Search
Search results
Pete Thompson (4339 KP) rated The Stand in TV
Feb 10, 2021
I've never written a full review before as I let my score tell the story for the film/TV show in my view and don't like to influence people by what I write, simply put watch it and make your own judgement but with this steaming pile of crap I've had to do this just to get the anger and loathing off my chest.
I heard this was being redone and was looking forward to it having an update and a larger budget than the 94 version (which I love) I thought it wouldn't be as good but would be a solid installment.
I listen to audio books now as I dont get time to read with work and my toddler keeping me busy so I got The Stand to listen to; to get the story back into my head properly and get the juices flowing. I had read it back in the 90s but had forgotten things about it and just had memories of the 94 mini series and had put the scenes from that into the book. Anyway the cast list came out with their characters and just looking through them I said the only 1 that might be ok was Whoopi Goldberg as Mother Abigail. The rest I wasn't keen on and in the case of Larry and The Judge being the wrong race and sex respectively made me irrate and Glen being too young but thought I better wait and see. Oh my god I was proven wrong not being keen was great until I actually watched this mess. Main characters that don't get much screen time Nick, Flagg, Tom, Mother Abigail, Larry and Stu compared to the book and 94 series. Harold gets waaaay too much screen time, Lloyd is just an irritating man child twerp, Tom needs to be punched whats with the hands together bow like he is chinese? And trashcan man oh my word who the hell thought that was the performance required? I can honestly say I wouldnt even swap the peripheral actors from 94 for the main cast in this.
The original story had a beginning, middle and end. The 94 series did it the same. Welcome to 2020/21 series and a director that thinks he's being clever starting the show at the midway point and having flash backs but only for certain characters at certain times in each episode. Even knowing the book and 94 series didn't help to keep track of where the story was and what time frame. I sst there getting more and more angry at the stupid style but what made it worse is the liberties taken to change the story no tunnel sequence for Larry now a sewer so 80s/90s horror cliche, Mother Abigail is in a retirement home not still living independently in her own home baking her own bread. Nick and Tom being in the same town from the start not meeting on the road in the case for Nick, no sherif and doctor that Nick meets after his beating on the road not in a bar as shown in this version. Video cameras being used by Harold to spy on the committee and to monitor his home were never in the book he read Franny' diary on the road and she breaks into his house 1st not Larry. Randall Flagg is supposed to be feared by the good side but this version is laughable as you barely see him and when he is there there is no feeling of threat and underlying malice from him, I expected a lot better from Skarsgard after his brother knocked it out the park with Stephen Kings IT remake. He just didn't seem to really be arsed about the character and was there for a paycheck.
Anyway sorry for such a long rant but loving the book and 94 series this pile of dog s**t should be scrubbed from all records and forgotten about the only redeeming things it has going for it is the music and thats usually a song just as the episode is about to end and the evil side looks a lot more like it would for people without moral compasses and surpasses the 94 series on this part only.
I give it a 2 / 10 and it only gets that due to the music. A very disappointing reboot when all you had to do was follow a great book with the right casting.
I heard this was being redone and was looking forward to it having an update and a larger budget than the 94 version (which I love) I thought it wouldn't be as good but would be a solid installment.
I listen to audio books now as I dont get time to read with work and my toddler keeping me busy so I got The Stand to listen to; to get the story back into my head properly and get the juices flowing. I had read it back in the 90s but had forgotten things about it and just had memories of the 94 mini series and had put the scenes from that into the book. Anyway the cast list came out with their characters and just looking through them I said the only 1 that might be ok was Whoopi Goldberg as Mother Abigail. The rest I wasn't keen on and in the case of Larry and The Judge being the wrong race and sex respectively made me irrate and Glen being too young but thought I better wait and see. Oh my god I was proven wrong not being keen was great until I actually watched this mess. Main characters that don't get much screen time Nick, Flagg, Tom, Mother Abigail, Larry and Stu compared to the book and 94 series. Harold gets waaaay too much screen time, Lloyd is just an irritating man child twerp, Tom needs to be punched whats with the hands together bow like he is chinese? And trashcan man oh my word who the hell thought that was the performance required? I can honestly say I wouldnt even swap the peripheral actors from 94 for the main cast in this.
The original story had a beginning, middle and end. The 94 series did it the same. Welcome to 2020/21 series and a director that thinks he's being clever starting the show at the midway point and having flash backs but only for certain characters at certain times in each episode. Even knowing the book and 94 series didn't help to keep track of where the story was and what time frame. I sst there getting more and more angry at the stupid style but what made it worse is the liberties taken to change the story no tunnel sequence for Larry now a sewer so 80s/90s horror cliche, Mother Abigail is in a retirement home not still living independently in her own home baking her own bread. Nick and Tom being in the same town from the start not meeting on the road in the case for Nick, no sherif and doctor that Nick meets after his beating on the road not in a bar as shown in this version. Video cameras being used by Harold to spy on the committee and to monitor his home were never in the book he read Franny' diary on the road and she breaks into his house 1st not Larry. Randall Flagg is supposed to be feared by the good side but this version is laughable as you barely see him and when he is there there is no feeling of threat and underlying malice from him, I expected a lot better from Skarsgard after his brother knocked it out the park with Stephen Kings IT remake. He just didn't seem to really be arsed about the character and was there for a paycheck.
Anyway sorry for such a long rant but loving the book and 94 series this pile of dog s**t should be scrubbed from all records and forgotten about the only redeeming things it has going for it is the music and thats usually a song just as the episode is about to end and the evil side looks a lot more like it would for people without moral compasses and surpasses the 94 series on this part only.
I give it a 2 / 10 and it only gets that due to the music. A very disappointing reboot when all you had to do was follow a great book with the right casting.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Black Widow (2021) in Movies
Jul 11, 2021
After the MCU rounded up with Endgame I was having Marvel fatigue, I had my issues with the Spider-man movie, and I haven't been thrilled by the TV series that we've been getting on Disney+. I had managed to avoid most of the Black Widow coverage until getting back to the cinema, but even seeing the trailer on the big screen didn't get me pumped for it.
Natasha Romanoff is on the run... rewind the MCU a bit... Black Widow is on the run after the incident with the Sokovia accords. While she's on the move (and somehow invisible to detection despite being an Avenger... on the run) her past catches up with her, and after an awkward family reunion, they have to work together to rectify the mistakes of the past.
So how did this next outing in the MCU go down?
I wasn't mad about, or at, it. It nicely aligned itself with its position in the universe in a way that didn't feel too forced, and finally getting the history that the previous films alluded to... well, it was about time. I was surprised how well it managed to condense her story down and still manage to give enough to help it flow. I'm not sure it's the story I was expecting, or necessarily hoped for, but it was good. (I had assumed that we would be getting more about the inside of the Red Room, and not the results of it on the older recruits.)
Johansson gave a solid performance as you'd expect, she's perfected the role over the years and this performance sat well within the character she'd already developed. But what about the other cast members?
MVP for me was Florence Pugh as Yelena. A little frustrating for me to say, but I said it. The sisterly bond with Natasha was there in spades and she managed to grasp the emotion of the family moments so well. And her comedic timing with the sharp script was magnificent. I was delighted every time I saw her on the screen.
Playing Natasha and Yelena's parents are David Harbour and Rachel Weisz. An amusing pairing, with a very opposites attract kind of vibe. Alexie (Harbour) seems to change a lot from the historical points, and he also gets the comical treatment too, but in a more over the top way than Yelena. He had his moments, though I'm not sure it all landed. Weisz plays Melina, a straight-laced scientist/spy. Together they make an interesting team, but I'm not convinced that Melina would have stood up without Alexie.
My only problem with the case? Sometimes I found it a little jarring hearing those accents. Sure, it's nice to have a big recognisable cast, but listening to those accents from people you know really well from other things was continually off-putting.
I was thankful when the story started to pick up a bit. The beginning felt like a bit of a slog, and I was starting to lose hope. Looking back on it, 2 hours 13 minutes is a lot for what happened. It could easily have tightened up a bit and come in at around 2 hours. (And on the other end of the film, though completely separate to the run time... why put the credit scene right at the end?!)
The benefit of this film when it came to effects is that there was very little out of the ordinary that needed to be done. That meant that everything looked good on screen. I honestly didn't spot anything that stuck out like a sore thumb... or a Thanos henchman... that seems more appropriate given the film's universe. The studio have got CGI down to a fine art at this point.
As I said above, Black Widow gave a nice story to the character, and I can't help but think that they could have given her this before now, and not kicked her out into the sidelines behind the male superheroes. (Well, apart from Hawkeye, poor bugger.) I'm not bothered about seeing this again, which is odd for me as I will usually try and see a Marvel in 3D too. Even odder, because it's basically all that's on at my cinema right now. But I don't feel like I need to go back to try and spot things to link to other films. It feels very inconsequential at this point and, while I enjoyed it, a bit of a letdown.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/07/black-widow-movie-review.html
Natasha Romanoff is on the run... rewind the MCU a bit... Black Widow is on the run after the incident with the Sokovia accords. While she's on the move (and somehow invisible to detection despite being an Avenger... on the run) her past catches up with her, and after an awkward family reunion, they have to work together to rectify the mistakes of the past.
So how did this next outing in the MCU go down?
I wasn't mad about, or at, it. It nicely aligned itself with its position in the universe in a way that didn't feel too forced, and finally getting the history that the previous films alluded to... well, it was about time. I was surprised how well it managed to condense her story down and still manage to give enough to help it flow. I'm not sure it's the story I was expecting, or necessarily hoped for, but it was good. (I had assumed that we would be getting more about the inside of the Red Room, and not the results of it on the older recruits.)
Johansson gave a solid performance as you'd expect, she's perfected the role over the years and this performance sat well within the character she'd already developed. But what about the other cast members?
MVP for me was Florence Pugh as Yelena. A little frustrating for me to say, but I said it. The sisterly bond with Natasha was there in spades and she managed to grasp the emotion of the family moments so well. And her comedic timing with the sharp script was magnificent. I was delighted every time I saw her on the screen.
Playing Natasha and Yelena's parents are David Harbour and Rachel Weisz. An amusing pairing, with a very opposites attract kind of vibe. Alexie (Harbour) seems to change a lot from the historical points, and he also gets the comical treatment too, but in a more over the top way than Yelena. He had his moments, though I'm not sure it all landed. Weisz plays Melina, a straight-laced scientist/spy. Together they make an interesting team, but I'm not convinced that Melina would have stood up without Alexie.
My only problem with the case? Sometimes I found it a little jarring hearing those accents. Sure, it's nice to have a big recognisable cast, but listening to those accents from people you know really well from other things was continually off-putting.
I was thankful when the story started to pick up a bit. The beginning felt like a bit of a slog, and I was starting to lose hope. Looking back on it, 2 hours 13 minutes is a lot for what happened. It could easily have tightened up a bit and come in at around 2 hours. (And on the other end of the film, though completely separate to the run time... why put the credit scene right at the end?!)
The benefit of this film when it came to effects is that there was very little out of the ordinary that needed to be done. That meant that everything looked good on screen. I honestly didn't spot anything that stuck out like a sore thumb... or a Thanos henchman... that seems more appropriate given the film's universe. The studio have got CGI down to a fine art at this point.
As I said above, Black Widow gave a nice story to the character, and I can't help but think that they could have given her this before now, and not kicked her out into the sidelines behind the male superheroes. (Well, apart from Hawkeye, poor bugger.) I'm not bothered about seeing this again, which is odd for me as I will usually try and see a Marvel in 3D too. Even odder, because it's basically all that's on at my cinema right now. But I don't feel like I need to go back to try and spot things to link to other films. It feels very inconsequential at this point and, while I enjoyed it, a bit of a letdown.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/07/black-widow-movie-review.html
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Death to 2020 in TV
Jan 22, 2021
The annual event of Charlie Brooker’s Yearly Wipe is the one piece of satire I have been sure not to miss over the years. But 2020 has been a bit different, and finding himself in lockdown like everyone else, Brooker re-imagines the format into a full on talking-heads mockumentary that does away with himself as host in favour of a cross Atlantic vibe and a narration from the bass tones of Laurence Fishburne, no less.
There are also some random big names delivering the sarcastic views on the headlines too: Samuel L. Jackson kicks it all off; Hugh Grant adds to his list of heavily made up characters (and is probably the highlight) as a crusty old historian who struggles to put it all into context; Lisa Kudrow represents the Trump mentality in the form of a Republican press officer who plays hard and loose with the facts and the enforcement of facts; and even Tracey Ullman is dragged out of obscurity to play The Queen (which I didn’t entirely see the point of).
Last, but actually far from least, is Joe Keery, who most will recognise as Steve Harrington in Stranger Things – he represents all youth and the social media generation, claiming some of the most pertinent lines of observation about attitudes and the need to be noticed and relevant, using the news as a basis to flaunt your own opinion and gain followers, as well as a soapbox to show the world how much you have suffered as the world suffers.
Diane Morgan, known for her hilarious regilar turns as Philomena Cunk, tries out an alternate role as the world’s most average woman, who has “finished” Netflix, but understands little of what has happened around her own bubble in the world at large. I mean, it is baffling, all of it! And together these voices and others fairly represent a lot of different types of fool to be lampooned. I missed Cunk, but essentially it served the same purpose.
You can expect from the Brooker team there will be no punches pulled, and at its best moments, Death to 2020, is almost worth standing up and applauding for making sense of things we have all been thinking for almost a year. Of course, part of the joke being that to make an historical documentary about a year that wasn’t even over at the time it was released on Netflix is as bizarre and ridiculous as the way any other news item has been the entire time we have experienced it in reality.
There is a British slant on things for a while, but inevitably the target becomes the US election and the Trump administration, which is a gold mine for all things silly, because it barely needs admonishing to become entirely bonkers! I felt like it could have been a little longer than just over an hour, to fit every angle of Covid and Trump and Boris and everything else in, but it also almost outstays its welcome as it is, so in the end I think they made the right call in leaving some issues out. Despite that it does move along at such a pace that often the joke flies past you before you can properly think about it.
The problem with it as a production is that it is neither a movie or a TV show, but some kind of inbetween thing, with as many ideas that don’t work as the ones that do, and not as many laugh out loud moments as there maybe should have been. Nor were there many moments of real weight, where the rug of comedy is pulled from under your feet and the truth and gravity of events is seen in terrifying reality and perspective for a moment – a trick Brooker usually employs on Yearly Wipe. And that was a shame. I missed that part of it, and felt it needed it.
For me, it was a take it or leave it kind of thing. Sure, it killed an hour or so and wasn’t bad in any way, but it wasn’t anything you’re gonna be shouting from the rooftops about. Maybe one or two moments will come up in conversation between two friends that saw it, but no one is saying “wow, that really hit the nail on the head”. Rather, it was a little silly, somewhat distracting and entirely throw-away.
Bring back the old format, Charlie, when you can. It was much more effective, and funny! I think you know that yourself.
There are also some random big names delivering the sarcastic views on the headlines too: Samuel L. Jackson kicks it all off; Hugh Grant adds to his list of heavily made up characters (and is probably the highlight) as a crusty old historian who struggles to put it all into context; Lisa Kudrow represents the Trump mentality in the form of a Republican press officer who plays hard and loose with the facts and the enforcement of facts; and even Tracey Ullman is dragged out of obscurity to play The Queen (which I didn’t entirely see the point of).
Last, but actually far from least, is Joe Keery, who most will recognise as Steve Harrington in Stranger Things – he represents all youth and the social media generation, claiming some of the most pertinent lines of observation about attitudes and the need to be noticed and relevant, using the news as a basis to flaunt your own opinion and gain followers, as well as a soapbox to show the world how much you have suffered as the world suffers.
Diane Morgan, known for her hilarious regilar turns as Philomena Cunk, tries out an alternate role as the world’s most average woman, who has “finished” Netflix, but understands little of what has happened around her own bubble in the world at large. I mean, it is baffling, all of it! And together these voices and others fairly represent a lot of different types of fool to be lampooned. I missed Cunk, but essentially it served the same purpose.
You can expect from the Brooker team there will be no punches pulled, and at its best moments, Death to 2020, is almost worth standing up and applauding for making sense of things we have all been thinking for almost a year. Of course, part of the joke being that to make an historical documentary about a year that wasn’t even over at the time it was released on Netflix is as bizarre and ridiculous as the way any other news item has been the entire time we have experienced it in reality.
There is a British slant on things for a while, but inevitably the target becomes the US election and the Trump administration, which is a gold mine for all things silly, because it barely needs admonishing to become entirely bonkers! I felt like it could have been a little longer than just over an hour, to fit every angle of Covid and Trump and Boris and everything else in, but it also almost outstays its welcome as it is, so in the end I think they made the right call in leaving some issues out. Despite that it does move along at such a pace that often the joke flies past you before you can properly think about it.
The problem with it as a production is that it is neither a movie or a TV show, but some kind of inbetween thing, with as many ideas that don’t work as the ones that do, and not as many laugh out loud moments as there maybe should have been. Nor were there many moments of real weight, where the rug of comedy is pulled from under your feet and the truth and gravity of events is seen in terrifying reality and perspective for a moment – a trick Brooker usually employs on Yearly Wipe. And that was a shame. I missed that part of it, and felt it needed it.
For me, it was a take it or leave it kind of thing. Sure, it killed an hour or so and wasn’t bad in any way, but it wasn’t anything you’re gonna be shouting from the rooftops about. Maybe one or two moments will come up in conversation between two friends that saw it, but no one is saying “wow, that really hit the nail on the head”. Rather, it was a little silly, somewhat distracting and entirely throw-away.
Bring back the old format, Charlie, when you can. It was much more effective, and funny! I think you know that yourself.
Kara Skinner (332 KP) rated The Mistletoe Bride in Books
Sep 10, 2019
Sometimes we all need a little bit of a pick-me-up during the holiday season. It’s supposed to be the most wonderful time of the year and all that, but it’s frickin’ stressful. Between the in-laws and the holiday shopping (not to mention the calories. Yikes!), December can quickly turn into a jolly nightmare. However, The Mistletoe Bride is perfect for getting into the holiday season.
You see, Eve is having her own trouble this Christmas season. Two weeks before Christmas, her fiance breaks everything off with her because he had been having an affair with his secretary and had gotten her pregnant. This leaves her single and with two tickets to paradise she had been going to surprise her husband with. And she plans to do something crazy. Instead of moping at home, or going on vacation by herself, she plans on asking a perfect stranger on going on vacation with her.
Nick Christmas is shocked when a beautiful and mysterious woman asks him to go on a trip with her, and he’s a little wary, too. But after talking with her for a few minutes in a coffee shop, he’s drawn to her. He’s more than ready to go on vacation with Eve and help her forget her sorrows, but he knows there’s more to everything than an innocent holiday when she starts hearing bells in his laugh. After all, Nick is destined to become the next Santa Claus– and it looks like Eve is destined to be his bride.
First of all, “Two Tickets to Paradise” by Eddie Money will get stuck in your head when you’re reading this. So if you know the song but hate it (but why would you hate it, unless you’re insane?), this might not be the best stress reliever. (I happen to like the song just fine, so no harm done to me.)
Like I said before, this is a great pick-me-up for the holiday season. And that’s all it is: a pick me up to enjoy that will get you in the mood for Christmas. If you like made-for-TV Christmas romances, then you’ll probably like The Mistletoe Bride. It’s adorable. Eve is all innocent and vulnerable and kind, and Nick is all strong and protective and kind. He really wants to help Eve heal from the damage done from her last relationship, and he doesn’t rush her even though he knows she’s his mistletoe bride. It’s incredibly sweet. And I really like how Scarlett Jade build the magic and myth of Santa Claus like she did. Inheriting the role of Santa, a magic suit that fits all Santas perfectly, the knowledge of everyone, as if he’s a god…. it’s pretty awesome.
But the book isn’t perfect. It was anticlimactic, honestly. Yes, there was a lot of suspense what with the Winter Elf trying to destroy Christmas and the race to the altar and everything, but it was rushed. The Winter Elf didn’t even come in until later and probably just to add a little spice to the mainly bland aftermath of Eve’s and Nick’s betrothal. The big villain in the whole book just wanted to make toys for Santa’s workshop. That’s it. I mean really? It’s a romance, not a thriller, I know, but we could have drawn it out a little bit more.
There also shouldn’t have been any sex scenes in this book. I know, this is a really strange complaint for me. After all I love sex scenes and they’re never a problem, right? (But hell is not freezing over right now because the Winter Elf is too effing busy making toys for Santa to cause some damn chaos!) The thing is, the love interest is Santa. Even if he’s young and about to marry his soul mate, he should not have sex appeal. Why? Because he’s Santa. He defined at least a third of my childhood (I really love Christmas) and he’s supposed to be a jolly gift-giver who loves cookies. Having a Santa Clause with sex appeal is like having a Mickey Mouse with sex appeal. Just. Don’t. Do it.
Even Spock thinks a sexy Santa is weird.
Since I was in the right mood for this book when I read it, I’m giving it four out of five stars. But most days I would probably only give it three.
You see, Eve is having her own trouble this Christmas season. Two weeks before Christmas, her fiance breaks everything off with her because he had been having an affair with his secretary and had gotten her pregnant. This leaves her single and with two tickets to paradise she had been going to surprise her husband with. And she plans to do something crazy. Instead of moping at home, or going on vacation by herself, she plans on asking a perfect stranger on going on vacation with her.
Nick Christmas is shocked when a beautiful and mysterious woman asks him to go on a trip with her, and he’s a little wary, too. But after talking with her for a few minutes in a coffee shop, he’s drawn to her. He’s more than ready to go on vacation with Eve and help her forget her sorrows, but he knows there’s more to everything than an innocent holiday when she starts hearing bells in his laugh. After all, Nick is destined to become the next Santa Claus– and it looks like Eve is destined to be his bride.
First of all, “Two Tickets to Paradise” by Eddie Money will get stuck in your head when you’re reading this. So if you know the song but hate it (but why would you hate it, unless you’re insane?), this might not be the best stress reliever. (I happen to like the song just fine, so no harm done to me.)
Like I said before, this is a great pick-me-up for the holiday season. And that’s all it is: a pick me up to enjoy that will get you in the mood for Christmas. If you like made-for-TV Christmas romances, then you’ll probably like The Mistletoe Bride. It’s adorable. Eve is all innocent and vulnerable and kind, and Nick is all strong and protective and kind. He really wants to help Eve heal from the damage done from her last relationship, and he doesn’t rush her even though he knows she’s his mistletoe bride. It’s incredibly sweet. And I really like how Scarlett Jade build the magic and myth of Santa Claus like she did. Inheriting the role of Santa, a magic suit that fits all Santas perfectly, the knowledge of everyone, as if he’s a god…. it’s pretty awesome.
But the book isn’t perfect. It was anticlimactic, honestly. Yes, there was a lot of suspense what with the Winter Elf trying to destroy Christmas and the race to the altar and everything, but it was rushed. The Winter Elf didn’t even come in until later and probably just to add a little spice to the mainly bland aftermath of Eve’s and Nick’s betrothal. The big villain in the whole book just wanted to make toys for Santa’s workshop. That’s it. I mean really? It’s a romance, not a thriller, I know, but we could have drawn it out a little bit more.
There also shouldn’t have been any sex scenes in this book. I know, this is a really strange complaint for me. After all I love sex scenes and they’re never a problem, right? (But hell is not freezing over right now because the Winter Elf is too effing busy making toys for Santa to cause some damn chaos!) The thing is, the love interest is Santa. Even if he’s young and about to marry his soul mate, he should not have sex appeal. Why? Because he’s Santa. He defined at least a third of my childhood (I really love Christmas) and he’s supposed to be a jolly gift-giver who loves cookies. Having a Santa Clause with sex appeal is like having a Mickey Mouse with sex appeal. Just. Don’t. Do it.
Even Spock thinks a sexy Santa is weird.
Since I was in the right mood for this book when I read it, I’m giving it four out of five stars. But most days I would probably only give it three.
Joe Wright’s 2011 film version of Hanna starring Saoirse Ronan, Cate Blanchett and Eric Bana is an odd movie. It isn’t bad. It just doesn’t work. The idea at its heart is great, as are some of the action sequences, there is just something over styled about it that is jarring. I’ve been back to it a few times to see if age helps, but it really doesn’t – Hanna the movie is an admirable failure.
So when Amazon announced they were resurrecting the character, the basic story and idea and the essential vibe of Hanna in 2019 as a series… I was pretty sceptical. I doubt to this day I would have watched it at all if I hadn’t stumbled across the trailer and been arrested by the presence of this young girl who had been cast in the main role. She looked wild and vulnerable at the same time, her eyes were piercing and something about her was just jumping off the screen. I went to IMDb as is my habit to find out who she was. Turns out her name was Esme Creed-Miles, the daughter of actors Samantha Morton and Charlie Creed-Miles.
Wow, yes, that made sense! I love Samantha Morton in anything – have done ever since she played Joanne Barnes in Cracker, aged 17. She has a ferocious beauty and edge of danger about her that is entirely feminine but also fearlessly strong and individual. Her roles have always been diverse, because she is capable of total power or intense vulnerability, sometimes in the same character, all laced with a focused intelligence that is quite rare. So, I had basically seen all of that in a two minute trailer staring a chip off the old block. Now I was excited to see it!
I wouldn’t say the set up of season one blew me away, but it did have enough going for it to keep me watching. Not as a binge watch, which usually indicates how much I am into something, but for sure as a steady desire to come back for more in time. Joel Kinnaman made a decent replacement as Erik, the father figure who teaches Hanna to survive, and Mireille Enos was doing a lovely job in the Cate Blanchett role as an ambiguous villain / ally. But it was all about Esme Creed-Miles, who was consistently delivering a performance of mesmerising quality – I could not take my eyes off her. As with the character she was playing there was some learning to be done in understanding the rules of this world, but she had obviously been trained well by a parent with huge experience in these things.
Season one ends with a tantalising cliffhanger, and there didn’t seem to be much of a wait to get back into it in season two, which felt more assured and more mature from the start. It came to me at a weird time in lockdown where I had no internet or means to watch anything I hadn’t downloaded already, which was a handful of films I’d already seen and season two of Hanna. I ended up watching each episode at least three times each, sometimes in a row, and sometimes going back… it just became a real companion to me in an odd way. I got hooked on it in a way I would find hard to describe – sometimes a show does that to us, even when objectively we know it isn’t the best, or most original, thing ever made.
It isn’t badly made by any means, but it is perhaps a little predictable at times. It has a high production standard, but still feels very much like TV and not a feature film in episodes. The action choreography is always great, as is the overall story arch. What is perhaps a little lacking is consistently strong dialogue, directing and supporting acting, especially when the cast of season two depends on a lot of teenagers, none of which have half the natural ability of Creed-Miles.
My main feeling about Hanna is to state I really enjoyed it, without overstating that it is any kind of genius, or is treading any new artistic ground. It is just a solid entertainment worth the time, and I will definitely be looking forward to season three. The entire project has a strong female core, and that is worth seeing in 2021. I suspect the main thing watching this will bring, however, is the genesis of a future superstar. Mark my words – Esme Creed-Miles just turned 21 and the film world is ready for the next Emma Stone, Jennifer Lawrence or… Samantha Morton.
So when Amazon announced they were resurrecting the character, the basic story and idea and the essential vibe of Hanna in 2019 as a series… I was pretty sceptical. I doubt to this day I would have watched it at all if I hadn’t stumbled across the trailer and been arrested by the presence of this young girl who had been cast in the main role. She looked wild and vulnerable at the same time, her eyes were piercing and something about her was just jumping off the screen. I went to IMDb as is my habit to find out who she was. Turns out her name was Esme Creed-Miles, the daughter of actors Samantha Morton and Charlie Creed-Miles.
Wow, yes, that made sense! I love Samantha Morton in anything – have done ever since she played Joanne Barnes in Cracker, aged 17. She has a ferocious beauty and edge of danger about her that is entirely feminine but also fearlessly strong and individual. Her roles have always been diverse, because she is capable of total power or intense vulnerability, sometimes in the same character, all laced with a focused intelligence that is quite rare. So, I had basically seen all of that in a two minute trailer staring a chip off the old block. Now I was excited to see it!
I wouldn’t say the set up of season one blew me away, but it did have enough going for it to keep me watching. Not as a binge watch, which usually indicates how much I am into something, but for sure as a steady desire to come back for more in time. Joel Kinnaman made a decent replacement as Erik, the father figure who teaches Hanna to survive, and Mireille Enos was doing a lovely job in the Cate Blanchett role as an ambiguous villain / ally. But it was all about Esme Creed-Miles, who was consistently delivering a performance of mesmerising quality – I could not take my eyes off her. As with the character she was playing there was some learning to be done in understanding the rules of this world, but she had obviously been trained well by a parent with huge experience in these things.
Season one ends with a tantalising cliffhanger, and there didn’t seem to be much of a wait to get back into it in season two, which felt more assured and more mature from the start. It came to me at a weird time in lockdown where I had no internet or means to watch anything I hadn’t downloaded already, which was a handful of films I’d already seen and season two of Hanna. I ended up watching each episode at least three times each, sometimes in a row, and sometimes going back… it just became a real companion to me in an odd way. I got hooked on it in a way I would find hard to describe – sometimes a show does that to us, even when objectively we know it isn’t the best, or most original, thing ever made.
It isn’t badly made by any means, but it is perhaps a little predictable at times. It has a high production standard, but still feels very much like TV and not a feature film in episodes. The action choreography is always great, as is the overall story arch. What is perhaps a little lacking is consistently strong dialogue, directing and supporting acting, especially when the cast of season two depends on a lot of teenagers, none of which have half the natural ability of Creed-Miles.
My main feeling about Hanna is to state I really enjoyed it, without overstating that it is any kind of genius, or is treading any new artistic ground. It is just a solid entertainment worth the time, and I will definitely be looking forward to season three. The entire project has a strong female core, and that is worth seeing in 2021. I suspect the main thing watching this will bring, however, is the genesis of a future superstar. Mark my words – Esme Creed-Miles just turned 21 and the film world is ready for the next Emma Stone, Jennifer Lawrence or… Samantha Morton.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Children Act (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
“And the Oscar goes to”… (or should go to)… “Dame Emma Thompson”.
Given my last review was for “The Equalizer 2“, where Denzel was judge, jury and executioner, it’s a nice seque that this film follows the life of a senior judge in London’s Law Courts: trying to do the justice job, but in the right way!
Judge Maye (Thompson) is a childless wife to her loving husband Jack (Tucci), but is also a workaholic. This is driving the long-term couple to the point of infidelity: a fact the ever-focused Fiona – whose life, to her, probably feels to be in a perfect if selfish equilibrium – is oblivious to. With Fiona’s intense but comfortable world about to cave in around her, her increasing stress is not helped by the latest case she is working on: one where Adam ( Fionn Whitehead from “Dunkirk“), a Jehovah’s Witness boy and a minor, is refusing on religious grounds the blood transfusion he desperately needs to fight his leukaemia. Fiona’s decisions in the months ahead go much further than a simple judgement on the case.
Two acting giants – one born in London; one born in New York – tower over this Ian McEwan adaptation like leviathons. I bandy around the phrase “national treasure” a lot in these reviews but, if there was a league table of national treasures, Emma Thompson would qualify for the Champion’s League every season. Here she is simply breathtakingly powerful in the lead role of Judge Fiona Maye, exhibiting such extremes of emotion that you would like to think that an Oscar nomination would be assured. (However, before I run out and put a £10 bet on her to win, the film is such a small British film that unfortunately both a nomination and a win seem unlikely! THIS IS A CRIME! So I have added the tag #OscarBuzz to this post…. please share and lobby people, lobby! Perhaps at the very least we can hope for some BAFTA recognition).
Sometimes a masterly lead performance can make a co-star performance seem unbalanced, but no such danger here. Stanley Tucci makes a perfect acting foil for Thompson: if he were a wine he would be described as “exasperation, frustration, compassion with strong notes of respect”. And he carries it off with perfection.
This is an incredibly intelligent film, working on so many different levels and subject to so much interpretation. Fiona’s feelings for the troubled teenager feel more maternal than sexual, but when those feelings become returned and escalate the whole piece develops a queasily oedipal quality. Many films have focused on illicit attractions between teacher and pupil, but here lies a new variation, with Maye fighting against her best professional insticts to ‘do the right thing’. “I’m frightened of myself” she eventually wails to a colleague.
In his opening hospital scenes*, Adam seems completely other-wordly compared to a typical teen and this comes across as utterly false. That is, until you consider the oddness of his family background and Jehovah’s Witness upbringing. As such, the film just about gets away with it. Whitehead does a good job with a difficult role. (*It took my wife to point out – after the film, thank goodness – the similarities between this hospital scene and a famous guitar-playing scene in “Airplane” at which I dissolved into guffaws!).
If you’ve been in a court, you’ll know that there is something regal and magical about a judge in full regalia entering a packed courtroom. So it’s unusual to see the view from the other side of the door… a non-descript office corridor and a non-descript door. Helping the judge on this side of the door is her PA Nigel, played by the brilliant Jason Watkins: a TV regular (e.g. “Line of Duty”, “W1A”) but seen far less at the movies.
As a story of obsessive fixation, it borders on McEwan’s disturbing earlier work “Enduring Love”. And it has the potential to go in lots of interesting directions as a sort of bonkers platonic love triangle (“He wants to live with US?” splutters Tucci). Where the story does end up going was not particularly to my liking, and a melodramatic concert scene was – for me – a little overdone. However it does give rise to a scene (the ‘sopping wet’ scene) that shows Thompson at her most brilliant: if she DID get Oscar or BAFTA nominated then this will be her pre-announcement snippet.
It’s a great film for showcasing acting talent, but beware: it’s not got a “lot of laffs”. As such it’s very much a “Father Ted film” that takes a while to recover from.
Judge Maye (Thompson) is a childless wife to her loving husband Jack (Tucci), but is also a workaholic. This is driving the long-term couple to the point of infidelity: a fact the ever-focused Fiona – whose life, to her, probably feels to be in a perfect if selfish equilibrium – is oblivious to. With Fiona’s intense but comfortable world about to cave in around her, her increasing stress is not helped by the latest case she is working on: one where Adam ( Fionn Whitehead from “Dunkirk“), a Jehovah’s Witness boy and a minor, is refusing on religious grounds the blood transfusion he desperately needs to fight his leukaemia. Fiona’s decisions in the months ahead go much further than a simple judgement on the case.
Two acting giants – one born in London; one born in New York – tower over this Ian McEwan adaptation like leviathons. I bandy around the phrase “national treasure” a lot in these reviews but, if there was a league table of national treasures, Emma Thompson would qualify for the Champion’s League every season. Here she is simply breathtakingly powerful in the lead role of Judge Fiona Maye, exhibiting such extremes of emotion that you would like to think that an Oscar nomination would be assured. (However, before I run out and put a £10 bet on her to win, the film is such a small British film that unfortunately both a nomination and a win seem unlikely! THIS IS A CRIME! So I have added the tag #OscarBuzz to this post…. please share and lobby people, lobby! Perhaps at the very least we can hope for some BAFTA recognition).
Sometimes a masterly lead performance can make a co-star performance seem unbalanced, but no such danger here. Stanley Tucci makes a perfect acting foil for Thompson: if he were a wine he would be described as “exasperation, frustration, compassion with strong notes of respect”. And he carries it off with perfection.
This is an incredibly intelligent film, working on so many different levels and subject to so much interpretation. Fiona’s feelings for the troubled teenager feel more maternal than sexual, but when those feelings become returned and escalate the whole piece develops a queasily oedipal quality. Many films have focused on illicit attractions between teacher and pupil, but here lies a new variation, with Maye fighting against her best professional insticts to ‘do the right thing’. “I’m frightened of myself” she eventually wails to a colleague.
In his opening hospital scenes*, Adam seems completely other-wordly compared to a typical teen and this comes across as utterly false. That is, until you consider the oddness of his family background and Jehovah’s Witness upbringing. As such, the film just about gets away with it. Whitehead does a good job with a difficult role. (*It took my wife to point out – after the film, thank goodness – the similarities between this hospital scene and a famous guitar-playing scene in “Airplane” at which I dissolved into guffaws!).
If you’ve been in a court, you’ll know that there is something regal and magical about a judge in full regalia entering a packed courtroom. So it’s unusual to see the view from the other side of the door… a non-descript office corridor and a non-descript door. Helping the judge on this side of the door is her PA Nigel, played by the brilliant Jason Watkins: a TV regular (e.g. “Line of Duty”, “W1A”) but seen far less at the movies.
As a story of obsessive fixation, it borders on McEwan’s disturbing earlier work “Enduring Love”. And it has the potential to go in lots of interesting directions as a sort of bonkers platonic love triangle (“He wants to live with US?” splutters Tucci). Where the story does end up going was not particularly to my liking, and a melodramatic concert scene was – for me – a little overdone. However it does give rise to a scene (the ‘sopping wet’ scene) that shows Thompson at her most brilliant: if she DID get Oscar or BAFTA nominated then this will be her pre-announcement snippet.
It’s a great film for showcasing acting talent, but beware: it’s not got a “lot of laffs”. As such it’s very much a “Father Ted film” that takes a while to recover from.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Spielberg (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
On making Drew Barrymore cry.
“Spielberg” is an HBO-produced documentary by documentarian Susan Lacy. You’ll never guess who the subject is?!
Steven Spielberg is a product of one of the most surprising revolutions in Hollywood in the late 70’s: one of a set of wunderkind directors alongside such luminaries as George Lucas, Francis Ford Coppola, John Milius, Brian De Palma and Martin Scorcese. These men (only men, it should be noted!) were ready to cock a snook at Hollywood’s traditional studio system to break rules (case in point, Star Wars’ lack of opening credits) and move cinema into the format that would last to this day.
As this excellent documentary makes clear, Spielberg was one of the least rebellious of the movie-brats. Even though (astoundingly) he blagged himself a production office at Universal (after hiding during the Tram Tour toilet stop!), his path to the top was through hard graft on multiple Universal TV shows, after recognition of his talents by Universal exec Sidney Sheinberg who speaks in the film.
Before we get to that stage of his life, we cover his childhood back-story as a reluctant Jew living in a non-Jewish neighbourhood, driven to fill his time with tormenting his sisters and movie-making with a Super 8 camera. Scenes of home videos, photos and his early attempts at special effects are all fascinating. The impact of his Bohemian mother Leah and workaholic father Arnold, and particularly the very surprising relationship breakdown that happened between them, go a long way to explain the constant return to ‘father issues’ in many of his films such as “E.T.”, “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”, “Hook” and “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade”.
The majority of the film though settles down into a roughly chronological review of the highlights of his movie career, with particular emphasis justly being placed on some of the key watershed moments in that career. Most of his films get at least a mention, but “Jaws”, “E.T.”, “Schindler’s List”, “The Color Purple”, “Jurassic Park”, “Munich” and “Empire of the Sun” get more focus. It is such a wonderful trip down my cinematic memory lane. I also forget just what cinematic majesty and craftsmanship is present in these films: I just hope that at some point this will get a Blu-Ray or DVD release so it can be properly appreciated (rather than viewing it on a tiny airplane screen which is how I watched this): the combination of film clips in here is breathtaking.
As might be expected for a documentary about the great director, there is plenty of ‘behind the camera’ footage on show, some of which is fascinating. Spielberg could always get the very best performances out of the youngsters on set, from Cary Guffey (“Toys!!”) in “Close Encounters” to a heartbreaking scene where he reduces the young Drew Barrymore to howls of emotion in “E.T.”. A master at work.
All of the movie scenes are accompanied by new interview footage from Spielberg himself, as well as warm platitudes from many of the luminaries he has worked with in the past. Directors involved include many of the the directors referenced above, as well as those modern directors influenced by him such as J.J. Abrams; his go-to cinematographers Vilmos Zsigmond and Janusz Kaminski; his ‘go-to’ composer John Williams; and stars including his go-to ‘everyman’ Richard Dreyfuss, Tom Cruise, Harrison Ford, Bob Balaban, Tom Hanks, Opray Winfrey, Leonardo DiCaprio, Christian Bale, Dustin Hoffman and James Brolin. Some of these comments are useful and insightful; some are just fairly meaningless sound bites that add nothing to the film. What all the comments are though is almost all uniformly positive.
And that’s my only criticism of the film. Like me, Susan Lacy is clearly a big fan. It is probably quite hard to find anyone who isn’t…. but perhaps Ms Lacy should have tried a bit harder! There is only limited focus on his big comedy flop of 1979, “1941”, and no mention at all of his lowest WW grossing film “Always”. And there are only a few contributors – notably film critic Janet Maslin – who are willing to stick their head above the parapet and prod into Spielberg’s weaknesses; ostensibly his tendency to veer to the sentimental and away from harder issues: the omitted “Color Purple” ‘mirror scene’ being a case in point.
This is a recommended watch for Spielberg fans. On the eve of the launch of his latest – “Ready Player One”, a film that I am personally dubious about from the trailer – it’s a great insight into the life and works of the great man. It could though have cut a slightly harder and more critical edge.
Steven Spielberg is a product of one of the most surprising revolutions in Hollywood in the late 70’s: one of a set of wunderkind directors alongside such luminaries as George Lucas, Francis Ford Coppola, John Milius, Brian De Palma and Martin Scorcese. These men (only men, it should be noted!) were ready to cock a snook at Hollywood’s traditional studio system to break rules (case in point, Star Wars’ lack of opening credits) and move cinema into the format that would last to this day.
As this excellent documentary makes clear, Spielberg was one of the least rebellious of the movie-brats. Even though (astoundingly) he blagged himself a production office at Universal (after hiding during the Tram Tour toilet stop!), his path to the top was through hard graft on multiple Universal TV shows, after recognition of his talents by Universal exec Sidney Sheinberg who speaks in the film.
Before we get to that stage of his life, we cover his childhood back-story as a reluctant Jew living in a non-Jewish neighbourhood, driven to fill his time with tormenting his sisters and movie-making with a Super 8 camera. Scenes of home videos, photos and his early attempts at special effects are all fascinating. The impact of his Bohemian mother Leah and workaholic father Arnold, and particularly the very surprising relationship breakdown that happened between them, go a long way to explain the constant return to ‘father issues’ in many of his films such as “E.T.”, “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”, “Hook” and “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade”.
The majority of the film though settles down into a roughly chronological review of the highlights of his movie career, with particular emphasis justly being placed on some of the key watershed moments in that career. Most of his films get at least a mention, but “Jaws”, “E.T.”, “Schindler’s List”, “The Color Purple”, “Jurassic Park”, “Munich” and “Empire of the Sun” get more focus. It is such a wonderful trip down my cinematic memory lane. I also forget just what cinematic majesty and craftsmanship is present in these films: I just hope that at some point this will get a Blu-Ray or DVD release so it can be properly appreciated (rather than viewing it on a tiny airplane screen which is how I watched this): the combination of film clips in here is breathtaking.
As might be expected for a documentary about the great director, there is plenty of ‘behind the camera’ footage on show, some of which is fascinating. Spielberg could always get the very best performances out of the youngsters on set, from Cary Guffey (“Toys!!”) in “Close Encounters” to a heartbreaking scene where he reduces the young Drew Barrymore to howls of emotion in “E.T.”. A master at work.
All of the movie scenes are accompanied by new interview footage from Spielberg himself, as well as warm platitudes from many of the luminaries he has worked with in the past. Directors involved include many of the the directors referenced above, as well as those modern directors influenced by him such as J.J. Abrams; his go-to cinematographers Vilmos Zsigmond and Janusz Kaminski; his ‘go-to’ composer John Williams; and stars including his go-to ‘everyman’ Richard Dreyfuss, Tom Cruise, Harrison Ford, Bob Balaban, Tom Hanks, Opray Winfrey, Leonardo DiCaprio, Christian Bale, Dustin Hoffman and James Brolin. Some of these comments are useful and insightful; some are just fairly meaningless sound bites that add nothing to the film. What all the comments are though is almost all uniformly positive.
And that’s my only criticism of the film. Like me, Susan Lacy is clearly a big fan. It is probably quite hard to find anyone who isn’t…. but perhaps Ms Lacy should have tried a bit harder! There is only limited focus on his big comedy flop of 1979, “1941”, and no mention at all of his lowest WW grossing film “Always”. And there are only a few contributors – notably film critic Janet Maslin – who are willing to stick their head above the parapet and prod into Spielberg’s weaknesses; ostensibly his tendency to veer to the sentimental and away from harder issues: the omitted “Color Purple” ‘mirror scene’ being a case in point.
This is a recommended watch for Spielberg fans. On the eve of the launch of his latest – “Ready Player One”, a film that I am personally dubious about from the trailer – it’s a great insight into the life and works of the great man. It could though have cut a slightly harder and more critical edge.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Colossal (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
A Marvel-ous Indie Movie
Well!! I’ve been really surprised (in a good way) by two films this year, and both have involved monsters (the first being “A Monster Calls” back in January).
It’s really difficult to categorise “Colossal” – imdb classes it as a “Comedy, Action, Drama”. Comedy? Yes, but it’s a very dark comedy indeed. Action? Hmm, not really… if you go to this expecting ‘Godzilla 2’ or some polished Marvel-style film (not that I was!) you will be sorely disappointed. Drama? This is probably the nearest match, since at its heart this is a clever study on the people and relationships at the heart of a bizarre Sci-Fi event.
Anne Hathaway (“Les Miserables”) stars as Gloria, a borderline alcoholic-waster sponging off the good-natured but controlling Tim (Dan Stevens, “Beauty and the Beast”) in his New York apartment. When Tim’s patience finally runs out, Gloria returns to her hometown to an empty house and the attentions of a former school friend, bar owner Oscar (Jason Sudeikis), who clearly holds an unhealthy fascination with her. Borrowing an idea from “A Monster Calls”, at a specific time in the US morning a huge monster appears from thin air in Seoul, South Korea, killing people and smashing buildings in a seemingly uncoordinated and random way. Bizarrely, this only happens when Gloria is standing at a particular spot in a particular kid’s playground. Could the two events possibly be related?
I always like to categorize films in my head as being “like” others, but this one’s really difficult to pin down. It borrows its main premise from a famous scene in “E.T.” (indeed one also involving alcohol) but the film’s fantasy elements and dark undertones have more similarities in style to “Jumanji”. Then again, there are elements of the Kaufman about it in that it is as weird in some places as “Being John Malkovich”.
The film stays on ‘Whimsical Street’ for the first half of the film, but then takes a sharp left turn into ‘Dark Avenue’ (and for “dark” read “extremely black and sinister”). It then becomes a far more uncomfortable watch for the viewer. The metaphor of the monster for Gloria’s growing addiction is clear, but emerging themes of control, jealousy, violent bullying and small-town social entrapment also emerge.
Here the acting talents of Hathaway and Sudeikis really come to the fore: heavyweight Hollywood talent adding some significant ‘oomph’ to what is a fairly modest indie project. Hathaway is in kooky mode here, gurning to great comic effect, and this adds warmth to a not particularly likeable character. And Sudeikis (more commonly seen in lighter and frothier comedies like “We’re the Millers” and “Horrible Bosses”) is a surprise in the role delivering some real acting grit.
The writer and director is Spaniard Nacho Vigalondo. No, me neither. But he seems to have come from nowhere to deliver this high profile cinema release, and it would not be a surprise for me to see this nominated as an original screenplay come the awards season. His quirky style is refreshing. (Hell, delivering ANY novel new summer movie that is not part of a franchise or TV re-boot is refreshing!)
The film’s not perfect, and its disjointed style can be unsettling. While the lead characters are quite well defined, others are less so. Joel in particular, played by Austin Stowell (“Whiplash“, “Bridge of Spies“), is such an irritating doormat of a character that you just want to thump him yelling “Do Something you wimp” to his face!
I am normally the first to pick scientific holes in a story, but here the story is so “out there” that the details become irrelevant, and – like “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2” – the film revels in its absurdity. (There is however a jumbo jet sized hole in the plot if you think about it!) But some of the moments of revelation (particularly one set in a wood) are brilliantly done and you are never quite sure where the film is going to go next. I was concerned that the ending would not live up to the promise of the film, but I was not disappointed.
Like “A Monster Calls” the film will probably suffer at the box office by its marketing confusing the audience. People will assume it’s possibly a “monster movie” or maybe a piece of comedy fluff (particularly with Sudeikis in the cast), but in reality it’s neither of these. It won’t be to everyone’s tastes for sure, but in the bland desert of mainstream movie releases, here is an oasis of something interesting and novel and in my book definitely worthy of your movie dollar. Recommended.
It’s really difficult to categorise “Colossal” – imdb classes it as a “Comedy, Action, Drama”. Comedy? Yes, but it’s a very dark comedy indeed. Action? Hmm, not really… if you go to this expecting ‘Godzilla 2’ or some polished Marvel-style film (not that I was!) you will be sorely disappointed. Drama? This is probably the nearest match, since at its heart this is a clever study on the people and relationships at the heart of a bizarre Sci-Fi event.
Anne Hathaway (“Les Miserables”) stars as Gloria, a borderline alcoholic-waster sponging off the good-natured but controlling Tim (Dan Stevens, “Beauty and the Beast”) in his New York apartment. When Tim’s patience finally runs out, Gloria returns to her hometown to an empty house and the attentions of a former school friend, bar owner Oscar (Jason Sudeikis), who clearly holds an unhealthy fascination with her. Borrowing an idea from “A Monster Calls”, at a specific time in the US morning a huge monster appears from thin air in Seoul, South Korea, killing people and smashing buildings in a seemingly uncoordinated and random way. Bizarrely, this only happens when Gloria is standing at a particular spot in a particular kid’s playground. Could the two events possibly be related?
I always like to categorize films in my head as being “like” others, but this one’s really difficult to pin down. It borrows its main premise from a famous scene in “E.T.” (indeed one also involving alcohol) but the film’s fantasy elements and dark undertones have more similarities in style to “Jumanji”. Then again, there are elements of the Kaufman about it in that it is as weird in some places as “Being John Malkovich”.
The film stays on ‘Whimsical Street’ for the first half of the film, but then takes a sharp left turn into ‘Dark Avenue’ (and for “dark” read “extremely black and sinister”). It then becomes a far more uncomfortable watch for the viewer. The metaphor of the monster for Gloria’s growing addiction is clear, but emerging themes of control, jealousy, violent bullying and small-town social entrapment also emerge.
Here the acting talents of Hathaway and Sudeikis really come to the fore: heavyweight Hollywood talent adding some significant ‘oomph’ to what is a fairly modest indie project. Hathaway is in kooky mode here, gurning to great comic effect, and this adds warmth to a not particularly likeable character. And Sudeikis (more commonly seen in lighter and frothier comedies like “We’re the Millers” and “Horrible Bosses”) is a surprise in the role delivering some real acting grit.
The writer and director is Spaniard Nacho Vigalondo. No, me neither. But he seems to have come from nowhere to deliver this high profile cinema release, and it would not be a surprise for me to see this nominated as an original screenplay come the awards season. His quirky style is refreshing. (Hell, delivering ANY novel new summer movie that is not part of a franchise or TV re-boot is refreshing!)
The film’s not perfect, and its disjointed style can be unsettling. While the lead characters are quite well defined, others are less so. Joel in particular, played by Austin Stowell (“Whiplash“, “Bridge of Spies“), is such an irritating doormat of a character that you just want to thump him yelling “Do Something you wimp” to his face!
I am normally the first to pick scientific holes in a story, but here the story is so “out there” that the details become irrelevant, and – like “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2” – the film revels in its absurdity. (There is however a jumbo jet sized hole in the plot if you think about it!) But some of the moments of revelation (particularly one set in a wood) are brilliantly done and you are never quite sure where the film is going to go next. I was concerned that the ending would not live up to the promise of the film, but I was not disappointed.
Like “A Monster Calls” the film will probably suffer at the box office by its marketing confusing the audience. People will assume it’s possibly a “monster movie” or maybe a piece of comedy fluff (particularly with Sudeikis in the cast), but in reality it’s neither of these. It won’t be to everyone’s tastes for sure, but in the bland desert of mainstream movie releases, here is an oasis of something interesting and novel and in my book definitely worthy of your movie dollar. Recommended.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Girl With All the Gifts (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
An Adam’s Apple for Teacher.
I remember once having a ridiculous drunken dispute at a works Christmas party many year’s ago that went along the lines of “if you had the chance to save the world, but had to kill your child to do it, what would you do”. There’s a variant of this conundrum at the heart of this brilliant new film from Colm McCarthy, best know for his TV work on shows like “Peaky Blinders”, “Sherlock” and “Dr Who”.
As most people already realise, this is a ‘Zombie film’ (cue, a number of other single blokes in the cinema) and illustrates the dangers of not treating that Athlete’s Foot as soon as it appears! I would normally provide a quick synopsis here, but I really think this is a case in point where it is best to go into the film as blind as possible to the story and let it envelop you. (This includes not watching the whole trailer if possible.) To merely set the scene, we open with a morning school ritual like none you’ve seen before: children strapped to wheelchairs by heavily armed military in their cells; wheeled to an underground classroom; then made to sit in serried rows being taught by their teacher Helen Justineau (a deliciously un-made-up and natural Gemma Arterton). What IS going on? Who ARE these children? WHY are the soldiers so scared and dismissive of them?
The ever-great Paddy Considine (“Pride”) plays army Sergeant Parks (who also has a bit of a crush on Helen) and Glenn Close plays Dr Caroline Caldwell, who is studying the children in more ways than one.
This trio of stars, supported notably later in the film by Fisayo Akinade as the trooper Kieran, turn in what is a superb ensemble performance. As for Glenn Close, I have never quite been able to shake her awful “silk blouse” performance in “Air Force One” from my mind, but here she is quite memerising in the role of the Doctor on a mission: I would suggest a career best. Her final scene reflects such a complex range of emotions, and is brilliantly executed. And Gemma Arterton pulls out all the emotional stops in what is also one of the performances of the year.
But good as these performances are, they would be nothing without the central performance of young Sennia Nanua as the titular “Girl”. I have made the point before that there should be an Oscar category for “Young Actors” rather than pitch them into the adult categories like Quvenzhane Wallis and Anna Paquin were (successfully). Here in her debut feature performance Sennia is just mesmerising and (provided this film gets the recognition it justly deserves) she should be a shoe-in for the BAFTA Rising Star award next year, if not an Actress nomination. A young lady most definitely to watch.
Also assuming a starring role is Chilean-born composer Cristobal Tapia de Veer’s astonishingly effective music which drives up the tension superbly. This is his feature film debut and another name to watch.
The screenplay by Mike Carey from his original novel is beautifully crafted, with some great one liners dropped in to ease the tension a notch. And the story adds a level of emotional depth and angst that surpasses other films of this genre, at least as far back as the “28 Days” films.
Astonishingly, the film was made on a budget of 4 (FOUR!) Million Pounds, giving it a BvS quotient of 2.1%!! Every penny of that budget is up on the screen, and whilst you might like to pick at a few of the matte paintings and effects, it is a remarkably achievement in special effects (Nick Rideout is the SF supervisor) and production value.
So, its great! Go see it… but with a few caveats: it is a zombie film, and it ranks about an 8.9 on the splattometer scale, which might not be to some tastes; definitely don’t go to see it if you are pregnant (though I am constantly reminded how I took my heavily pregnant wife in 1985 to see “A really great film called ‘Alien'”); and you might want to avoid it if you are a great cat or dog lover, or indeed a pigeon-fancier. Other than that, get yourself down to a multiplex and see this great British film: surely a classic to be recognised for years to come.
As most people already realise, this is a ‘Zombie film’ (cue, a number of other single blokes in the cinema) and illustrates the dangers of not treating that Athlete’s Foot as soon as it appears! I would normally provide a quick synopsis here, but I really think this is a case in point where it is best to go into the film as blind as possible to the story and let it envelop you. (This includes not watching the whole trailer if possible.) To merely set the scene, we open with a morning school ritual like none you’ve seen before: children strapped to wheelchairs by heavily armed military in their cells; wheeled to an underground classroom; then made to sit in serried rows being taught by their teacher Helen Justineau (a deliciously un-made-up and natural Gemma Arterton). What IS going on? Who ARE these children? WHY are the soldiers so scared and dismissive of them?
The ever-great Paddy Considine (“Pride”) plays army Sergeant Parks (who also has a bit of a crush on Helen) and Glenn Close plays Dr Caroline Caldwell, who is studying the children in more ways than one.
This trio of stars, supported notably later in the film by Fisayo Akinade as the trooper Kieran, turn in what is a superb ensemble performance. As for Glenn Close, I have never quite been able to shake her awful “silk blouse” performance in “Air Force One” from my mind, but here she is quite memerising in the role of the Doctor on a mission: I would suggest a career best. Her final scene reflects such a complex range of emotions, and is brilliantly executed. And Gemma Arterton pulls out all the emotional stops in what is also one of the performances of the year.
But good as these performances are, they would be nothing without the central performance of young Sennia Nanua as the titular “Girl”. I have made the point before that there should be an Oscar category for “Young Actors” rather than pitch them into the adult categories like Quvenzhane Wallis and Anna Paquin were (successfully). Here in her debut feature performance Sennia is just mesmerising and (provided this film gets the recognition it justly deserves) she should be a shoe-in for the BAFTA Rising Star award next year, if not an Actress nomination. A young lady most definitely to watch.
Also assuming a starring role is Chilean-born composer Cristobal Tapia de Veer’s astonishingly effective music which drives up the tension superbly. This is his feature film debut and another name to watch.
The screenplay by Mike Carey from his original novel is beautifully crafted, with some great one liners dropped in to ease the tension a notch. And the story adds a level of emotional depth and angst that surpasses other films of this genre, at least as far back as the “28 Days” films.
Astonishingly, the film was made on a budget of 4 (FOUR!) Million Pounds, giving it a BvS quotient of 2.1%!! Every penny of that budget is up on the screen, and whilst you might like to pick at a few of the matte paintings and effects, it is a remarkably achievement in special effects (Nick Rideout is the SF supervisor) and production value.
So, its great! Go see it… but with a few caveats: it is a zombie film, and it ranks about an 8.9 on the splattometer scale, which might not be to some tastes; definitely don’t go to see it if you are pregnant (though I am constantly reminded how I took my heavily pregnant wife in 1985 to see “A really great film called ‘Alien'”); and you might want to avoid it if you are a great cat or dog lover, or indeed a pigeon-fancier. Other than that, get yourself down to a multiplex and see this great British film: surely a classic to be recognised for years to come.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated X-Men: Dark Phoenix (2019) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
Goodbye Normal Jean
It would be easy to write off X-Men: Dark Phoenix as a complete and utter disaster. With the departure of Bryan Singer (again) from the franchise, first-time director Simon Kinberg taking his place and rumours of costly reshoots pushing the budget north of $200million, things weren’t looking good for this adaptation of the popular Marvel comic.
Let’s not forget that the last time Fox tried to adapt this storyline we ended up with 2006’s The Last Stand, and the less said about that the better. Looking back over the last 20 years, the X-Men’s film franchise history has been chequered to say the least.
Nevertheless, this particular timeline that started with Matthew Vaughn’s adequate First Class, followed up by the excellent Days of Future Past and the flabby Apocalypse ends with Dark Phoenix. But is it worthy of your consideration?
This is the story of one of the X-Men’s most beloved characters, Jean Grey (Sophie Turner), as she evolves into the iconic Phoenix. During a rescue mission in space, Jean is hit by a cosmic force that transforms her into one of the most powerful mutants of all. Wrestling with this increasingly unstable power as well as her own personal demons, Jean spirals out of control, tearing the X-Men family apart and threatening to destroy the very fabric of our planet.
First things first – this is not a bad film. Yes, you heard me right. Leagues above Apocalypse and much better than The Last Stand, Dark Phoenix is a film that has been let down by catastrophically poor marketing. It’s not perfect, as we’ll discover in this review, but it tries a different approach, and for that it should be applauded.
For this reviewer, the modern day cast of characters has always been a weak spot for the series and that doesn’t really change in Dark Phoenix. James McAvoy remains miscast as Charles Xavier, especially since packing on the muscle for this Glass, but he performs much better here than he did in its predecessor. His transition into egotistical maniac, obsessed by the celebrity status the X-Men have acquired at the outset of the film is an intriguing diversion from where he was at the end of Apocalypse.
The younger cast are more likeable. Kodi Smitt-McPhee’s portrayal of Nightcrawler is fabulous and he gets more to do this time around. Tye Sheridan is great as young Cyclops and Evan Peters’ Quicksilver remains a highlight, though it’s unfortunate he’s cast aside relatively quickly – for fans of his set pieces from the previous two films, you’ll be disappointed here. Michael Fassbender and Nicholas Hoult bring their a-games, but they even seem a little bored by what’s going on. “You’re always sorry, Charles. And there’s always a speech. But nobody cares anymore!” bites Michael Fassbender at one point in the film – perhaps he’s onto something?
The first hour is perhaps the best the series has been since Days of Future Past
Of the female cast, Sophie Turner does her best with the material she’s given, and her Jean Grey is full of anger, angst and melancholy. The script struggles to provide her with any other emotion, but she’s a pleasing protagonist for the most part. Unfortunately, Jennifer Lawrence completely phones in her performance as Mystique and Jessica Chastain’s horrifically underwritten villain wastes a fabulous actor in a thankless role – much like Oscar Issac in Apocalypse.
With reports of heavy reshoots, you’d be forgiven for thinking that the film would end up a royal mess. Thankfully, the first hour is perhaps the best the series has been since Days of Future Past. Focusing on character development rather than all-out action, it’s a pleasing change and one which is more than welcome. Unfortunately, as time ticks away, the film loses all semblance of sanity and becomes muddled as it steamrolls towards an underwhelming climax.
And despite the reported budget of $200million, some of the shot choices and outfits feel cheap. It’s clear director Simon Kinberg is a fan of the series, but the X-Men costumes are bland, ill-fitting and a world away from what we’ve seen before. Closer to the comics they may be, but that’s not always a good thing. Elsewhere, the film feels cut-rate, almost TV-movie like and that’s a real shame because the special effects are top-notch. Mercifully, Hans Zimmer’s score is wonderful. The soaring orchestral soundtrack works brilliantly with the film – it’s probably the best music in the series to date.
Overall, X-Men: Dark Phoenix has been a victim of poor marketing with trailers that spoilt perhaps the most pivotal moment of the film (which we won’t spoil here). Nevertheless, the first hour is great and the special effects provide the film with some thrilling set pieces. It’s a shame then that the film offers up nothing new to the table despite some committed performances – this Phoenix just doesn’t quite rise to the occasion.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/06/07/x-men-dark-phoenix-review-goodbye-normal-jean/
Let’s not forget that the last time Fox tried to adapt this storyline we ended up with 2006’s The Last Stand, and the less said about that the better. Looking back over the last 20 years, the X-Men’s film franchise history has been chequered to say the least.
Nevertheless, this particular timeline that started with Matthew Vaughn’s adequate First Class, followed up by the excellent Days of Future Past and the flabby Apocalypse ends with Dark Phoenix. But is it worthy of your consideration?
This is the story of one of the X-Men’s most beloved characters, Jean Grey (Sophie Turner), as she evolves into the iconic Phoenix. During a rescue mission in space, Jean is hit by a cosmic force that transforms her into one of the most powerful mutants of all. Wrestling with this increasingly unstable power as well as her own personal demons, Jean spirals out of control, tearing the X-Men family apart and threatening to destroy the very fabric of our planet.
First things first – this is not a bad film. Yes, you heard me right. Leagues above Apocalypse and much better than The Last Stand, Dark Phoenix is a film that has been let down by catastrophically poor marketing. It’s not perfect, as we’ll discover in this review, but it tries a different approach, and for that it should be applauded.
For this reviewer, the modern day cast of characters has always been a weak spot for the series and that doesn’t really change in Dark Phoenix. James McAvoy remains miscast as Charles Xavier, especially since packing on the muscle for this Glass, but he performs much better here than he did in its predecessor. His transition into egotistical maniac, obsessed by the celebrity status the X-Men have acquired at the outset of the film is an intriguing diversion from where he was at the end of Apocalypse.
The younger cast are more likeable. Kodi Smitt-McPhee’s portrayal of Nightcrawler is fabulous and he gets more to do this time around. Tye Sheridan is great as young Cyclops and Evan Peters’ Quicksilver remains a highlight, though it’s unfortunate he’s cast aside relatively quickly – for fans of his set pieces from the previous two films, you’ll be disappointed here. Michael Fassbender and Nicholas Hoult bring their a-games, but they even seem a little bored by what’s going on. “You’re always sorry, Charles. And there’s always a speech. But nobody cares anymore!” bites Michael Fassbender at one point in the film – perhaps he’s onto something?
The first hour is perhaps the best the series has been since Days of Future Past
Of the female cast, Sophie Turner does her best with the material she’s given, and her Jean Grey is full of anger, angst and melancholy. The script struggles to provide her with any other emotion, but she’s a pleasing protagonist for the most part. Unfortunately, Jennifer Lawrence completely phones in her performance as Mystique and Jessica Chastain’s horrifically underwritten villain wastes a fabulous actor in a thankless role – much like Oscar Issac in Apocalypse.
With reports of heavy reshoots, you’d be forgiven for thinking that the film would end up a royal mess. Thankfully, the first hour is perhaps the best the series has been since Days of Future Past. Focusing on character development rather than all-out action, it’s a pleasing change and one which is more than welcome. Unfortunately, as time ticks away, the film loses all semblance of sanity and becomes muddled as it steamrolls towards an underwhelming climax.
And despite the reported budget of $200million, some of the shot choices and outfits feel cheap. It’s clear director Simon Kinberg is a fan of the series, but the X-Men costumes are bland, ill-fitting and a world away from what we’ve seen before. Closer to the comics they may be, but that’s not always a good thing. Elsewhere, the film feels cut-rate, almost TV-movie like and that’s a real shame because the special effects are top-notch. Mercifully, Hans Zimmer’s score is wonderful. The soaring orchestral soundtrack works brilliantly with the film – it’s probably the best music in the series to date.
Overall, X-Men: Dark Phoenix has been a victim of poor marketing with trailers that spoilt perhaps the most pivotal moment of the film (which we won’t spoil here). Nevertheless, the first hour is great and the special effects provide the film with some thrilling set pieces. It’s a shame then that the film offers up nothing new to the table despite some committed performances – this Phoenix just doesn’t quite rise to the occasion.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2019/06/07/x-men-dark-phoenix-review-goodbye-normal-jean/
Pete Thompson (4339 KP) Feb 10, 2021