - the Earth, the Humans and the Dinosaurs. Along the way good ol’ Alan Grant (Sam Neill), Ellie Sattler (Laura Dern) and Dr. Ian Malcolm (the always quirky Jeff Goldblum) are, somehow, shoe-horned into this story.
And that, ultimately, is the issue with Dominion, the script feels like an amalgam of characters that needed to be serviced and set-pieces that needed to be shown, but the overall story-line and character development (not that there is much here) is shoved to the side, so at the end the emotional connection to this film - and it’s characters - is negligible.
What little character interest there is here is based solely on the charisma of the actors and they are…good enough. Pratt, of course, is able to carry the center of this flick as Owen Grady - but he doesn’t seem to be occupying the center square with the twinkle in his eye that he had in the first Jurassic World film. Bryce Dallas Howard is plucky enough as Clare, but this actress has been gaining traction lately as a “go-to” Director (like her father, Ron Howard) and that is probably a better career trajectory for her. Sam Neill and Laura Dern are “game enough” in what they are asked to do, but they both look just a bit tired of running around in front of green screen dinosaurs. Only Jeff Goldblum shines as Ian Malcolm and that’s because Trevorrow, wisely, decides to let Goldblum be Goldblum - odd and quirky.
Of the other actors in this film, DeWanda Wise (FATHERHOOD) really shines as a pilot who helps out the gang. On the other hand, Dichen Lachman (SEVERENCE) is completely wasted as a “top-notch” henchman that is pretty inept. However, it was good to see Omar Sy (who was in the first JURASSIC WORLD movie and then became a star thanks to his work on the French TV show LUPINE - which is terrific, by the way) back in the fold as it was good to see Campbell Scott back up on the big screen as the villain of the piece - a role that he brings an interesting twist to but, ultimately, the role leads to nowhere.
And that’s the issue with this film, the characterizations lead to nowhere, for Trevorrow focuses most of his attention on the battle scenes and the scares - and while not all of them are exciting and unusual, I did find myself jumping in my seat on more than one occasion and there is one scene with Bryce Dallas Howard escaping a dino in a swamp that was pretty intense.
Go see JURASSIC WORLD DOMINION if you’ve seen the other 5 - you’ve already invested this much time, you might as well complete the series. But, this film really brings nothing new and is, ultimately, less than what one hopes for in this type of film.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
A retro-film (as I’ve been calling these nostalgia-flicks that bring back old actors/characters from previously beloved properties), JURARSSIC WORLD DOMINION is entertaining enough - but the creative brains behind this franchise is just running out of clever ways to put the same group of characters in danger of being eaten by a dinosaur.
Written by Emily Carmichael based on a story by Derek Connolly and Colin Trevorrow and Directed by Trevorrow (returning to helm this franchise after Directing the first Jurassic World flick, but not the 2nd), JURASSIC WORLD DOMINION follows our favorite bickering couple, Clare (Bryce Dallas Howard) and Owen (Chris Pratt) and their pseudo-pet Velociraptor, Blue as they, once again, go into the Jurassic World fighting a money-grubbing Corporate Billionaire who wants the genetic technology for his own, greedy purposes and not what might be for the good of all - the Earth, the Humans and the Dinosaurs. Along the way good ol’ Alan Grant (Sam Neill), Ellie Sattler (Laura Dern) and Dr. Ian Malcolm (the always quirky Jeff Goldblum) are, somehow, shoe-horned into this story.
And that, ultimately, is the issue with Dominion, the script feels like an amalgam of characters that needed to be serviced and set-pieces that needed to be shown, but the overall story-line and character development (not that there is much here) is shoved to the side, so at the end the emotional connection to this film - and it’s characters - is negligible.
What little character interest there is here is based solely on the charisma of the actors and they are…good enough. Pratt, of course, is able to carry the center of this flick as Owen Grady - but he doesn’t seem to be occupying the center square with the twinkle in his eye that he had in the first Jurassic World film. Bryce Dallas Howard is plucky enough as Clare, but this actress has been gaining traction lately as a “go-to” Director (like her father, Ron Howard) and that is probably a better career trajectory for her. Sam Neill and Laura Dern are “game enough” in what they are asked to do, but they both look just a bit tired of running around in front of green screen dinosaurs. Only Jeff Goldblum shines as Ian Malcolm and that’s because Trevorrow, wisely, decides to let Goldblum be Goldblum - odd and quirky.
Of the other actors in this film, DeWanda Wise (FATHERHOOD) really shines as a pilot who helps out the gang. On the other hand, Dichen Lachman (SEVERENCE) is completely wasted as a “top-notch” henchman that is pretty inept. However, it was good to see Omar Sy (who was in the first JURASSIC WORLD movie and then became a star thanks to his work on the French TV show LUPINE - which is terrific, by the way) back in the fold as it was good to see Campbell Scott back up on the big screen as the villain of the piece - a role that he brings an interesting twist to but, ultimately, the role leads to nowhere.
And that’s the issue with this film, the characterizations lead to nowhere, for Trevorrow focuses most of his attention on the battle scenes and the scares - and while not all of them are exciting and unusual, I did find myself jumping in my seat on more than one occasion and there is one scene with Bryce Dallas Howard escaping a dino in a swamp that was pretty intense.
Go see JURASSIC WORLD DOMINION if you’ve seen the other 5 - you’ve already invested this much time, you might as well complete the series. But, this film really brings nothing new and is, ultimately, less than what one hopes for in this type of film.
Letter Grade: B-
6 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
theVman (16 KP) rated Twin Peaks - Season 3 in TV
May 22, 2017
The Cast (1 more)
The new mysterys
Lack of the familar Twin Peaks stuff (2 more)
The way the story unfolds
Very Slow
The first four episodes
Twin Peaks: The Return
*** Ive tried to write this as spoiler free as i can, you may find some in here but nothing that i think would ruin watching the show for you ***
I don’t think it will come to anyones surprise to say that the first four episodes of Twin Peaks return are strange. But maybe not in the way that we know and love.
I found these first four episodes difficult to enjoy not because they were bad, but because it was not what I was expecting at all. I wanted the key things that I love about Twin Peaks to be there, the returning characters, the iconic score by Angleo Badalamenti, the quirky weirdness grounded by soap opera like stories. I wanted the dark seriousness of murder, lust and money, beautifully intertwined with the ridiculousness of silent drape runners, saving the pine weasel and miss twin peaks contests.Unfortunately I found very little of any of what I wanted.
Yes Cooper is back or more accurately Kyle Maclachlan is back but has yet to act or sound anything like Special Agent Dale Cooper at all, the story calling for him to play a very lifeless rendition of his former glory. Other familiar faces have shown up along the way, but not very many and for not very long at all.
What we have is something very Lynchian, long drawn out scenes, especially in The Black Lodge that after extended moments of a droning humming score and lot of not a lot going on in slow motion followed by more not a lot going on but this time with a white horse or a talking lump of flesh on a leafless tree in the picture, it starts to feel like a lot of weird stuff just for sheer sake of being weird.
Fans of the previous seasons of Twin Peaks might be left wondering what is going on with the stories that were left open, is Leo still holding that rope in his mouth, what happened after the explosion in the bank vault, and what the hell has happened to Annie – well you wont find any of these answers here. Instead we are given a whole bunch of new characters, who’s stories we are still trying to figure out and how they are related to the events of Twin Peaks, which is a made into a bigger and more confusing mystery seeing as none of them actually take place in Twin Peaks at all. In fact, the most recognisable place in the first few hours is The Black Lodge, which features extensively in the first two episodes before “Cooper” bizarrely ends up in Las Vegas. Also knocking us out of our comfort zone and driving home the fact that this is not the same kind of Twin Peaks show we are used to, are the occasional F bombs being dropped and the coy sexiness that flowed through the show has been replaced with plain nudity.
We have been given vision that is pure David Lynch. He produces some fantastical imagery and some unnerving editing that is like watching Eraserhead, Lost Highway and Fire Walk With Me all at the same time on the same screen. As a piece of art it has its place amongst Lynch fans, but as a piece of entertainment for prime time television, it missed the mark for me, and as a return to Twin Peaks, it should be ashamed of itself, as apart from 30 seconds or so in episode 4 where here the familiar twangs of the original score, I didn’t feel like there was any return to that great tv show from the early 90s. There is the odd nugget of new that will keep me watching, Naomi Watts and Matthew Lillard have joined the team in what promises to be entertaining roles, there is a glass box that is being kept in some kind of secret bunker under constant video monitoring that seems to have something to do with The Black Lodge, the log lady is getting message from her log again, a body that doesn’t belong to its head and we are still hanging out at the Bang Bang Bar with Bobby, Shelley and James even if it was for far too brief at time.
Overall: It didn’t deliver on its promise, or give me what I wanted, but there is still a lot more episodes to come. I cant think of another show that would get away with such a slow build or lack of deliverance than the new third season of Twin Peaks.
*** Ive tried to write this as spoiler free as i can, you may find some in here but nothing that i think would ruin watching the show for you ***
I don’t think it will come to anyones surprise to say that the first four episodes of Twin Peaks return are strange. But maybe not in the way that we know and love.
I found these first four episodes difficult to enjoy not because they were bad, but because it was not what I was expecting at all. I wanted the key things that I love about Twin Peaks to be there, the returning characters, the iconic score by Angleo Badalamenti, the quirky weirdness grounded by soap opera like stories. I wanted the dark seriousness of murder, lust and money, beautifully intertwined with the ridiculousness of silent drape runners, saving the pine weasel and miss twin peaks contests.Unfortunately I found very little of any of what I wanted.
Yes Cooper is back or more accurately Kyle Maclachlan is back but has yet to act or sound anything like Special Agent Dale Cooper at all, the story calling for him to play a very lifeless rendition of his former glory. Other familiar faces have shown up along the way, but not very many and for not very long at all.
What we have is something very Lynchian, long drawn out scenes, especially in The Black Lodge that after extended moments of a droning humming score and lot of not a lot going on in slow motion followed by more not a lot going on but this time with a white horse or a talking lump of flesh on a leafless tree in the picture, it starts to feel like a lot of weird stuff just for sheer sake of being weird.
Fans of the previous seasons of Twin Peaks might be left wondering what is going on with the stories that were left open, is Leo still holding that rope in his mouth, what happened after the explosion in the bank vault, and what the hell has happened to Annie – well you wont find any of these answers here. Instead we are given a whole bunch of new characters, who’s stories we are still trying to figure out and how they are related to the events of Twin Peaks, which is a made into a bigger and more confusing mystery seeing as none of them actually take place in Twin Peaks at all. In fact, the most recognisable place in the first few hours is The Black Lodge, which features extensively in the first two episodes before “Cooper” bizarrely ends up in Las Vegas. Also knocking us out of our comfort zone and driving home the fact that this is not the same kind of Twin Peaks show we are used to, are the occasional F bombs being dropped and the coy sexiness that flowed through the show has been replaced with plain nudity.
We have been given vision that is pure David Lynch. He produces some fantastical imagery and some unnerving editing that is like watching Eraserhead, Lost Highway and Fire Walk With Me all at the same time on the same screen. As a piece of art it has its place amongst Lynch fans, but as a piece of entertainment for prime time television, it missed the mark for me, and as a return to Twin Peaks, it should be ashamed of itself, as apart from 30 seconds or so in episode 4 where here the familiar twangs of the original score, I didn’t feel like there was any return to that great tv show from the early 90s. There is the odd nugget of new that will keep me watching, Naomi Watts and Matthew Lillard have joined the team in what promises to be entertaining roles, there is a glass box that is being kept in some kind of secret bunker under constant video monitoring that seems to have something to do with The Black Lodge, the log lady is getting message from her log again, a body that doesn’t belong to its head and we are still hanging out at the Bang Bang Bar with Bobby, Shelley and James even if it was for far too brief at time.
Overall: It didn’t deliver on its promise, or give me what I wanted, but there is still a lot more episodes to come. I cant think of another show that would get away with such a slow build or lack of deliverance than the new third season of Twin Peaks.
Fred (860 KP) rated Most Haunted in TV
Jan 31, 2019
This is still on?
I am writing this review, as I could not believe this show is still airing. Although none of you probably even heard of it, or are of the misfortune to have only seen the newer episodes
When this show started in 2002, I used to download it from the internet & I watched with my friend & my brother. I believe it was the first of these "ghost hunting" shows, or at least it was the first I ever heard of. We watched because it was funny. I think my brother believed in ghosts, but we mainly watched because it was hilarious. The show's "star" Yvette, used to scream at every little thing. She was just an observer at first & seemed skeptical, but was always scared out of her mind. The show's real star was Derek Acorah. Derek was the team's medium, who would talk to the spirits through his personal guide in the afterlife, Sam. Derek would act like Sam was talking to him & Derek would make statements like "Let him in, Sam!" or "Keep him back, Sam!" The show was enjoyable because it seemed like they were really trying to look for ghosts. And I have little doubt that Yvette thought the show was for-real at the beginning. Sometimes they would find something, sometimes not. Derek would almost always find something, even something minor. All mediums do (because they're all fakes), but it was at least entertaining.
A few years into the show, and Yvette starts to get stuck-up. She's no longer the scaredy cat she was. She's now standing up to the ghosts. This is because she knows there are no such things as ghosts. Sure, she still screams here & there, but it's all fake now. "Oh, something touched me!" or "Oh, I heard a knock!" And now, the team finds something every episode (just like all these shows do, because they're full of shit). But you can also tell by this time, she's jealous of Derek & the fact that he's much more popular than she is. And so, she sets up a plot to discredit Derek & out him as a fake, which is easy, because he is a fake. And she knows it, because she's a fake. She does this with other members of the show & Derek leaves the show to be replaced by another fake medium (again, they're all fake). This is when I stopped watching the show. To set someone up, who you know is fake, while you are also fake, is despicable.
Anyway, I see today that the show is on Travel Channel. I put it on & it's an episode from 2007. Derek is not on the show & the replacement fake is on. I watch to see what it's like. Still the same B.S., still fake. Yvette is still fake screaming. The episode is full of the same fake nonsense, like where someone off camera drops something or knocks on something & they react like it was a ghost. There's one difference I notice now though. Yvette is somehow sensitive to the ghosts now. She can feel the energy around her now. Hahahaha! Yeah, okay. Anyway, during the episode, we hear a thumping sound. Yvette mentions "It sounds like a heartbeat." and the other phonies agree.
Then, there's another episode. This one from 2014, 7 years later. Same stuff going on. In fact, at one point, there is a thumping sound. And once again Yvette say "It sounds like a heartbeat." HAHAHA!
But even more fascinating, the show is still on! After that episode aired, they show a new episode that just aired in England a few days ago. And the same crap is still going on.
Now, we have a slew of these shows. Each one ripped this one off & each one lies and fakes just like this one. They all deserve no stars, but I am giving Most Haunted 3, because it was entertaining and watchable thanks to Derek. Yes, watchable until Yvette's head got too big, for being a fake. If you're into the night-vision, everywhere is haunted, fake gadget, noise & voices can only be ghost shows that clutter TV now, you can thank this show for starting it all. Some can be entertaining, but most are just fake science, masquerading as the real thing.
When this show started in 2002, I used to download it from the internet & I watched with my friend & my brother. I believe it was the first of these "ghost hunting" shows, or at least it was the first I ever heard of. We watched because it was funny. I think my brother believed in ghosts, but we mainly watched because it was hilarious. The show's "star" Yvette, used to scream at every little thing. She was just an observer at first & seemed skeptical, but was always scared out of her mind. The show's real star was Derek Acorah. Derek was the team's medium, who would talk to the spirits through his personal guide in the afterlife, Sam. Derek would act like Sam was talking to him & Derek would make statements like "Let him in, Sam!" or "Keep him back, Sam!" The show was enjoyable because it seemed like they were really trying to look for ghosts. And I have little doubt that Yvette thought the show was for-real at the beginning. Sometimes they would find something, sometimes not. Derek would almost always find something, even something minor. All mediums do (because they're all fakes), but it was at least entertaining.
A few years into the show, and Yvette starts to get stuck-up. She's no longer the scaredy cat she was. She's now standing up to the ghosts. This is because she knows there are no such things as ghosts. Sure, she still screams here & there, but it's all fake now. "Oh, something touched me!" or "Oh, I heard a knock!" And now, the team finds something every episode (just like all these shows do, because they're full of shit). But you can also tell by this time, she's jealous of Derek & the fact that he's much more popular than she is. And so, she sets up a plot to discredit Derek & out him as a fake, which is easy, because he is a fake. And she knows it, because she's a fake. She does this with other members of the show & Derek leaves the show to be replaced by another fake medium (again, they're all fake). This is when I stopped watching the show. To set someone up, who you know is fake, while you are also fake, is despicable.
Anyway, I see today that the show is on Travel Channel. I put it on & it's an episode from 2007. Derek is not on the show & the replacement fake is on. I watch to see what it's like. Still the same B.S., still fake. Yvette is still fake screaming. The episode is full of the same fake nonsense, like where someone off camera drops something or knocks on something & they react like it was a ghost. There's one difference I notice now though. Yvette is somehow sensitive to the ghosts now. She can feel the energy around her now. Hahahaha! Yeah, okay. Anyway, during the episode, we hear a thumping sound. Yvette mentions "It sounds like a heartbeat." and the other phonies agree.
Then, there's another episode. This one from 2014, 7 years later. Same stuff going on. In fact, at one point, there is a thumping sound. And once again Yvette say "It sounds like a heartbeat." HAHAHA!
But even more fascinating, the show is still on! After that episode aired, they show a new episode that just aired in England a few days ago. And the same crap is still going on.
Now, we have a slew of these shows. Each one ripped this one off & each one lies and fakes just like this one. They all deserve no stars, but I am giving Most Haunted 3, because it was entertaining and watchable thanks to Derek. Yes, watchable until Yvette's head got too big, for being a fake. If you're into the night-vision, everywhere is haunted, fake gadget, noise & voices can only be ghost shows that clutter TV now, you can thank this show for starting it all. Some can be entertaining, but most are just fake science, masquerading as the real thing.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Ben-Hur (2016) in Movies
Feb 20, 2019
Who thought it was a good idea to remake Ben-Hur? Well, on paper, it would seem to be a possibility. Ben-Hur has been hitting our cinema screens since 1907, with three other theatrical versions before this one; a short silent effort in 1907, the 1925 silent epic and the blockbusting MGM epic from 1959.
But this follows stage plays, TV movies and even animated movies, all based on General Lee Wallace's 1880 novel of the same name. But if a comparison is to be made, let us focus on the 1959 Charlton Heston movie. That, which ran for over three and half hours, takes its time to establish characters and situations, then takes us on a journey across the Roman Empire as we follow the turmoil of Judah Ben-Hur, betrayed by his best friend, a Roman who he considered to be a brother.
This journey takes place and parallels the life and ultimate execution of Jesus Christ and with this parallel, Judah is gradually inspired to temper his vengeance against his friend turned enemy and after the famous chariot race and the hollow victory therein, he will witness the crucifixion and through several machinations, find solace in the fledgling Christian movement.
So, how does this version hold up? To the 1959 version; not very well. This two-hour action movie is centred around the chariot race from start to finish, something which happens in the second act of the 1959 version but this is NOT the conclusion, but a catalyst for the finale.
Here, even though the events play out in a similar fashion, they are rushed and none of the character moments are earned. It is as if the film was pitched soley on the concept of showing an action packed chariot race in the 21st century.
If you want to see a modern interpretation of this race, possibly cinema's greatest such sequence, then look at Star Wars: Episode I's Podrace which captures the spirit perfectly. The positioning of this race and its significance to the plot was the same in the 1925 version as well, yet the fifteen minute 1907 short pretty much cherry picked the same plot elements as this 2016 version, which is quite telling really.
There was little interest in the story, just a cynical desire to bring this iconic movie back to the big screen and milk it as they would any franchise. But Ben-Hur is a poisoned chalice, so iconic that it would have to have offered something new without losing the original feel to succeed, as this classic simply did not warrant a remake.
But if you are going to remake it, give it a mega budget, which they did not, an all star cast, again, not the case and bring on board a top director to lead this project.
Instead we have a cast of relative unknowns, with Morgan Freeman being the most notable cast member, the director of such movies as Wanted (2007) and a small budget of just $100,000,000, when a blockbuster these days is usually pushing $200,000,000.
The main selling point for the previous two Ben-Hurs was the scale. These were epics and pushed the technology, filmmaking styles and never shied away from the strong religious overtones. Here it looks like it is given little more than lip service hoping to pander to the religious right.
It failed. Darren Aronofsky's Noah (2013) made more of an impact and it divided audiences, but at least it was faithful to itself, pushed boundaries and left its mark on cinema.
But by the end, my jaw was literally on the floor as the maimed Massalia reconciled with Judah and the pair ride off into the sunset together, all forgiven....
WHAT!!!
And more importantly, what was the point? Jesus sacrified himself, (in the story) so that people like Judah would put down their swords and learn to forgive, yet in the end, Judah and Massalia sacrifice nothing as they both regain their friendship and live happily ever after. In the previous versions, Ben-Hur beat Massalia but he has the last laugh as his mother and sister have been left with leprosy, that is until Jesus' death sparks a miracle which cures them. This was his reward for seeing the error of his ways, not getting his family and his friend back.
In the end, this is not a bad action romp, very watchable and is an entertaining spectacle but ultimately forgettable. It will entertain for two hours but leaves you with nothing to think about, unlike the books, plays and films which have preceded this.
A real shame...
But this follows stage plays, TV movies and even animated movies, all based on General Lee Wallace's 1880 novel of the same name. But if a comparison is to be made, let us focus on the 1959 Charlton Heston movie. That, which ran for over three and half hours, takes its time to establish characters and situations, then takes us on a journey across the Roman Empire as we follow the turmoil of Judah Ben-Hur, betrayed by his best friend, a Roman who he considered to be a brother.
This journey takes place and parallels the life and ultimate execution of Jesus Christ and with this parallel, Judah is gradually inspired to temper his vengeance against his friend turned enemy and after the famous chariot race and the hollow victory therein, he will witness the crucifixion and through several machinations, find solace in the fledgling Christian movement.
So, how does this version hold up? To the 1959 version; not very well. This two-hour action movie is centred around the chariot race from start to finish, something which happens in the second act of the 1959 version but this is NOT the conclusion, but a catalyst for the finale.
Here, even though the events play out in a similar fashion, they are rushed and none of the character moments are earned. It is as if the film was pitched soley on the concept of showing an action packed chariot race in the 21st century.
If you want to see a modern interpretation of this race, possibly cinema's greatest such sequence, then look at Star Wars: Episode I's Podrace which captures the spirit perfectly. The positioning of this race and its significance to the plot was the same in the 1925 version as well, yet the fifteen minute 1907 short pretty much cherry picked the same plot elements as this 2016 version, which is quite telling really.
There was little interest in the story, just a cynical desire to bring this iconic movie back to the big screen and milk it as they would any franchise. But Ben-Hur is a poisoned chalice, so iconic that it would have to have offered something new without losing the original feel to succeed, as this classic simply did not warrant a remake.
But if you are going to remake it, give it a mega budget, which they did not, an all star cast, again, not the case and bring on board a top director to lead this project.
Instead we have a cast of relative unknowns, with Morgan Freeman being the most notable cast member, the director of such movies as Wanted (2007) and a small budget of just $100,000,000, when a blockbuster these days is usually pushing $200,000,000.
The main selling point for the previous two Ben-Hurs was the scale. These were epics and pushed the technology, filmmaking styles and never shied away from the strong religious overtones. Here it looks like it is given little more than lip service hoping to pander to the religious right.
It failed. Darren Aronofsky's Noah (2013) made more of an impact and it divided audiences, but at least it was faithful to itself, pushed boundaries and left its mark on cinema.
But by the end, my jaw was literally on the floor as the maimed Massalia reconciled with Judah and the pair ride off into the sunset together, all forgiven....
WHAT!!!
And more importantly, what was the point? Jesus sacrified himself, (in the story) so that people like Judah would put down their swords and learn to forgive, yet in the end, Judah and Massalia sacrifice nothing as they both regain their friendship and live happily ever after. In the previous versions, Ben-Hur beat Massalia but he has the last laugh as his mother and sister have been left with leprosy, that is until Jesus' death sparks a miracle which cures them. This was his reward for seeing the error of his ways, not getting his family and his friend back.
In the end, this is not a bad action romp, very watchable and is an entertaining spectacle but ultimately forgettable. It will entertain for two hours but leaves you with nothing to think about, unlike the books, plays and films which have preceded this.
A real shame...
Olivia (102 KP) rated Under Rose-Tainted Skies in Books
Mar 27, 2019
If you want an accurate representation of what it's like to live with mental health issues, read this book. Please.
Going into this book I was worried about two things:
1. Is this a story of a boy magically curing a girl?
2. Will the representation of mental illness be good/accurate/consistent, or will it just show up every couple of chapters to move the story along?
Rest assured, it is neither of those negative things.
The struggles of mental illness are on every single page. And they aren't underplayed. They aren't made to be cute and quirky. Norah bites her hand, scratches until she bleeds, curls up into herself, has horrible panic attacks and so much more. I cannot express how important it is for these things to be shown. They aren't exactly fun or easy to read, but neither is experiencing those things first hand.
It's so important to see this type of representation in media, it doesn't make everything better, but it helps make a person feel less alone, so a huge thank you to Louise Gornall for sharing her experiences and her brain-child with the world.
The relationship was so sweet, what a great fella that Luke is. He doesn't magically cure her, he doesn't pull her out of her house and take her to a crowded venue to experience what life is. He is understanding, and when he doesn't understand he puts the effort in to fix that. He's just such a great guy and I want me someone like that in my life. Someone who won't push, but who won't let you burrow into yourself either.
Whilst being a quick read, it was far from being an easy read. As someone with mental health problems, I related heavily to many of the moments in the books, and that was difficult. It makes you view the way you think and behave from a different perspective. When I'm doing or saying or thinking something self-destructive, I feel like I deserve it. But seeing someone else go through maybe not the same, but similar things... it really makes you look at yourself and forces you to reevaluate your actions. It's not a cure, but it makes you think, and sometimes that's a much-needed thing.
There is a self-harm scene that's difficult to read, not because Gornall makes it this bloody disgusting mess, but because she takes you through the thought process. Before it happens, while it's happening, immediately after it happens and then a minute or so after. It's rough to read, but again, very important for it to be represented in a way like that. I've never read another book that deals with self-harm like that. Even more so, the book goes into how self-harming takes many forms, it's not just cutting. It's digging nails until your flesh breaks, not eating, peeling back your cuticles. Again, it's a lot.
As heavy as this book can be, it's also one that'll make you smile. Not just for the witty lines such as:
"Beyond the fire and brimstone, everyone has their own idea of hell. Shopping, doing Common Core math, fish-nibbling-at-your-feet spa treatments, or having to spend an eternity surrounded by people who click pens"
And
"It means we take all our clothes off, and he turns into a koala, clinging to me like a tree while we watch TV."
As much as I love seeing someone bash Common Core and make sex jokes with their mom, that's not the only reason why I was smiling throughout this book. It was impossible to not feel a connection towards Norah. She is just a character that you will find yourself constantly rooting for. With every small achievement she made, I couldn't help but smile. It was like watching your best friend stress and worry about something for weeks just to see them finally do the thing and see how okay they are, how happy they are. That's how this book made me feel towards Norah. That odd sense of pride.
Really the only thing that bothered me from time to time was that the authors British showed, such as the way characters would speak or the words used that aren't commonly used in America, as the story takes place in California. Also, the pacing was a bit weird to me, but not so much so that I couldn't enjoy the book.
Seriously, if you want a book that deals with mental health in an accurate way, read this. Of course, everyone experiences things differently and all that, but this is seriously one of the most realistic portrayals in YA that I've read.
Going into this book I was worried about two things:
1. Is this a story of a boy magically curing a girl?
2. Will the representation of mental illness be good/accurate/consistent, or will it just show up every couple of chapters to move the story along?
Rest assured, it is neither of those negative things.
The struggles of mental illness are on every single page. And they aren't underplayed. They aren't made to be cute and quirky. Norah bites her hand, scratches until she bleeds, curls up into herself, has horrible panic attacks and so much more. I cannot express how important it is for these things to be shown. They aren't exactly fun or easy to read, but neither is experiencing those things first hand.
It's so important to see this type of representation in media, it doesn't make everything better, but it helps make a person feel less alone, so a huge thank you to Louise Gornall for sharing her experiences and her brain-child with the world.
The relationship was so sweet, what a great fella that Luke is. He doesn't magically cure her, he doesn't pull her out of her house and take her to a crowded venue to experience what life is. He is understanding, and when he doesn't understand he puts the effort in to fix that. He's just such a great guy and I want me someone like that in my life. Someone who won't push, but who won't let you burrow into yourself either.
Whilst being a quick read, it was far from being an easy read. As someone with mental health problems, I related heavily to many of the moments in the books, and that was difficult. It makes you view the way you think and behave from a different perspective. When I'm doing or saying or thinking something self-destructive, I feel like I deserve it. But seeing someone else go through maybe not the same, but similar things... it really makes you look at yourself and forces you to reevaluate your actions. It's not a cure, but it makes you think, and sometimes that's a much-needed thing.
There is a self-harm scene that's difficult to read, not because Gornall makes it this bloody disgusting mess, but because she takes you through the thought process. Before it happens, while it's happening, immediately after it happens and then a minute or so after. It's rough to read, but again, very important for it to be represented in a way like that. I've never read another book that deals with self-harm like that. Even more so, the book goes into how self-harming takes many forms, it's not just cutting. It's digging nails until your flesh breaks, not eating, peeling back your cuticles. Again, it's a lot.
As heavy as this book can be, it's also one that'll make you smile. Not just for the witty lines such as:
"Beyond the fire and brimstone, everyone has their own idea of hell. Shopping, doing Common Core math, fish-nibbling-at-your-feet spa treatments, or having to spend an eternity surrounded by people who click pens"
And
"It means we take all our clothes off, and he turns into a koala, clinging to me like a tree while we watch TV."
As much as I love seeing someone bash Common Core and make sex jokes with their mom, that's not the only reason why I was smiling throughout this book. It was impossible to not feel a connection towards Norah. She is just a character that you will find yourself constantly rooting for. With every small achievement she made, I couldn't help but smile. It was like watching your best friend stress and worry about something for weeks just to see them finally do the thing and see how okay they are, how happy they are. That's how this book made me feel towards Norah. That odd sense of pride.
Really the only thing that bothered me from time to time was that the authors British showed, such as the way characters would speak or the words used that aren't commonly used in America, as the story takes place in California. Also, the pacing was a bit weird to me, but not so much so that I couldn't enjoy the book.
Seriously, if you want a book that deals with mental health in an accurate way, read this. Of course, everyone experiences things differently and all that, but this is seriously one of the most realistic portrayals in YA that I've read.