Search
Search results
Lee (2222 KP) rated The Lion King (2019) in Movies
Jul 20, 2019 (Updated Jul 20, 2019)
Disney's 1994 animated version of The Lion King was a huge hit. Not only did it win Academy Awards for original score (courtesy of the amazing Hans Zimmer) but also for original song "Can You Feel the Love Tonight" by Elton John & Tim Rice. It also won a Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture - Musical or Comedy and went on to become a huge Broadway stage show in 1997, winning further awards and proving to be one of the most popular shows ever. Some movie sequels quietly came and went, along with a couple of TV series, but it's the original movie which is still loved by millions to this day. While Disney currently feels the need to rework their animated back catalogue, and with considerable advances in photorealistic computer animation technology, it was only a matter of time before The Lion King had it's turn in landing a remake.
Right now, I'm neither for or against this current wave of remakes. I don't think they're entirely necessary, but I've been pleasantly surprised by one or two of them so far, so I'm happy to give them my time for now. The Lion King is the third remake to emerge this year though, following the disappointing Dumbo and the not as bad as I was expecting Aladdin. The term 'live action' has been used to describe this version of The Lion King, although it's not really live - more of a CGI upgrade - and it's been getting a lot of negativity online too, more so than any other Disney remake so far. Most of the backlash appears to be down to the fact that this is a beloved film, with the remake being more of a shot by shot recreation than any of the others so far, supposedly rendering it unnecessary in the eyes of the haters. But, while I agree that the original is an incredible movie, that certainly didn't stop me, or millions of others, from going to view the stage show production of The Lion King - a retelling and re-imagining of the story and characters you know and love, just with a different set of tools to do the job. So, why not treat this new movie in the same way, at least until you've actually seen it? And, even if you do hate the new version, the original is still going to be there for you to enjoy afterwards.
The story here, as mentioned earlier, is the same as the original movie, with a pretty impressive cast lending their voices to the characters. We follow young lion cub Simba (JD McCrary), who is destined to succeed his father, Mufasa (James Earl Jones reprising his 1994 performance), as King of the African Pride Lands. But his uncle Scar (Chiwetel Ejiofor) has other plans, murdering Mufasa and forcing Simba into exile where he meets a warthog called Pumbaa (Seth Rogen) and a meerkat named Timon (Billy Eichner). As an adult, Simba (now voiced by Donald Glover) reconnects with childhood friend Nala (voiced by Shahadi Wright Joseph as a child, Beyoncé as an adult) and mandrill Rafkiki (John Kani) and returns to the Pride Lands in order to take his rightful place as King. The circle of life, etc...
The visuals are incredible. Director Jon Favreau, who also directed the 2016 version of The Jungle Book, has taken what was done on that movie to a whole new level here. But the imagery is both the movies strength and it's weakness. As we sweep across the African landscape, in and around the animals as they go about their lives, you feel as though you are in a beautifully well shot documentary, the animals are that realistic. But that realism also means that animals cannot realistically convey human expressions or emotions, and there's a lot to be conveyed in the story of The Lion King - laughter, anger, sadness - and the majority of the voice cast cannot seem to stop it all from just feeling a bit flat and lifeless.
The first half meanders along, hitting all the right beats and songs from the original, but never really feeling like an improvement on it. And then Timon and Pumbaa arrive on the scene, providing much needed laughs and proving to be the movie's saviours. The film finds its feet, lightens up a little and becomes more enjoyable for its remainder, but it isn't enough. This is yet another remake where it's all style and not enough substance. Worth seeing, but certainly not better than the original.
https://www.cinechat.co.uk/the-lion-king-2019-review/
Right now, I'm neither for or against this current wave of remakes. I don't think they're entirely necessary, but I've been pleasantly surprised by one or two of them so far, so I'm happy to give them my time for now. The Lion King is the third remake to emerge this year though, following the disappointing Dumbo and the not as bad as I was expecting Aladdin. The term 'live action' has been used to describe this version of The Lion King, although it's not really live - more of a CGI upgrade - and it's been getting a lot of negativity online too, more so than any other Disney remake so far. Most of the backlash appears to be down to the fact that this is a beloved film, with the remake being more of a shot by shot recreation than any of the others so far, supposedly rendering it unnecessary in the eyes of the haters. But, while I agree that the original is an incredible movie, that certainly didn't stop me, or millions of others, from going to view the stage show production of The Lion King - a retelling and re-imagining of the story and characters you know and love, just with a different set of tools to do the job. So, why not treat this new movie in the same way, at least until you've actually seen it? And, even if you do hate the new version, the original is still going to be there for you to enjoy afterwards.
The story here, as mentioned earlier, is the same as the original movie, with a pretty impressive cast lending their voices to the characters. We follow young lion cub Simba (JD McCrary), who is destined to succeed his father, Mufasa (James Earl Jones reprising his 1994 performance), as King of the African Pride Lands. But his uncle Scar (Chiwetel Ejiofor) has other plans, murdering Mufasa and forcing Simba into exile where he meets a warthog called Pumbaa (Seth Rogen) and a meerkat named Timon (Billy Eichner). As an adult, Simba (now voiced by Donald Glover) reconnects with childhood friend Nala (voiced by Shahadi Wright Joseph as a child, Beyoncé as an adult) and mandrill Rafkiki (John Kani) and returns to the Pride Lands in order to take his rightful place as King. The circle of life, etc...
The visuals are incredible. Director Jon Favreau, who also directed the 2016 version of The Jungle Book, has taken what was done on that movie to a whole new level here. But the imagery is both the movies strength and it's weakness. As we sweep across the African landscape, in and around the animals as they go about their lives, you feel as though you are in a beautifully well shot documentary, the animals are that realistic. But that realism also means that animals cannot realistically convey human expressions or emotions, and there's a lot to be conveyed in the story of The Lion King - laughter, anger, sadness - and the majority of the voice cast cannot seem to stop it all from just feeling a bit flat and lifeless.
The first half meanders along, hitting all the right beats and songs from the original, but never really feeling like an improvement on it. And then Timon and Pumbaa arrive on the scene, providing much needed laughs and proving to be the movie's saviours. The film finds its feet, lightens up a little and becomes more enjoyable for its remainder, but it isn't enough. This is yet another remake where it's all style and not enough substance. Worth seeing, but certainly not better than the original.
https://www.cinechat.co.uk/the-lion-king-2019-review/
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood (2019) in Movies
Dec 13, 2019
"Anything mentionable is manageable"
Tom Hanks' new movie is a film I personally struggled to fully engage with. But some I suspect will truly LOVE it's gentle and feel-good nature.
Who WAS Fred Rogers? Based on a true story this movie very quickly makes you realise that Fred Rogers, who died in 2003, was an American legend. This is supported by the GLOWING reviews here on IMDB by US viewers. Rogers was a children's TV presenter that used puppets and song to help children work through their fears and psychological issues. I suspect, like me, most Brits would say "WHO?" (Just as if a 60's born Brit like me saying "Let's look through the arched window" will similarly get a "WHAT?" from nearly all Americans!)
Here the story revolves not around Fred (Tom Hanks) helping a child with issues, but with Fred's fixation with 'Esquire' journo Lloyd Vogel (Matthew Rhys), who is fighting his own demons of anger, resentment and pain. For Lloyd is struggling not only with his feelings about fatherhood, with the normal strains that is placing on the relationship with wife and mother Andrea (Susan Kelechi Watson), but also with the reemergence on the scene of his estranged and hard-drinking father Jerry (Chris Cooper).
The movie starts (and continues) with model sets reminiscent of the brilliantly barmy "Welcome to Marwen" and (the rather more subtle) "Game Night". Fun is had with matchbox-car freeways and planes flying off and clunking down on model runways.
We join Mr Rogers on set filming his series: and the movie sloooooows to match Rogers' leisurely pace. This was a movie I went into completely blind (which is unusual for me): I knew precisely zip about it. No knowledge of Rogers. No knowledge of the story. No sight of the trailer. Nothing. So these opening scenes were a real "WTF" moment as my brain struggled to work out what the story was all about.
There was undeniably something creepy about seeing the saintly Fred Rogers engaging with sick and vulnerable children. And I realised just what damage the likes of the convicted-paedophiles Jimmy Saville, Stuart Hall and Rolf Harris have done to my suspicions against all such entertainers. I feared - without any background knowledge on Rogers - that the story would take a darker turn. But no! That's not the story....
For as mentioned earlier, this is the story of Lloyd. And it's a relatively simple and linear story of familial stress that we've seen in movies throughout the decades. Whether you will buy into this story-within-the-story, or not, will flavour your overall enjoyment of the film.
Many who are into analysis and 'talking treatments' will - I think - appreciate the script. But I personally didn't really warm to any of the players - other than Rogers - so this was a negative for me. And I found the pace so slow that I ended up a bit fidgety and bored moving into the second reel of the film. Two women got up and walked out at that point - - it was clearly not for them (this was a Cineworld "Unlimited" pre-release screening).
The third reel rather pulled it together again, and established an "It's a Wonderful Life" style of feelgood that I warmed to much more.
This is a movie I predict the Academy will love. And everyone loves Hanks already. Read the tea-leaves. It's a brilliant performance from Hanks in its stillness and quietness.
No more so than in one particular scene....
This is the follow up movie from Marielle Heller to the impressive "Can You Ever Forgive Me?". And this particular scene - let's call it the "Anti-When-Harry-Met-Sally" moment - is a massively brave and striking piece of cinema.
It's truly extraordinary and worth the price of a ticket alone.
In summary, I enjoyed this movie, primarily for watching the master Hanks at work. The pacing for me was somewhat off though. But I can't be overly critical of such a warm-hearted movie. I predict you will see this and go home with a big dose of the warm-fuzzies.
See here for the full graphical review - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/12/12/one-manns-movies-film-review-a-beautiful-day-in-the-neighborhood-2019/
Who WAS Fred Rogers? Based on a true story this movie very quickly makes you realise that Fred Rogers, who died in 2003, was an American legend. This is supported by the GLOWING reviews here on IMDB by US viewers. Rogers was a children's TV presenter that used puppets and song to help children work through their fears and psychological issues. I suspect, like me, most Brits would say "WHO?" (Just as if a 60's born Brit like me saying "Let's look through the arched window" will similarly get a "WHAT?" from nearly all Americans!)
Here the story revolves not around Fred (Tom Hanks) helping a child with issues, but with Fred's fixation with 'Esquire' journo Lloyd Vogel (Matthew Rhys), who is fighting his own demons of anger, resentment and pain. For Lloyd is struggling not only with his feelings about fatherhood, with the normal strains that is placing on the relationship with wife and mother Andrea (Susan Kelechi Watson), but also with the reemergence on the scene of his estranged and hard-drinking father Jerry (Chris Cooper).
The movie starts (and continues) with model sets reminiscent of the brilliantly barmy "Welcome to Marwen" and (the rather more subtle) "Game Night". Fun is had with matchbox-car freeways and planes flying off and clunking down on model runways.
We join Mr Rogers on set filming his series: and the movie sloooooows to match Rogers' leisurely pace. This was a movie I went into completely blind (which is unusual for me): I knew precisely zip about it. No knowledge of Rogers. No knowledge of the story. No sight of the trailer. Nothing. So these opening scenes were a real "WTF" moment as my brain struggled to work out what the story was all about.
There was undeniably something creepy about seeing the saintly Fred Rogers engaging with sick and vulnerable children. And I realised just what damage the likes of the convicted-paedophiles Jimmy Saville, Stuart Hall and Rolf Harris have done to my suspicions against all such entertainers. I feared - without any background knowledge on Rogers - that the story would take a darker turn. But no! That's not the story....
For as mentioned earlier, this is the story of Lloyd. And it's a relatively simple and linear story of familial stress that we've seen in movies throughout the decades. Whether you will buy into this story-within-the-story, or not, will flavour your overall enjoyment of the film.
Many who are into analysis and 'talking treatments' will - I think - appreciate the script. But I personally didn't really warm to any of the players - other than Rogers - so this was a negative for me. And I found the pace so slow that I ended up a bit fidgety and bored moving into the second reel of the film. Two women got up and walked out at that point - - it was clearly not for them (this was a Cineworld "Unlimited" pre-release screening).
The third reel rather pulled it together again, and established an "It's a Wonderful Life" style of feelgood that I warmed to much more.
This is a movie I predict the Academy will love. And everyone loves Hanks already. Read the tea-leaves. It's a brilliant performance from Hanks in its stillness and quietness.
No more so than in one particular scene....
This is the follow up movie from Marielle Heller to the impressive "Can You Ever Forgive Me?". And this particular scene - let's call it the "Anti-When-Harry-Met-Sally" moment - is a massively brave and striking piece of cinema.
It's truly extraordinary and worth the price of a ticket alone.
In summary, I enjoyed this movie, primarily for watching the master Hanks at work. The pacing for me was somewhat off though. But I can't be overly critical of such a warm-hearted movie. I predict you will see this and go home with a big dose of the warm-fuzzies.
See here for the full graphical review - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/12/12/one-manns-movies-film-review-a-beautiful-day-in-the-neighborhood-2019/
LeftSideCut (3778 KP) rated Star Wars: Episode IX - The Rise of Skywalker (2019) in Movies
Dec 20, 2019 (Updated Jan 22, 2020)
Contains spoilers, click to show
Right then... I definitely need to go and see this again to properly digest it, so my thoughts on it will probably change...
Just like TLJ before it, there are things that I liked about Rise of Skywalker, and plenty that I didn't. There are also parts that I liked overall, but we're executed poorly - this unfortunately seems to be what to expect from Star Wars these days.
The opening act of ROS, so let's say the first 40ish minutes, felt like a complete mess to me. We are thrown from scene to scene without having much time to catch breath. It feels panicky, and not in a good way.
It not really until the-bit-from-the-trailer-where-rey-jumps-over-a-tie-fighter that the narrative seems to just calm down a bit and find it's footing.
What follows is a mixed bag of humour and mild action which is a bit so so, slowly leading up to the films finale.
I have to say, I actually really enjoyed the majority of the third act. The action scene that takes place on Endor is fantastic. It looks amazing, some of the visual shots are great, and the choreography just about resists falling into prequel territory lightsaber battles.
The final battle, again is visually stunning, and though at times corny, I felt it was a suitable end scene for the saga.
In terms of characters - I once again enjoyed Rey, even i was left undecided with how her arc was left off - the same goes for Kylo Ren, and once again, Adam Driver was a massive highlight throughout.
However, I once again found myself struggling to like Finn and Poe, and it seems that after the events of TFA, both of these characters were just a bit of dead weight, still included in the larger narrative because the actors had signed contracts. Finn runs into a group of defective stormtroopers at one point, and the movie sort of half-arses them into the story, but they ultimately serve no real purpose.
The narrative is also guilty of setting up a potentially important plot beat between him and Rey, which is eventually dropped and forgotten without mention.
Leia's story felt a bit unfleshed, and that surely down to the limited footage they had to work with.
There are two moments that stuck out when it comes to bad execution - the reveal of Rey's lineage is sudden and questionable, but the dialogue used when Kylo Ren delivers the revealing line is laughable, and spoils any weight the moment may have otherwise had. The second is when we are inevitably introduced to Luke's force ghost, a moment that has been coming since the events of TLJ, is delivered with a fan-service line referencing the moment where he threw his lightsaber away at the start of said film, and this bring me to one of my main criticisms of ROS.
I was not the biggest fan of TLJ, but as I mentioned in my review for it, I have a lot of respect for Rian Johnson for trying something new, and ROS reverses a lot of what he did. It feels a bit disrespectful, and a bit spineless.
This also happens a few more times in regards to plot points to do with Chewbacca, and C3-PO - the narrative sets up a fairly ballsy move, and then reverses it and plays it safe. It's a little frustrating.
Palpatines return is something that I can just about get behind - he looked suitably terrifying - but I just wish that the groundwork had been put down a bit more in previous films (films, not the TV shows). Instead, it does have a bit of a desperate ret-con feel about it.
But enough moaning from me, have some more positives - the music score is once again fantastic, the visual effects and CGI are pretty damn good (barring a couple of dodgy shots here and there), and I once again enjoyed the locations that we visited.
Rise of Skywalker will no doubt be devisive, just like The Last Jedi, and it's a film filled to the brim with thrilling Star Wars moments, as well as really really stupid moments, but to be honest, I've come to expect no more and no less at this point. Go and see it for what it is, and try and have a good time, because for the most part, it's pretty entertaining sci-fi fluff.
Side note - Everytime Merry from Lord of the Rings popped up, I found it completely distracting...
Just like TLJ before it, there are things that I liked about Rise of Skywalker, and plenty that I didn't. There are also parts that I liked overall, but we're executed poorly - this unfortunately seems to be what to expect from Star Wars these days.
The opening act of ROS, so let's say the first 40ish minutes, felt like a complete mess to me. We are thrown from scene to scene without having much time to catch breath. It feels panicky, and not in a good way.
It not really until the-bit-from-the-trailer-where-rey-jumps-over-a-tie-fighter that the narrative seems to just calm down a bit and find it's footing.
What follows is a mixed bag of humour and mild action which is a bit so so, slowly leading up to the films finale.
I have to say, I actually really enjoyed the majority of the third act. The action scene that takes place on Endor is fantastic. It looks amazing, some of the visual shots are great, and the choreography just about resists falling into prequel territory lightsaber battles.
The final battle, again is visually stunning, and though at times corny, I felt it was a suitable end scene for the saga.
In terms of characters - I once again enjoyed Rey, even i was left undecided with how her arc was left off - the same goes for Kylo Ren, and once again, Adam Driver was a massive highlight throughout.
However, I once again found myself struggling to like Finn and Poe, and it seems that after the events of TFA, both of these characters were just a bit of dead weight, still included in the larger narrative because the actors had signed contracts. Finn runs into a group of defective stormtroopers at one point, and the movie sort of half-arses them into the story, but they ultimately serve no real purpose.
The narrative is also guilty of setting up a potentially important plot beat between him and Rey, which is eventually dropped and forgotten without mention.
Leia's story felt a bit unfleshed, and that surely down to the limited footage they had to work with.
There are two moments that stuck out when it comes to bad execution - the reveal of Rey's lineage is sudden and questionable, but the dialogue used when Kylo Ren delivers the revealing line is laughable, and spoils any weight the moment may have otherwise had. The second is when we are inevitably introduced to Luke's force ghost, a moment that has been coming since the events of TLJ, is delivered with a fan-service line referencing the moment where he threw his lightsaber away at the start of said film, and this bring me to one of my main criticisms of ROS.
I was not the biggest fan of TLJ, but as I mentioned in my review for it, I have a lot of respect for Rian Johnson for trying something new, and ROS reverses a lot of what he did. It feels a bit disrespectful, and a bit spineless.
This also happens a few more times in regards to plot points to do with Chewbacca, and C3-PO - the narrative sets up a fairly ballsy move, and then reverses it and plays it safe. It's a little frustrating.
Palpatines return is something that I can just about get behind - he looked suitably terrifying - but I just wish that the groundwork had been put down a bit more in previous films (films, not the TV shows). Instead, it does have a bit of a desperate ret-con feel about it.
But enough moaning from me, have some more positives - the music score is once again fantastic, the visual effects and CGI are pretty damn good (barring a couple of dodgy shots here and there), and I once again enjoyed the locations that we visited.
Rise of Skywalker will no doubt be devisive, just like The Last Jedi, and it's a film filled to the brim with thrilling Star Wars moments, as well as really really stupid moments, but to be honest, I've come to expect no more and no less at this point. Go and see it for what it is, and try and have a good time, because for the most part, it's pretty entertaining sci-fi fluff.
Side note - Everytime Merry from Lord of the Rings popped up, I found it completely distracting...
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Little Joe (2019) in Movies
Feb 6, 2020
I managed to get a ticket to see this at the London Film Festival, it had made my long shortlist, the premise looked interesting and the graphics were extremely appealing. I was very excited to see what Little Joe had in store.
Alice is developing a new breed of flower, a beautiful crimson flower that has an incredible therapeutic value to its owner. Look after it properly, speak to it nicely, and it will make you happy.
After Alice sneaks one home to her son she soon notices that rather than a happy demeanour he starts acting strangely, and he's not the only one showing odd behaviour after being around Little Joe.
Little Joe has some very strong style choices. The colour palette is beautiful, and I wish I could find the notes I made about it from the Q&A after the film. The vibrant pastels are homely and comforting while at the same time unsettling around the normal tones of life.
That's what a lot of the film is made to do though, the music is something I noted frequently. The oriental music works directly against what's happening in the story, an intentional choice by the composer. I also wrote down the word "whistling" a lot with regards to sound. While I can understand (sort of) why the composer went that way with the music I didn't feel like it worked. I didn't dislike the music itself, but my comments were mainly exclaiming that it stuck out and felt too different from everything around it that it became distracting.
Another piece of the film that didn't sit well with me was camera work. There are some very well shot scenes, when we first encounter Little Joe in Alice's home and a scene later on inside the greenhouse (that I won't go into because of spoilers), that draw the viewer in with intrigue. But then... you know when you're doing something and you get bored and realise you've drifted off looking at a point in the distance? The camera appears to get bored too and it'll zoom to the gaps between characters. Maybe I'm just programmed to expect this sort of shot to reveal something secret to the audience that the characters haven't noticed... I found it more distracting and annoying than having any artistic benefit.
Alice (Emily Beecham) has a dual mother role, firstly with her son Joe and secondly with her plants. Little Joe appears to be more like a son to her than her own flesh and blood, her scientific mind perhaps finding it easier to interact with an inanimate object that begins to defy what she knows to be possible. The film gets across her struggle quite well with her therapy sessions and the interactions with those around her as we get deeper into the story. Beecham's performance is... relaxed? Even when there's urgency nothing ever seems to be very urgent.
That's something that is common throughout, the pace plods. You would expect a somewhat subdued pace in this sort of invasion storyline, but there are no real points of climax and that makes it more of a meander... perhaps those exciting moments happened when the camera zoned out.
There are touches here and there that do make you hopeful for the film, but overall it feels like Little Joe went for subtle and took it slightly too far. Everything felt too calm, the only one that seemed to react as you'd expect was Bella, but the nature of her part of the story meant that this was over the top because it was so far from everything else.
I like the idea behind this and we know from many different films that this sort of thing can work, but the lack of a real punch anywhere made this a struggle to watch. Oddly, I think this would have worked as a limited series without a lot of changes. The slow pace wouldn't have been so evident if it was broken down into episodes, there are small peaks in there that would give just enough intrigue to hold over to the next episode, I even feel like the ending as it is would have worked more in this style. Sadly, as it was I don't feel like there was enough reward for the time invested in watching it as a film, there's a different expectation between and film and a TV series but it's very difficult to explain it here without revealing spoilers.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/02/little-joe-movie-review.html
Alice is developing a new breed of flower, a beautiful crimson flower that has an incredible therapeutic value to its owner. Look after it properly, speak to it nicely, and it will make you happy.
After Alice sneaks one home to her son she soon notices that rather than a happy demeanour he starts acting strangely, and he's not the only one showing odd behaviour after being around Little Joe.
Little Joe has some very strong style choices. The colour palette is beautiful, and I wish I could find the notes I made about it from the Q&A after the film. The vibrant pastels are homely and comforting while at the same time unsettling around the normal tones of life.
That's what a lot of the film is made to do though, the music is something I noted frequently. The oriental music works directly against what's happening in the story, an intentional choice by the composer. I also wrote down the word "whistling" a lot with regards to sound. While I can understand (sort of) why the composer went that way with the music I didn't feel like it worked. I didn't dislike the music itself, but my comments were mainly exclaiming that it stuck out and felt too different from everything around it that it became distracting.
Another piece of the film that didn't sit well with me was camera work. There are some very well shot scenes, when we first encounter Little Joe in Alice's home and a scene later on inside the greenhouse (that I won't go into because of spoilers), that draw the viewer in with intrigue. But then... you know when you're doing something and you get bored and realise you've drifted off looking at a point in the distance? The camera appears to get bored too and it'll zoom to the gaps between characters. Maybe I'm just programmed to expect this sort of shot to reveal something secret to the audience that the characters haven't noticed... I found it more distracting and annoying than having any artistic benefit.
Alice (Emily Beecham) has a dual mother role, firstly with her son Joe and secondly with her plants. Little Joe appears to be more like a son to her than her own flesh and blood, her scientific mind perhaps finding it easier to interact with an inanimate object that begins to defy what she knows to be possible. The film gets across her struggle quite well with her therapy sessions and the interactions with those around her as we get deeper into the story. Beecham's performance is... relaxed? Even when there's urgency nothing ever seems to be very urgent.
That's something that is common throughout, the pace plods. You would expect a somewhat subdued pace in this sort of invasion storyline, but there are no real points of climax and that makes it more of a meander... perhaps those exciting moments happened when the camera zoned out.
There are touches here and there that do make you hopeful for the film, but overall it feels like Little Joe went for subtle and took it slightly too far. Everything felt too calm, the only one that seemed to react as you'd expect was Bella, but the nature of her part of the story meant that this was over the top because it was so far from everything else.
I like the idea behind this and we know from many different films that this sort of thing can work, but the lack of a real punch anywhere made this a struggle to watch. Oddly, I think this would have worked as a limited series without a lot of changes. The slow pace wouldn't have been so evident if it was broken down into episodes, there are small peaks in there that would give just enough intrigue to hold over to the next episode, I even feel like the ending as it is would have worked more in this style. Sadly, as it was I don't feel like there was enough reward for the time invested in watching it as a film, there's a different expectation between and film and a TV series but it's very difficult to explain it here without revealing spoilers.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/02/little-joe-movie-review.html
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Little Women (2019) in Movies
Jan 3, 2020 (Updated Jan 3, 2020)
Saoirse Ronan - just mesmeric. What screen presence! (2 more)
Great supporting cast.
Alexandre Desplat soundtrack.
"God hasn't met my will yet"
Greta Gerwig's follow up to her Oscar-praised "Lady Bird" from 2017 looks set to repeat the job this year. For it's nothing short of a masterpiece of cinema.
Louisa M. Alcott's semi-autobiographical novel has been filmed before (in 1949 and 1994, together with a number of other TV versions). I've not seen any of these previous versions and (as a literary philistine) I've never read the book either. So the story was new to me and drew me in perfectly.
The March sisters - Jo (Saoirse Ronan), Meg (Emma Watson), Amy (Florence Pugh) and the youngest Beth (Eliza Scanlen) - are being brought up by their mother (Laura Dern) and Aunt (Meryl Streep) while their father (Bob Odenkirk) is away fighting in the Civil War. Also providing a helping hand is the rich neighbour Mr Lawrence (Chris Cooper), whose good-looking but indolent son 'Laurie' (Timothée Chalamet) has had the hots for tom-boy Jo for many years.
Each of the girls has a talent: for Jo it's writing, with her struggling to get her work past the grumpy publisher Mr Dashwood (Tracy Letts, from "Le Mans '66"); for Meg it's acting; for Amy it's painting; and for Beth it's music.
The film follows the lives, loves, successes and misfortunes of the sisters over two periods, split 7 years apart. It's a bumpy ride for some.
It struck me, as the big green BBFC certificate flashed onto the screen, how rare it is to find a "U - Suitable for all" (UK) certificate on a film these days. This is a film that the whole family *could* go and see. My only reservation here would be the way the film zips in and out of the two time periods at will. This might confuse the hell out of younger children. The subject matter of one part of the story may also disturb sensitive kids.
It's a really old-fashioned film - full of melodrama, love, unrequited love, death, charity, ambition and kindness - that builds to a feel-good ending that was totally corny but felt perfect in every way. We need more of this in our lives.
Wow. Just wow. The Oscar Best Actress categories are going to be a bloodied battlefield this year! There have been some GREAT roles for women on screen in the last year, and the Academy will have a job on their hands to narrow the long-list to the short-list this year. I would have tentatively forecast that Renée Zellweger might have had the Best Actor Oscar wrapped up for "Judy". But then here comes Saoirse Ronan. With phenomenal screen presence, she lights up every single scene she's in. Emma Watson and Florence Pugh are great actresses (and both here stand a stab at the Supporting Actress category), but your gaze always falls straight back to Ronan's reaction.
It's also a wonderful performance for newcomer Eliza Scanlen as the youngster Beth: I heard director Greta Gerwig comment (on Edith Bowman's excellent Soundtracking podcast) that Eliza needed less lighting than anyone else on set as she was "naturally luminous"!
Again lodging a cracking performance is the versatile Timothée Chalomet.... does the young chap make a bad film?
When you get to the end of the "cast bit", and you haven't mentioned Meryl Streep and Laura Dern yet, that says a lot!
What comes across more than anything else is just how apt this story is today to the 'girl power' times that we are currently living through. Jo in particular is the rebel of her day, fighting against the conformity of what it was in the time to be an independent woman, and specifically an independent working woman. Some of Alcott's words from the book could even today act as a rallying cry to those looking for greater change.
My reviewing year has certainly got off to a bang with this one. It's a glorious movie, utterly absorbing with ravishing cinematography by Yorick Le Saux and a brilliant soundtrack by Alexandre Desplat: both I suspect likely to feature in Oscar nominations. It's also likely to be nominated in other technical categories including Production Design, Costume and Hair & Makeup.
And I predict that this is inevitably going to be a Christmas favourite to match "The Sound of Music" and "It's a Wonderful Life" in future years.
Comes with a highly recommended tag from me.
(For the full graphical review, please visit the One Mann's Movies site here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/01/03/one-manns-movies-film-review-little-women-2019/. Thanks.)
Louisa M. Alcott's semi-autobiographical novel has been filmed before (in 1949 and 1994, together with a number of other TV versions). I've not seen any of these previous versions and (as a literary philistine) I've never read the book either. So the story was new to me and drew me in perfectly.
The March sisters - Jo (Saoirse Ronan), Meg (Emma Watson), Amy (Florence Pugh) and the youngest Beth (Eliza Scanlen) - are being brought up by their mother (Laura Dern) and Aunt (Meryl Streep) while their father (Bob Odenkirk) is away fighting in the Civil War. Also providing a helping hand is the rich neighbour Mr Lawrence (Chris Cooper), whose good-looking but indolent son 'Laurie' (Timothée Chalamet) has had the hots for tom-boy Jo for many years.
Each of the girls has a talent: for Jo it's writing, with her struggling to get her work past the grumpy publisher Mr Dashwood (Tracy Letts, from "Le Mans '66"); for Meg it's acting; for Amy it's painting; and for Beth it's music.
The film follows the lives, loves, successes and misfortunes of the sisters over two periods, split 7 years apart. It's a bumpy ride for some.
It struck me, as the big green BBFC certificate flashed onto the screen, how rare it is to find a "U - Suitable for all" (UK) certificate on a film these days. This is a film that the whole family *could* go and see. My only reservation here would be the way the film zips in and out of the two time periods at will. This might confuse the hell out of younger children. The subject matter of one part of the story may also disturb sensitive kids.
It's a really old-fashioned film - full of melodrama, love, unrequited love, death, charity, ambition and kindness - that builds to a feel-good ending that was totally corny but felt perfect in every way. We need more of this in our lives.
Wow. Just wow. The Oscar Best Actress categories are going to be a bloodied battlefield this year! There have been some GREAT roles for women on screen in the last year, and the Academy will have a job on their hands to narrow the long-list to the short-list this year. I would have tentatively forecast that Renée Zellweger might have had the Best Actor Oscar wrapped up for "Judy". But then here comes Saoirse Ronan. With phenomenal screen presence, she lights up every single scene she's in. Emma Watson and Florence Pugh are great actresses (and both here stand a stab at the Supporting Actress category), but your gaze always falls straight back to Ronan's reaction.
It's also a wonderful performance for newcomer Eliza Scanlen as the youngster Beth: I heard director Greta Gerwig comment (on Edith Bowman's excellent Soundtracking podcast) that Eliza needed less lighting than anyone else on set as she was "naturally luminous"!
Again lodging a cracking performance is the versatile Timothée Chalomet.... does the young chap make a bad film?
When you get to the end of the "cast bit", and you haven't mentioned Meryl Streep and Laura Dern yet, that says a lot!
What comes across more than anything else is just how apt this story is today to the 'girl power' times that we are currently living through. Jo in particular is the rebel of her day, fighting against the conformity of what it was in the time to be an independent woman, and specifically an independent working woman. Some of Alcott's words from the book could even today act as a rallying cry to those looking for greater change.
My reviewing year has certainly got off to a bang with this one. It's a glorious movie, utterly absorbing with ravishing cinematography by Yorick Le Saux and a brilliant soundtrack by Alexandre Desplat: both I suspect likely to feature in Oscar nominations. It's also likely to be nominated in other technical categories including Production Design, Costume and Hair & Makeup.
And I predict that this is inevitably going to be a Christmas favourite to match "The Sound of Music" and "It's a Wonderful Life" in future years.
Comes with a highly recommended tag from me.
(For the full graphical review, please visit the One Mann's Movies site here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/01/03/one-manns-movies-film-review-little-women-2019/. Thanks.)
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated Brick Mansions (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
3 weeks ago, I had never heard of this movie. I happened upon the commercial as I was watching TV
one day, and I was intrigued. Brick Mansions is touted as Paul Walker’s last complete movie, may he
rest his in peace. But I am really hoping that it’s not true. Because if it is, I really have to question some
of the filmmakers’ decisions.
Brick Mansions comes from the creative mind of Luc Besson, who happened to also write District B13
which this movie is a remake of. In fact, David Belle, who plays Leno in the movie, played the same role
in District B13. Leno is a man who lives in Brick Mansions, a highly-dilapidated area of Detroit in 2018,
who is trying to thwart the big boss in Brick Mansions, Tremaine (RZA), and keep drugs off the streets.
When Leno steals 20 Kilos of cocaine and destroys it, Tremaine kidnaps his ex-girlfriend to lure him in
and ultimately land him in jail. Damien (Paul Walker) is an undercover cop looking to take down the
organization that killed his father, who was also a cop. He traces it back to Tremaine, and desperately
wants to take him down. When a threat of a bomb going off that could obliterate Brick Mansions,
Damien is asked to infiltrate the city, and he must enlist the help of Leno to pull it off. As Damien and
Leno race against time to disarm the bomb, they realize that they may have misjudged each other, and
the threat at hand.
IMDB credits Belle as the founder of Parkour. I do not know if it is true or not, but the man definitely
makes it seems like it. The fight scenes were excellently choreographed, if not a bit cheesy at times
(Walker and Belle doing mirror image Parkour in perfect unison). It was nice to see the parity between
Damien’s style of getting things done Leno’s style, and the film was definitely not afraid to focus on
strengths. And it wouldn’t be a Paul Walker movie these days if the man didn’t have a driving/chase
scene. It was not focus-stealing or over the top, in fact there was just enough of an emphasis to show
that it was a respectful nod to what made Walker so famous.
I had two major issues with the movie, though. The first being the overuse of slow motion in the fight
scenes. Especially the one between Tremaine’s right-hand woman Rayza (Ayisha Issa) and Leno’s ex-
girlfriend, Lola (Catalina Denis). It seemed that every 10-15 seconds they would slow time to focus
on the most asinine thing in the shot, but only for 1-2 seconds and then speed the scene back up. It
seemed like a real quick and easy way to extend the scene and pad the length of the movie.
My other gripe had to do with how quickly the conflicts resolved themselves in the film. First, spoiler
alert. If you do not want to know the resolution of the one of the major plot-points, please skip this
paragraph. All the way up until mere moments before Damien and Leno get access to the bomb to
defuse it, everyone is certain that Tremaine is bad guy, and rightfully so. He is an ex-military, now drug-
lord that essentially monopolized the crime in Brick Mansions. But when he shows one out-of-character
moment of compassion, Lola defends his actions which leads to a quick turnaround of “now we can trust
this guy” among the main characters. It just didn’t make sense in the scheme of things. And that’s just
the tip of the iceberg on this point. But I will leave the rest for the movie.
All-in-all, I liked this movie. It had a feel like a Jet Li movie when he was first trying to break into
American Cinema (a la Romeo Must Die and Cradle 2 Grave). And it might just be the same for David
Belle, who already has a slew of stunt work under his belt. It would be nice to see him get some more
starring things. Would I have paid to watch it in theater? Probably, as I wouldn’t know exactly what
I was in store for. Will I go back and do it now, no. But I can say I will end up picking it up on Blu-ray
when it is released.
one day, and I was intrigued. Brick Mansions is touted as Paul Walker’s last complete movie, may he
rest his in peace. But I am really hoping that it’s not true. Because if it is, I really have to question some
of the filmmakers’ decisions.
Brick Mansions comes from the creative mind of Luc Besson, who happened to also write District B13
which this movie is a remake of. In fact, David Belle, who plays Leno in the movie, played the same role
in District B13. Leno is a man who lives in Brick Mansions, a highly-dilapidated area of Detroit in 2018,
who is trying to thwart the big boss in Brick Mansions, Tremaine (RZA), and keep drugs off the streets.
When Leno steals 20 Kilos of cocaine and destroys it, Tremaine kidnaps his ex-girlfriend to lure him in
and ultimately land him in jail. Damien (Paul Walker) is an undercover cop looking to take down the
organization that killed his father, who was also a cop. He traces it back to Tremaine, and desperately
wants to take him down. When a threat of a bomb going off that could obliterate Brick Mansions,
Damien is asked to infiltrate the city, and he must enlist the help of Leno to pull it off. As Damien and
Leno race against time to disarm the bomb, they realize that they may have misjudged each other, and
the threat at hand.
IMDB credits Belle as the founder of Parkour. I do not know if it is true or not, but the man definitely
makes it seems like it. The fight scenes were excellently choreographed, if not a bit cheesy at times
(Walker and Belle doing mirror image Parkour in perfect unison). It was nice to see the parity between
Damien’s style of getting things done Leno’s style, and the film was definitely not afraid to focus on
strengths. And it wouldn’t be a Paul Walker movie these days if the man didn’t have a driving/chase
scene. It was not focus-stealing or over the top, in fact there was just enough of an emphasis to show
that it was a respectful nod to what made Walker so famous.
I had two major issues with the movie, though. The first being the overuse of slow motion in the fight
scenes. Especially the one between Tremaine’s right-hand woman Rayza (Ayisha Issa) and Leno’s ex-
girlfriend, Lola (Catalina Denis). It seemed that every 10-15 seconds they would slow time to focus
on the most asinine thing in the shot, but only for 1-2 seconds and then speed the scene back up. It
seemed like a real quick and easy way to extend the scene and pad the length of the movie.
My other gripe had to do with how quickly the conflicts resolved themselves in the film. First, spoiler
alert. If you do not want to know the resolution of the one of the major plot-points, please skip this
paragraph. All the way up until mere moments before Damien and Leno get access to the bomb to
defuse it, everyone is certain that Tremaine is bad guy, and rightfully so. He is an ex-military, now drug-
lord that essentially monopolized the crime in Brick Mansions. But when he shows one out-of-character
moment of compassion, Lola defends his actions which leads to a quick turnaround of “now we can trust
this guy” among the main characters. It just didn’t make sense in the scheme of things. And that’s just
the tip of the iceberg on this point. But I will leave the rest for the movie.
All-in-all, I liked this movie. It had a feel like a Jet Li movie when he was first trying to break into
American Cinema (a la Romeo Must Die and Cradle 2 Grave). And it might just be the same for David
Belle, who already has a slew of stunt work under his belt. It would be nice to see him get some more
starring things. Would I have paid to watch it in theater? Probably, as I wouldn’t know exactly what
I was in store for. Will I go back and do it now, no. But I can say I will end up picking it up on Blu-ray
when it is released.
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) created a post
Apr 27, 2020
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Emma (2020) in Movies
Feb 21, 2020
Anya Taylor-Joy.... mesmerising (2 more)
Gorgeous to look at; stunning locations and costumes
Witty and well-observed debut script
Simply Sublime
I loved the look of "Emma" from the trailer. And I was not disappointed. It is a simply sublime piece of comic entertainment.
Emma Woodhouse (Anya Taylor-Joy) is a rich, privileged 21 year-old looking after her elderly and quirky father (Bill Nighy) in the family stately home. She has never loved, despite the persistent presence of 'family friend' George Knightley (Johnny Flynn), but finds it entertaining to engage in matchmaking, particularly in respect to her somewhat lower class friend Harriet Smith (Mia Goth). Emma has high ambitions for Harriet... ideas significantly above what her social station and looks might suggest.
Emma has her sights on a dream.... the mystery man Frank Churchill (Callum Turner), son of wealthy local landowner Mr Weston (Rupert Graves). She has never actually met him, but is obsessed with his myth. #fangirl. As a source of immense annoyance to her, but often a source of valuable information on news of Churchill, is the village 'old maid' Miss Bates (Miranda Hart). "Such fun"!
But Emma's perfect life is about to face sticky times, as her machinations fail to yield the expected results and a stray comment, at a disastrous picnic, threatens to damage both her reputation and her social standing.
If you like your movies full of action and suspense, you are digging in the wrong place. "Emma" is slow... glacially slow... wallowing in beautiful bucolic scenes (with superb cinematography by Christopher Blauvelt); gorgeous costumes by Alexandra Byrne; and hair styling by Marese Langan.
The movie also benefits from a joyfully tight and funny script by debut screenwriter Eleanor Catton (a Man-Booker prize winner). This picks relentlessly at the strata of the class system set up by Jane Austen's novel: "Every body has their level" spits spurned suitor Mr Elton (Josh O'Connor).
I know Anya Taylor-Joy as the spirited Casey from "Split" and "Glass": she was impressive in "Split"; less so for me in the disappointing "Glass". But here, I found her UTTERLY mesmerising. She has such striking features - those eyes! - that she fully inhabits the role of the beautiful heiress who haunts multiple men sequentially. I even muttered the word "Oscar nomination" at the end of the film: though we are too early in the year to seriously go there.
An even bigger surprise was the actor playing George Knightley. Johnny Flynn has been in a number of TV shows I haven't seen, and a few films I haven't seen either (e.g. "Beast"). But I had the nagging feeling I knew him really well. The illustrious Mrs Movie Man clocked him: he's the Cineworld "plaid man"! (For those outside the UK or not patrons of Cineworld cinemas, he was the 'star' of a Cineworld advert that played over and Over AND OVER again for months on end before every film I saw. Arrrgggghhhh!).
Here, Flynn is excellent as the frustrated and brooding Austen-hunk. He even gets away with an ar*e-shot within a U-certificate!
Particularly strong in the supporting cast are Bill Nighy (being delightfully more restrained in his performance); Miranda Hart (being "Miranda", but perfectly cast) and Mia Goth (memorable for that eel-bath in "A Cure for Wellness").
And a big thank-you for a web review in the online Radio Times for naming one of the comical (and bizarrely uncredited) footmen as Angus Imrie - - the truly disturbed stepson of Claire in "Fleabag". It was driving me crazy where I knew him from!
The one criticism I would have is that I found the (perfectly fine and well-fitting) music, by David Schweitzer and Isobel Waller-Bridge (sister of Phoebe) poorly mixed within the soundtrack. There were times when I found it overly intrusive, suddenly ducking under dialogue and then BLASTING out again. Sometimes music should be at the forefront.... but more often it should be barely perceptible.
As you might guess....
...I loved this one. The story is brilliant (obsv!); the film is simply gorgeous to look at; the locations (including the village of Lower Slaughter in the Cotswolds and Wilton House - near me - in Salisbury) are magnificent and a blessing for the English Tourist Board.
All the more impressive then that this is the directorial feature of video/short director Autumn de Wilde.
This comes with a "highly recommended" from both myself and the illustrious Mrs Movie-Man.
(For the full graphical review, please check out https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/20/one-manns-movies-film-review-emma-2020/ .)
Emma Woodhouse (Anya Taylor-Joy) is a rich, privileged 21 year-old looking after her elderly and quirky father (Bill Nighy) in the family stately home. She has never loved, despite the persistent presence of 'family friend' George Knightley (Johnny Flynn), but finds it entertaining to engage in matchmaking, particularly in respect to her somewhat lower class friend Harriet Smith (Mia Goth). Emma has high ambitions for Harriet... ideas significantly above what her social station and looks might suggest.
Emma has her sights on a dream.... the mystery man Frank Churchill (Callum Turner), son of wealthy local landowner Mr Weston (Rupert Graves). She has never actually met him, but is obsessed with his myth. #fangirl. As a source of immense annoyance to her, but often a source of valuable information on news of Churchill, is the village 'old maid' Miss Bates (Miranda Hart). "Such fun"!
But Emma's perfect life is about to face sticky times, as her machinations fail to yield the expected results and a stray comment, at a disastrous picnic, threatens to damage both her reputation and her social standing.
If you like your movies full of action and suspense, you are digging in the wrong place. "Emma" is slow... glacially slow... wallowing in beautiful bucolic scenes (with superb cinematography by Christopher Blauvelt); gorgeous costumes by Alexandra Byrne; and hair styling by Marese Langan.
The movie also benefits from a joyfully tight and funny script by debut screenwriter Eleanor Catton (a Man-Booker prize winner). This picks relentlessly at the strata of the class system set up by Jane Austen's novel: "Every body has their level" spits spurned suitor Mr Elton (Josh O'Connor).
I know Anya Taylor-Joy as the spirited Casey from "Split" and "Glass": she was impressive in "Split"; less so for me in the disappointing "Glass". But here, I found her UTTERLY mesmerising. She has such striking features - those eyes! - that she fully inhabits the role of the beautiful heiress who haunts multiple men sequentially. I even muttered the word "Oscar nomination" at the end of the film: though we are too early in the year to seriously go there.
An even bigger surprise was the actor playing George Knightley. Johnny Flynn has been in a number of TV shows I haven't seen, and a few films I haven't seen either (e.g. "Beast"). But I had the nagging feeling I knew him really well. The illustrious Mrs Movie Man clocked him: he's the Cineworld "plaid man"! (For those outside the UK or not patrons of Cineworld cinemas, he was the 'star' of a Cineworld advert that played over and Over AND OVER again for months on end before every film I saw. Arrrgggghhhh!).
Here, Flynn is excellent as the frustrated and brooding Austen-hunk. He even gets away with an ar*e-shot within a U-certificate!
Particularly strong in the supporting cast are Bill Nighy (being delightfully more restrained in his performance); Miranda Hart (being "Miranda", but perfectly cast) and Mia Goth (memorable for that eel-bath in "A Cure for Wellness").
And a big thank-you for a web review in the online Radio Times for naming one of the comical (and bizarrely uncredited) footmen as Angus Imrie - - the truly disturbed stepson of Claire in "Fleabag". It was driving me crazy where I knew him from!
The one criticism I would have is that I found the (perfectly fine and well-fitting) music, by David Schweitzer and Isobel Waller-Bridge (sister of Phoebe) poorly mixed within the soundtrack. There were times when I found it overly intrusive, suddenly ducking under dialogue and then BLASTING out again. Sometimes music should be at the forefront.... but more often it should be barely perceptible.
As you might guess....
...I loved this one. The story is brilliant (obsv!); the film is simply gorgeous to look at; the locations (including the village of Lower Slaughter in the Cotswolds and Wilton House - near me - in Salisbury) are magnificent and a blessing for the English Tourist Board.
All the more impressive then that this is the directorial feature of video/short director Autumn de Wilde.
This comes with a "highly recommended" from both myself and the illustrious Mrs Movie-Man.
(For the full graphical review, please check out https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/20/one-manns-movies-film-review-emma-2020/ .)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Military Wives (2020) in Movies
Feb 25, 2020
The story perfectly balances between melodrama and feel good comedy (1 more)
Kristin Scott-Thomas and Sharon Horgan work fabulously together
Bound to grab the grey pound and be a huge UK success
I must admit that I was a bit of a drag-along to this one. The trailer excited me not.... one.... bit. Sentimental film. Dull story. Wrong demographic. No, no, no. But... in this case I am very happy to be proved wrong, wrong, wrong.
True that I didn't sit in the ideal demographic for this movie. 90% of the audience at the UK premiere showing I attended last night were female and older that me. This is a movie to turn the blue-rinse crowd out in DROVES! Because the - inherently British - story is engaging and rewarding from start to finish.
Loosely based on the true story, it's 2010 and a regiment of husbands (and at least one wife.... nice to see an all female marriage featured) are dispatched from the fictional "Flitcroft Barracks" to Afghanistan on a tour of duty. Thereafter every ring at the door by a friend spells mild panic ; every thoughtless call from an accident-chaser induces hypertension.
Trying to take their minds off there loved ones, Colonel's wife Kate (Kristin Scott Thomas) muscles in on the insipid entertainment plans of Lisa (Sharon Horgan) in organising a singing group. Lisa thinks "girls just wanna have fun"; Kate thinks they should be training as a proper choir. Sparks fly.
But against all the odds, the women progressively improve until they get the chance to present their talents to an unaware nation.
My wife summed up in one word why this movie is so good...... "balance". The movie covers topics of fear, grief, social conflict, family conflict and uplifting joy. One step off the tightrope could have spelled disaster. But director Peter Cattaneo, of "Full Monty" fame, through the expert script of Roseanne Flynn and Rachel Tunnard, walks that line with perfect balance. It never feels overly melodramatic; never feels a light piece of superficial fluff either.
And when "the performance" happens, you will be hard pushed not to need a tissue or two..... I certainly succumbed to the emotion of the moment.
At the core of the story are the perfectly cast duo of Kristin Scott Thomas and Sharon Horgan. With just a handful of introductory lines, you quickly get the measure of Kate's character, without ever knowing the story behind the icy and brittle facade. The conflict between her and the fun-loving egalitarian Lisa is writ large. What's nice here is that you are never totally sure who's side of the argument you are on. It is easy to side with Lisa at the start of the film, but as you learn more and particularly after a particularly careless act by Lisa towards the end of the film, your sympathies change.
The rest of the excellent ensemble cast also work naturally together, with Emma Lowndes as Annie and Amy James-Kelly as the newly married Sarah being particularly impressive.This feels like a group of actors who were brought together to film a story and bonded as friends in the process. You end up caring a great deal for what happens to them
Although the script is based on the true story of the military wives it diverges significantly from what actually happens in the interests of an engaging story. Choirmaster Gareth Malone was, of course, actively involved in the true story as a part of a TV programme, but none of that is referenced in the movie. But that doesn't remotely impinge on your enjoyment of the movie for one second.
In particular, a sub-story about the long-term effects of grief is particularly well handled, with 'Dave' turning from being a passive to an active participant in the story at a key moment.
It's that depressing time of the year when everyone is fed up of rain, wind and dripping noses. It's a time of year when you look for some uplifting entertainment.... people surely watch "Death in Paradise" for the sun rather than the stories? Ladies - and the odd gentleman - I give you "Military Wives". It's not bloody Shakespeare. But if this doesn't make you feel uplifted and better about the world, then I will dutifully kiss the regimental goat.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/25/one-manns-movies-film-review-military-wives-2020/. Thanks).
True that I didn't sit in the ideal demographic for this movie. 90% of the audience at the UK premiere showing I attended last night were female and older that me. This is a movie to turn the blue-rinse crowd out in DROVES! Because the - inherently British - story is engaging and rewarding from start to finish.
Loosely based on the true story, it's 2010 and a regiment of husbands (and at least one wife.... nice to see an all female marriage featured) are dispatched from the fictional "Flitcroft Barracks" to Afghanistan on a tour of duty. Thereafter every ring at the door by a friend spells mild panic ; every thoughtless call from an accident-chaser induces hypertension.
Trying to take their minds off there loved ones, Colonel's wife Kate (Kristin Scott Thomas) muscles in on the insipid entertainment plans of Lisa (Sharon Horgan) in organising a singing group. Lisa thinks "girls just wanna have fun"; Kate thinks they should be training as a proper choir. Sparks fly.
But against all the odds, the women progressively improve until they get the chance to present their talents to an unaware nation.
My wife summed up in one word why this movie is so good...... "balance". The movie covers topics of fear, grief, social conflict, family conflict and uplifting joy. One step off the tightrope could have spelled disaster. But director Peter Cattaneo, of "Full Monty" fame, through the expert script of Roseanne Flynn and Rachel Tunnard, walks that line with perfect balance. It never feels overly melodramatic; never feels a light piece of superficial fluff either.
And when "the performance" happens, you will be hard pushed not to need a tissue or two..... I certainly succumbed to the emotion of the moment.
At the core of the story are the perfectly cast duo of Kristin Scott Thomas and Sharon Horgan. With just a handful of introductory lines, you quickly get the measure of Kate's character, without ever knowing the story behind the icy and brittle facade. The conflict between her and the fun-loving egalitarian Lisa is writ large. What's nice here is that you are never totally sure who's side of the argument you are on. It is easy to side with Lisa at the start of the film, but as you learn more and particularly after a particularly careless act by Lisa towards the end of the film, your sympathies change.
The rest of the excellent ensemble cast also work naturally together, with Emma Lowndes as Annie and Amy James-Kelly as the newly married Sarah being particularly impressive.This feels like a group of actors who were brought together to film a story and bonded as friends in the process. You end up caring a great deal for what happens to them
Although the script is based on the true story of the military wives it diverges significantly from what actually happens in the interests of an engaging story. Choirmaster Gareth Malone was, of course, actively involved in the true story as a part of a TV programme, but none of that is referenced in the movie. But that doesn't remotely impinge on your enjoyment of the movie for one second.
In particular, a sub-story about the long-term effects of grief is particularly well handled, with 'Dave' turning from being a passive to an active participant in the story at a key moment.
It's that depressing time of the year when everyone is fed up of rain, wind and dripping noses. It's a time of year when you look for some uplifting entertainment.... people surely watch "Death in Paradise" for the sun rather than the stories? Ladies - and the odd gentleman - I give you "Military Wives". It's not bloody Shakespeare. But if this doesn't make you feel uplifted and better about the world, then I will dutifully kiss the regimental goat.
(For the full graphical review, please check out One Mann's Movies here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/02/25/one-manns-movies-film-review-military-wives-2020/. Thanks).
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Lost At Christmas (2020) in Movies
Nov 23, 2020
'Tis the season for Christmas cliche and Lost At Christmas certainly fits the bill... but stay tuned for a "pleasant" surprise?
When life changes very suddenly for two strangers they need to make their way back to their normal lives, but it's Christmas, and the simple journey home becomes something of an epic adventure across the Scottish Highlands.
I have realised that many years ago I found myself in a very similar situation to the one in this film, though thankfully I wasn't the one travelling anywhere. I have never really considered how difficult it might be to do this sort of journey... I'm fairly certain that I wouldn't do what this duo do... but you never know! So quite how believable this scenario is I can't say, but it does allow for the expected drama.
There's a great Doctor Who contingent in the cast and I loved Sylvester McCoy and Frazer Hines as Ernie and Frank. They're a fantastic little double act and McCoy definitely helped areas of the film that struggled. Jen, played by Natalie Clark, was quite a likeable character and I enjoyed the performance, but it was difficult to get anything more out of it once she was paired with our leading man. Rob, played by Kenny Boyle, was the chalk to Jen's cheese, he's gruff and mean but doesn't really have the redeemable qualities these characters have in reserve that make you root for them at the end of the film, coupled with the bland performance I found myself hoping that another stray singleton was going to appear and sweep Jen off her feet.
In my notes I tried to do some maths... maths in a film review?! I know! It baffled me too. There felt like discrepancies in Rob's timeline with his girlfriend when you compare their initial interaction and his reveal to Jen later on. It may just be me overthinking it, but when it came up my reaction was confusion, these things are easily foiled by vagueness but... *shrug*.
There's some beautiful scenery involved throughout the film but when you mix it with the obligatory Christmas film shenanigans you're not getting to enjoy a lot of it. Even its use in the opening titles wasn't great. The main backdrop of the pub is fun, though there are some issues with the use of space. Some shots make it seem expansive and some claustrophobic, and there's one shot in particular that made me audibly groan. Nearly everyone is in it, adults talking, teens (about four foot away from the rest of the cast) kissing... no... no kissing teens are putting themselves in that position, especially not these two. There would have been plenty of opportunity to have them in the back of this shot had the camera had a different angle.
The thing I think we should acknowledge about this film though is that it has some balls. Whenever I discuss romcoms and Christmas movies there are always a handful of scenarios that make me say "wouldn't it be great if these films did [insert realistic scenario here]?" Lost At Christmas went for it! Yeah... so it turns out... I want the cliche! Real-life sucks and actually, I'd rather bitch about things being unrealistic than see something that is much more likely to happen. Well done for doing it, but to quote my notes... "F*** THIS FILM!"
Lost At Christmas has so much potential in it. Let's take a look at my scale... You have bad Christmas films, very few fall into this category because they usually drop down so far that they get pushed back up the scale to "so bad they're good". Right next to "so bad they're good" is a general level for Hallmark-esque schmaltz (NOTE: this isn't to say that Hallmark movies won't break out into other areas, this is just a general descriptor for films that are pretty consistent in their watchability and themes... AKA: quality Sunday holiday fodder.) Then of course we have the Christmas classic level, that holds things like Home Alone, Klaus, Love Actually and Die Hard. Lost At Christmas is somewhere in the snowdrift between bad and schmaltz. With a bit more glitz and a few changes I could easily see this film being a hop, skip and a jump over the other side of Hallmark schmaltz as something you don't just watch because it started on the TV and you can't change the channel because you're holding down wrapping paper with one hand and have a spiral of sellotape in the other.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/11/lost-at-christmas-movie-review.html
When life changes very suddenly for two strangers they need to make their way back to their normal lives, but it's Christmas, and the simple journey home becomes something of an epic adventure across the Scottish Highlands.
I have realised that many years ago I found myself in a very similar situation to the one in this film, though thankfully I wasn't the one travelling anywhere. I have never really considered how difficult it might be to do this sort of journey... I'm fairly certain that I wouldn't do what this duo do... but you never know! So quite how believable this scenario is I can't say, but it does allow for the expected drama.
There's a great Doctor Who contingent in the cast and I loved Sylvester McCoy and Frazer Hines as Ernie and Frank. They're a fantastic little double act and McCoy definitely helped areas of the film that struggled. Jen, played by Natalie Clark, was quite a likeable character and I enjoyed the performance, but it was difficult to get anything more out of it once she was paired with our leading man. Rob, played by Kenny Boyle, was the chalk to Jen's cheese, he's gruff and mean but doesn't really have the redeemable qualities these characters have in reserve that make you root for them at the end of the film, coupled with the bland performance I found myself hoping that another stray singleton was going to appear and sweep Jen off her feet.
In my notes I tried to do some maths... maths in a film review?! I know! It baffled me too. There felt like discrepancies in Rob's timeline with his girlfriend when you compare their initial interaction and his reveal to Jen later on. It may just be me overthinking it, but when it came up my reaction was confusion, these things are easily foiled by vagueness but... *shrug*.
There's some beautiful scenery involved throughout the film but when you mix it with the obligatory Christmas film shenanigans you're not getting to enjoy a lot of it. Even its use in the opening titles wasn't great. The main backdrop of the pub is fun, though there are some issues with the use of space. Some shots make it seem expansive and some claustrophobic, and there's one shot in particular that made me audibly groan. Nearly everyone is in it, adults talking, teens (about four foot away from the rest of the cast) kissing... no... no kissing teens are putting themselves in that position, especially not these two. There would have been plenty of opportunity to have them in the back of this shot had the camera had a different angle.
The thing I think we should acknowledge about this film though is that it has some balls. Whenever I discuss romcoms and Christmas movies there are always a handful of scenarios that make me say "wouldn't it be great if these films did [insert realistic scenario here]?" Lost At Christmas went for it! Yeah... so it turns out... I want the cliche! Real-life sucks and actually, I'd rather bitch about things being unrealistic than see something that is much more likely to happen. Well done for doing it, but to quote my notes... "F*** THIS FILM!"
Lost At Christmas has so much potential in it. Let's take a look at my scale... You have bad Christmas films, very few fall into this category because they usually drop down so far that they get pushed back up the scale to "so bad they're good". Right next to "so bad they're good" is a general level for Hallmark-esque schmaltz (NOTE: this isn't to say that Hallmark movies won't break out into other areas, this is just a general descriptor for films that are pretty consistent in their watchability and themes... AKA: quality Sunday holiday fodder.) Then of course we have the Christmas classic level, that holds things like Home Alone, Klaus, Love Actually and Die Hard. Lost At Christmas is somewhere in the snowdrift between bad and schmaltz. With a bit more glitz and a few changes I could easily see this film being a hop, skip and a jump over the other side of Hallmark schmaltz as something you don't just watch because it started on the TV and you can't change the channel because you're holding down wrapping paper with one hand and have a spiral of sellotape in the other.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/11/lost-at-christmas-movie-review.html
Lee (2222 KP) Jul 20, 2019
Andy K (10821 KP) Jul 20, 2019