Search
Search results
Darren (1599 KP) rated Swingers (1996) in Movies
Nov 24, 2019
Verdict: Reality Check Comedy
Story: Swingers starts when two friends Trent (Vaughn) and Mike (Favreau) head from LA to Las Vegas for a night to try and help Mike shake off his breakup with his girlfriend. Trent does have a way with women, which he is trying to teach Mike for their return to LA. Joined with Rob (Livingston) the three struggling actors talk shop about how they haven’t gotten their big break yet.
We continue to follow the friends around the town as they try to help Mike rebound from his breakup, pushing him to take risks, despite the group of aspiring actors just going through the same routine, not partying till late and Mike wanting to get back together with his ex.
Thoughts on Swingers
Characters – Mike is one of the aspiring actors, he has had the most gigs of the rest of the friends, he is struggling with a break up which has been holding him back for 6 months and now, the friends are trying to help him break out of his shell, as he always ends up getting nervous about everything whenever he is put on the spot. Trent is the confident ladies man, he is always trying to teach Mike about how to pick up women, showing his confidence through any chatting up situation. Rob is the friend that followed Mike, he looks up to him and wants to follow in his footsteps despite the constant job rejections. Sue is another one of the group, he has a different attitude which could see them getting into trouble. Between the three of them of the friends they all want to help Mike in their own way.
Performances – Jon Favreau as the down on his luck actor is great to watch in this role, he makes us understand why he feels life isn’t going his way. Vince Vaughn brings all the energy to his role, showing that he was always going to be great to watch in the fast-talking roles. Ron Livingston bring gravity to his role, showing a man with his feet on the ground, while Patrick Van Horn brings a mix of the three while not knowing his own motivation.
Story – The story here follows four struggling actors as they look for women every night which sees them trying to help one of them get over their blues of a breakup, each has their own style which they try to imprint on the others. This story mixes up the styles of helping a friend with a breakup and highlights how difficult it is to make it as an actor in Hollywood. We might spend a lot of time just watching the guys party, which is mean to highlight their struggles and watching them all give advice to Mike shows that friends will always be there for you, but you will need to make the biggest step in changing your future.
Comedy – The comedy in the film comes from the mishaps that happen to the guys on their adventures through the night showing how not every plan is as well exercised as the next.
Settings – The film is mostly set in LA, it shows the bars that people would go to hoping for a late night party, the ones that only the locals would truly know about.
Scene of the Movie – The awkward phone, mainly because it is and can be so real for people.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It doesn’t show any of their acting lives.
Final Thoughts – This is a comedy that shows the struggles being an actor really are, while also trying to highlight the party lifestyle people in LA like.
Overall: Strong Look at Hollywood Lifestyle.
Story: Swingers starts when two friends Trent (Vaughn) and Mike (Favreau) head from LA to Las Vegas for a night to try and help Mike shake off his breakup with his girlfriend. Trent does have a way with women, which he is trying to teach Mike for their return to LA. Joined with Rob (Livingston) the three struggling actors talk shop about how they haven’t gotten their big break yet.
We continue to follow the friends around the town as they try to help Mike rebound from his breakup, pushing him to take risks, despite the group of aspiring actors just going through the same routine, not partying till late and Mike wanting to get back together with his ex.
Thoughts on Swingers
Characters – Mike is one of the aspiring actors, he has had the most gigs of the rest of the friends, he is struggling with a break up which has been holding him back for 6 months and now, the friends are trying to help him break out of his shell, as he always ends up getting nervous about everything whenever he is put on the spot. Trent is the confident ladies man, he is always trying to teach Mike about how to pick up women, showing his confidence through any chatting up situation. Rob is the friend that followed Mike, he looks up to him and wants to follow in his footsteps despite the constant job rejections. Sue is another one of the group, he has a different attitude which could see them getting into trouble. Between the three of them of the friends they all want to help Mike in their own way.
Performances – Jon Favreau as the down on his luck actor is great to watch in this role, he makes us understand why he feels life isn’t going his way. Vince Vaughn brings all the energy to his role, showing that he was always going to be great to watch in the fast-talking roles. Ron Livingston bring gravity to his role, showing a man with his feet on the ground, while Patrick Van Horn brings a mix of the three while not knowing his own motivation.
Story – The story here follows four struggling actors as they look for women every night which sees them trying to help one of them get over their blues of a breakup, each has their own style which they try to imprint on the others. This story mixes up the styles of helping a friend with a breakup and highlights how difficult it is to make it as an actor in Hollywood. We might spend a lot of time just watching the guys party, which is mean to highlight their struggles and watching them all give advice to Mike shows that friends will always be there for you, but you will need to make the biggest step in changing your future.
Comedy – The comedy in the film comes from the mishaps that happen to the guys on their adventures through the night showing how not every plan is as well exercised as the next.
Settings – The film is mostly set in LA, it shows the bars that people would go to hoping for a late night party, the ones that only the locals would truly know about.
Scene of the Movie – The awkward phone, mainly because it is and can be so real for people.
That Moment That Annoyed Me – It doesn’t show any of their acting lives.
Final Thoughts – This is a comedy that shows the struggles being an actor really are, while also trying to highlight the party lifestyle people in LA like.
Overall: Strong Look at Hollywood Lifestyle.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Beasts of No Nation (2015) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020 (Updated Jul 9, 2020)
As I may have mentioned, a lot of my film viewing over the last wee while has been part of a project that hopes to be called 21st Century Cinema: 200 Essential films of the new millennium – which utilises the Decinemal system you will see at the bottom of each of my reviews. It aims to judge each film objectively with a score out of 10 over 10 categories, to give an overall rating out of 100.
Cary Joyi Fukunaga’s personal opus Beasts of no Nation, made for Netflix but good enough for a cinema release, falls into the category of films that have garnered enough critical acclaim to demand consideration for the top 200. It is the kind of film that you would always recommend, but may choose to overlook in search of a more basically entertaining watch.
Fukunaga has a fine pedigree already in his career, with credits on True Detective and the under-rated Sin Nombre from 2009. He has also been tasked with directing duties on the delayed Bond No Time To Die, which we hope to see before the new year now. He is a hands on, no messing about kind of guy, seemingly, taking on writing and cinematography duties also for this sad tale of child exploitation in an unnamed African war.
At times, it borders on documentary style, with an eye for strong visual images and extended silences, favoured over extraneous exposition and needless dialogue. A technique that makes the subject matter all the more uncomfortable to watch. Idris Elba adds big name weight in a fine supporting role, but the lion’s share of acting responsibility falls to young Abraham Attah, who is nothing short of astonishing in the most harrowing moments of this stark and sincere story.
I have to confess, this was another pre-lockdown watch for me, and as much as I can recall the feel and impact of it as a whole, I would struggle to talk about it in any detail after one viewing three months ago. And that is partly the reason it won’t quite make the lower benchmark of a strong 73 Decinemal score; for all its power it just isn’t quite memorable enough on every level, in the way something like City Of God, or even Beasts of the Southern Wild most definitely are.
Perhaps those are unfair comparisons, but it strives for the impact of the former without the flair, and has an independant feel without the charm of the latter. Not that flair or charm are priorities here. It simply wants to show you an issue you may not have been overly aware of, and demands that you empathise both with the complexity of the problem and with the tragic journey of Agu – a child robbed of all innocence by a terrible world.
The photography sits with the strong performances as a notable highlight; giving contrast to the devastation, depredation and desperation under the skin, and showing an angry beauty that dances beside it, showing brief moments of hope when we need them most, and therefore avoiding the trap of being too brutal to enjoy on any level. Which is a mistake similar films can fall prey too.
Violence and war are not light subjects. When the focus is also the lost soul of a child, the tightrope of melodrama and sentimentality is very fine. All involved here walk that line expertly, never once resorting to having to buy your care with familiar Hollywood tricks. In fact it couldn’t be further from Hollywood if it tried. And the drama is all the better for that.
A solid, fine movie, that is narrowly short of being truly great. But you should most definitely see it at some point if you haven’t already.
Cary Joyi Fukunaga’s personal opus Beasts of no Nation, made for Netflix but good enough for a cinema release, falls into the category of films that have garnered enough critical acclaim to demand consideration for the top 200. It is the kind of film that you would always recommend, but may choose to overlook in search of a more basically entertaining watch.
Fukunaga has a fine pedigree already in his career, with credits on True Detective and the under-rated Sin Nombre from 2009. He has also been tasked with directing duties on the delayed Bond No Time To Die, which we hope to see before the new year now. He is a hands on, no messing about kind of guy, seemingly, taking on writing and cinematography duties also for this sad tale of child exploitation in an unnamed African war.
At times, it borders on documentary style, with an eye for strong visual images and extended silences, favoured over extraneous exposition and needless dialogue. A technique that makes the subject matter all the more uncomfortable to watch. Idris Elba adds big name weight in a fine supporting role, but the lion’s share of acting responsibility falls to young Abraham Attah, who is nothing short of astonishing in the most harrowing moments of this stark and sincere story.
I have to confess, this was another pre-lockdown watch for me, and as much as I can recall the feel and impact of it as a whole, I would struggle to talk about it in any detail after one viewing three months ago. And that is partly the reason it won’t quite make the lower benchmark of a strong 73 Decinemal score; for all its power it just isn’t quite memorable enough on every level, in the way something like City Of God, or even Beasts of the Southern Wild most definitely are.
Perhaps those are unfair comparisons, but it strives for the impact of the former without the flair, and has an independant feel without the charm of the latter. Not that flair or charm are priorities here. It simply wants to show you an issue you may not have been overly aware of, and demands that you empathise both with the complexity of the problem and with the tragic journey of Agu – a child robbed of all innocence by a terrible world.
The photography sits with the strong performances as a notable highlight; giving contrast to the devastation, depredation and desperation under the skin, and showing an angry beauty that dances beside it, showing brief moments of hope when we need them most, and therefore avoiding the trap of being too brutal to enjoy on any level. Which is a mistake similar films can fall prey too.
Violence and war are not light subjects. When the focus is also the lost soul of a child, the tightrope of melodrama and sentimentality is very fine. All involved here walk that line expertly, never once resorting to having to buy your care with familiar Hollywood tricks. In fact it couldn’t be further from Hollywood if it tried. And the drama is all the better for that.
A solid, fine movie, that is narrowly short of being truly great. But you should most definitely see it at some point if you haven’t already.
Sarah (7800 KP) rated The Prom (2020) in Movies
Jan 1, 2021
Ruined by James Corden
The Prom is the latest film from Glee creator Ryan Murphy, adapted from the Broadway musical of the same name. It follows Emma (Jo Ellen Pellman) who inadvertently causes her high school prom to be cancelled from wanting to attend with her girlfriend Alyssa (Ariana DeBose), in a school governed by a PTA that is very much against inclusion. Meanwhile on Broadway, four down on their luck actors (Meryl Streep, Nicole Kidman, James Corden and Andrew Rannells) pick up on Emma’s story and decide to use it as a perfect opportunity to garner some publicity for themselves by showing their support.
The Prom is obviously a personal movie for director Ryan Murphy, after growing up in Indiana himself, but unfortunately he doesn’t quite manage to pull this off. The story has a very important message about inclusion and you can’t deny how powerful this is, but I don’t think it has been very well executed. Yes the entire film looks amazing, the colourful and flashy outfits look wonderful and add some much needed colour when the story moves from Broadway to Indiana. The songs too are good and toe-tappingly catchy, with ‘Love Thy Neighbor’ from Andrew Rannells being a particular standout for me, and I’d be lying if I said the glitz, glam and catchy songs didn’t make me smile. Newcomer Jo Ellen Pellman has a cracking voice and her performance here shows she’s definitely one to watch in future.
However this is where the positives stop. A large number of the songs sound the same and aside from the aforementioned ‘Love Thy Neighbor’ and the finale ‘It’s Time to Dance’, none of them are particularly memorable. The film is full of clichés and stereotypes and awkward dialogue and scenes – the cringeworthy and entirely unbelievable flirtation between Dee Dee (Streep) and Principal Hawkins (Keegan-Michael Key) is possibly one of the worst things I’ve had to watch in quite a while. The cast are obviously having a lot of fun with this and it shows in the musical numbers, but some of the characters and performances are entirely unlikeable. I know Dee Dee is meant to be a self obsessed narcissist, and Streep is hamming her up to the max, but she is a horrible character and I couldn’t abide her. Scenes with her that are meant to be comedic to me came across as awful and repulsive. Whilst she does improve over the course of the rather drawn out run time, I’m afraid the damage is done in the first 90 minutes. And I felt very sorry for Nicole Kidman, who aside from a Chicago-esque number, seems to have been entirely sidelined.
But the worst part of The Prom is the decision to cast James Corden as the gay male lead, Barry Glickman. What was Ryan Murphy thinking? I’ve never been a fan of Corden, but surely anyone watching this can see he’s a talk show host, not a Hollywood musical star? Not only is his American accent terrible, his performance is completely unbelievable and overly camp and outdated. How Andrew Rannells could bear to work opposite James Corden in this role when he could’ve shone as Barry I will never know. Had it not been for Corden, I probably would have liked this a lot more.
The Prom is a glitzy mash-up of old school Broadway and cheesy high school musicals, full of colourful catchy tunes, neat choreography and a powerful message, it’s just a shame the characters and some of the casting are lacking in the substance to make this anything better than average.
The Prom is obviously a personal movie for director Ryan Murphy, after growing up in Indiana himself, but unfortunately he doesn’t quite manage to pull this off. The story has a very important message about inclusion and you can’t deny how powerful this is, but I don’t think it has been very well executed. Yes the entire film looks amazing, the colourful and flashy outfits look wonderful and add some much needed colour when the story moves from Broadway to Indiana. The songs too are good and toe-tappingly catchy, with ‘Love Thy Neighbor’ from Andrew Rannells being a particular standout for me, and I’d be lying if I said the glitz, glam and catchy songs didn’t make me smile. Newcomer Jo Ellen Pellman has a cracking voice and her performance here shows she’s definitely one to watch in future.
However this is where the positives stop. A large number of the songs sound the same and aside from the aforementioned ‘Love Thy Neighbor’ and the finale ‘It’s Time to Dance’, none of them are particularly memorable. The film is full of clichés and stereotypes and awkward dialogue and scenes – the cringeworthy and entirely unbelievable flirtation between Dee Dee (Streep) and Principal Hawkins (Keegan-Michael Key) is possibly one of the worst things I’ve had to watch in quite a while. The cast are obviously having a lot of fun with this and it shows in the musical numbers, but some of the characters and performances are entirely unlikeable. I know Dee Dee is meant to be a self obsessed narcissist, and Streep is hamming her up to the max, but she is a horrible character and I couldn’t abide her. Scenes with her that are meant to be comedic to me came across as awful and repulsive. Whilst she does improve over the course of the rather drawn out run time, I’m afraid the damage is done in the first 90 minutes. And I felt very sorry for Nicole Kidman, who aside from a Chicago-esque number, seems to have been entirely sidelined.
But the worst part of The Prom is the decision to cast James Corden as the gay male lead, Barry Glickman. What was Ryan Murphy thinking? I’ve never been a fan of Corden, but surely anyone watching this can see he’s a talk show host, not a Hollywood musical star? Not only is his American accent terrible, his performance is completely unbelievable and overly camp and outdated. How Andrew Rannells could bear to work opposite James Corden in this role when he could’ve shone as Barry I will never know. Had it not been for Corden, I probably would have liked this a lot more.
The Prom is a glitzy mash-up of old school Broadway and cheesy high school musicals, full of colourful catchy tunes, neat choreography and a powerful message, it’s just a shame the characters and some of the casting are lacking in the substance to make this anything better than average.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Molly's Game (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Wordy but entertaining.
You can never accuse Aaron Sorkin of skimping on his words. Sorkin is of course the award-winning writer of “The West Wing” but on the big screen he has also written many classics: “A Few Good Men”; “The Social Network” and “Steve Jobs” for example. Here he also makes his directorial debut in a movie about the true-life turbulent career of Olympic wannabe skier Molly Bloom.
Bloom is played by Jessica Chastain, from films such as “Zero Dark Thirty” and “Miss Sloane” (one of my films of the year last year). Chastain’s roles as an actress are often quite cold and calculating, as suits her demeanour. As such her characters are not often easy to warm to in movies (and as such, my wife is not a fan).
Taking the piste. Molly in her younger ski-centric role.
Here as Molly Bloom she is as equally driven as in “Miss Sloane“, but the drive is learned from her father (Kevin Costner), bullying her to be the best she can be at skiing in a highly competitive family. Forced out of the skiing business (for reasons I won’t spoil), she takes a “gap year” from law school that turns into a “gap life” after she falls into the slightly shady business of running poker nights for LA’s rich elite. It’s here that Chastain’s Bloom is able to show a gentler and more compassionate side, trying to talk some of her clients (who invariably fall in love with her) off the ledge of their gambling addiction.
Chris O’Dowd as one of the punter’s in deep.
Sorkin’s script (based on Molly’s own autobiography, I should add) does a really nice job of cutting backwards and forwards through Molly’s timeline to drill into motivations and her mental state, and in doing so he pulls out an award-winning (or at least Golden-Globe award-nominating) performance from Chastain in the process. Also very effective though is Kevin Costner (“Hidden Figures“, “Man of Steel“), who is quietly building an impressive portfolio of supporting actor roles. Here he rather dials in his “tough and aloof guy” performance until the park bench scene (below) where he surprises in a good way.
Benches with wolves. Kevin Costner impressive as Molly’s hard-line father.
It’s also a blessed relief to find a decent vehicle to showcase the undoubted talents of Britain’s Idris Elba – an actor who has been woefully served by rubbish such as “Bastille Day“, rather lame sequels like “Star Trek: Beyond” or minor roles such as in “Thor: Ragnarok“. Here he can really get his teeth into the role of Molly’s lawyer, with a multi-layered character that reveals a little – but not too much of – his back-story to leave you with intriguing questions.
An indecisive Charlie Jaffey (Idris Elba) can make his mind up about Molly (Jessica Chastain).
So it’s a good film, but an intelligent watch that mandates your attention. The script is sufficiently dense and wordy that it requires significant concentration: this is not a “park your brain at the door” type of ‘Michael Bay film’. (As such, while it remains a recommended watch, I’m not sure it would be one that would necessarily make my DVD list for repeat watchings).
Michael Cera (centre) as the mysterious but powerful “Player X”; a Hollywood actor, but who is he supposed to be? (Answers on a postcard!).
But again, I must comment on what an amazing year this is turning out to be for women in film. Less #Me-too and more #She-do! Once again, here is a movie where a confident woman is firmly in the driving seat, and while powerful men try to bring her down, it is not them that succeeds. (The studio bill for talent in the past year must be a LOT less than it was the year before! #don’tshootme #topicalhumour #CarrieGracey). #TimesUp.
Bloom is played by Jessica Chastain, from films such as “Zero Dark Thirty” and “Miss Sloane” (one of my films of the year last year). Chastain’s roles as an actress are often quite cold and calculating, as suits her demeanour. As such her characters are not often easy to warm to in movies (and as such, my wife is not a fan).
Taking the piste. Molly in her younger ski-centric role.
Here as Molly Bloom she is as equally driven as in “Miss Sloane“, but the drive is learned from her father (Kevin Costner), bullying her to be the best she can be at skiing in a highly competitive family. Forced out of the skiing business (for reasons I won’t spoil), she takes a “gap year” from law school that turns into a “gap life” after she falls into the slightly shady business of running poker nights for LA’s rich elite. It’s here that Chastain’s Bloom is able to show a gentler and more compassionate side, trying to talk some of her clients (who invariably fall in love with her) off the ledge of their gambling addiction.
Chris O’Dowd as one of the punter’s in deep.
Sorkin’s script (based on Molly’s own autobiography, I should add) does a really nice job of cutting backwards and forwards through Molly’s timeline to drill into motivations and her mental state, and in doing so he pulls out an award-winning (or at least Golden-Globe award-nominating) performance from Chastain in the process. Also very effective though is Kevin Costner (“Hidden Figures“, “Man of Steel“), who is quietly building an impressive portfolio of supporting actor roles. Here he rather dials in his “tough and aloof guy” performance until the park bench scene (below) where he surprises in a good way.
Benches with wolves. Kevin Costner impressive as Molly’s hard-line father.
It’s also a blessed relief to find a decent vehicle to showcase the undoubted talents of Britain’s Idris Elba – an actor who has been woefully served by rubbish such as “Bastille Day“, rather lame sequels like “Star Trek: Beyond” or minor roles such as in “Thor: Ragnarok“. Here he can really get his teeth into the role of Molly’s lawyer, with a multi-layered character that reveals a little – but not too much of – his back-story to leave you with intriguing questions.
An indecisive Charlie Jaffey (Idris Elba) can make his mind up about Molly (Jessica Chastain).
So it’s a good film, but an intelligent watch that mandates your attention. The script is sufficiently dense and wordy that it requires significant concentration: this is not a “park your brain at the door” type of ‘Michael Bay film’. (As such, while it remains a recommended watch, I’m not sure it would be one that would necessarily make my DVD list for repeat watchings).
Michael Cera (centre) as the mysterious but powerful “Player X”; a Hollywood actor, but who is he supposed to be? (Answers on a postcard!).
But again, I must comment on what an amazing year this is turning out to be for women in film. Less #Me-too and more #She-do! Once again, here is a movie where a confident woman is firmly in the driving seat, and while powerful men try to bring her down, it is not them that succeeds. (The studio bill for talent in the past year must be a LOT less than it was the year before! #don’tshootme #topicalhumour #CarrieGracey). #TimesUp.
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated Maleficent: Mistress of Evil (2019) in Movies
Jul 7, 2020
Impressive Cast & Visuals Are Not Enough When Compared To The First Film's Magical Story
Contains spoilers, click to show
The beginning started off strong for this movie and it immediately reminded me of what i liked about the first one. Angelina Jolie is just magnificent as Maleficent and you can tell she really enjoys acting the part. I didn't really understand why the people feared her is she wasn't a bad guy (which was the point of the first one I thought, showing the story from her side), but apparently the Queen was spreading rumors or stories to make people frightened. At the dinner scene it was quite believable from Maleficent's outburst that she might have done something to the King but to me it was too out of character that Aurora would believe her to do something like that. Also it was too Deus Ex Machina for another Fey, Connall to have been around close enough for him to save Maleficent when she is shot by an iron bullet. I really liked the scene where they fly around the underground caverns where the other Fey live and show the different biomes and talk about her unknown heritage. It bothered me that the Queen had that little fairy guy that was doing the experiments for her on his own people and how that stuff could kill him too, but what bothered me more was that it never showed his motivations when he released the little creatures in the dungeon. It just showed him do it and never said why or what changed his mind, I feel like there might have been a scene cut there or something. And then there was a couple of ridiculous scenes for me that almost killed this movie for me. One was that all the fairy creatures were invited to the wedding, which was obviously a trap with the red powder already being hinted at, but the fact that the people didn't make as much a deal about it like they did when Maleficent came to dinner surprised me. I mean they had guards holding back the citizens but when Maleficent appeared they ran away, wouldn't they have acted similarly if there were monsters coming to their kingdom. The attack by the Dark Fey on the castle was also one of those parts that made me wonder what the hell was going on. They are massacred on a big scale by the red powder which earlier in the film, it said that it was hard to make or took a long time, but they had butt loads of it in this battle. They had so much that when the Dark Fey retreat and change where they attack the humans even had traps setup in those areas as well. I mean it made for an interesting intense battle scene but Maleficent was the only one of her kind the humans had ever seen and only the Queen's servant said she saw one similar to her save her from the water. How did they know an army was coming and attacking by air. Good planning, smart Queen I guess. I was greatly disappointed that Maleficent didn't turn into a dragon like the cartoon. I love seeing a good dragon on screen but I guess the Phoenix was a good change and fit more with the story especially with her sacrifice. Phoenix's are reborn from their ashes as it says. The last part I found to be laughable was that when the battle is over Aurora is like, "Weddings back on". Her and the Prince are like, we will live in peace from now on with the Moors. Ok, you were just killing each other a couple of minutes ago, and so many Dark Fey died it wasn't even funny. Oh yeah, this movie also did quite a great job of hiding any blood whatsoever in a lot of scenes where there probably should have been some maybe a little. I mean Maleficent gets shot, Connall gets shot up like swiss-cheese, and the soldiers are shooting in the final battle and everyone has weapons like axes, swords, etc..
The beginning started off strong for this movie and it immediately reminded me of what i liked about the first one. Angelina Jolie is just magnificent as Maleficent and you can tell she really enjoys acting the part. I didn't really understand why the people feared her is she wasn't a bad guy (which was the point of the first one I thought, showing the story from her side), but apparently the Queen was spreading rumors or stories to make people frightened. At the dinner scene it was quite believable from Maleficent's outburst that she might have done something to the King but to me it was too out of character that Aurora would believe her to do something like that. Also it was too Deus Ex Machina for another Fey, Connall to have been around close enough for him to save Maleficent when she is shot by an iron bullet. I really liked the scene where they fly around the underground caverns where the other Fey live and show the different biomes and talk about her unkown heritage. It bothered me that the Queen had that little fairy guy that was doing the experiments for her on his own people and how that stuff could kill him too, but what bothered me more was that it never showed his motivations when he released the little creatures in the dungeon. It just showed him do it and never said why or what changed his mind, I feel like there might have been a scene cut there or something. And then there was a couple of ridiculous scenes for me that almost killed this movie for me. One was that all the fairy creatures were invited to the wedding, which was obviously a trap with the red powder already being hinted at, but the fact that the people didn't make as much a deal about it like they did when Maleficent came to dinner surprised me. I mean they had guards holding back the citizens but when Maleficent appeared they ran away, wouldn't they have acted similarly if there were monsters coming to their kingdom. The attack by the Dark Fey on the castle was also one of those parts that made me wonder what the hell was going on. They are massacred on a big scale by the red powder which earlier in the film, it said that it was hard to make or took a long time, but they had butt loads of it in this battle. They had so much that when the Dark Fey retreat and change where they attack the humans even had traps setup in those areas as well. I mean it made for an interesting intense battle scene but Maleficent was the only one of her kind the humans had ever seen and only the Queen's servant said she saw one similar to her save her from the water. How did they know an army was coming and attacking by air. Good planning, smart Queen I guess. I was greatly disappointed that Maleficent didn't turn into a dragon like the cartoon. I love seeing a good dragon on screen but I guess the Phoenix was a good change and fit more with the story especially with her sacrifice. Phoenix's are reborn from their ashes as it says. The last part I found to be laughable was that when the battle is over Aurora is like, "Weddings back on". Her and the Prince are like, we will live in peace from now on with the Moors. Ok, you were just killing each other a couple of minutes ago, and so many Dark Fey died it wasn't even funny. Oh yeah, this movie also did quite a great job of hiding any blood whatsoever in a lot of scenes where there probably should have been some maybe a little. I mean Maleficent gets shot, Connall gets shot up like swiss-cheese, and the soldiers are shooting in the final battle and everyone has weapons like axes, swords, etc.. I really wanted to give this movie a 7 but I have to give it a 6/10.
The beginning started off strong for this movie and it immediately reminded me of what i liked about the first one. Angelina Jolie is just magnificent as Maleficent and you can tell she really enjoys acting the part. I didn't really understand why the people feared her is she wasn't a bad guy (which was the point of the first one I thought, showing the story from her side), but apparently the Queen was spreading rumors or stories to make people frightened. At the dinner scene it was quite believable from Maleficent's outburst that she might have done something to the King but to me it was too out of character that Aurora would believe her to do something like that. Also it was too Deus Ex Machina for another Fey, Connall to have been around close enough for him to save Maleficent when she is shot by an iron bullet. I really liked the scene where they fly around the underground caverns where the other Fey live and show the different biomes and talk about her unkown heritage. It bothered me that the Queen had that little fairy guy that was doing the experiments for her on his own people and how that stuff could kill him too, but what bothered me more was that it never showed his motivations when he released the little creatures in the dungeon. It just showed him do it and never said why or what changed his mind, I feel like there might have been a scene cut there or something. And then there was a couple of ridiculous scenes for me that almost killed this movie for me. One was that all the fairy creatures were invited to the wedding, which was obviously a trap with the red powder already being hinted at, but the fact that the people didn't make as much a deal about it like they did when Maleficent came to dinner surprised me. I mean they had guards holding back the citizens but when Maleficent appeared they ran away, wouldn't they have acted similarly if there were monsters coming to their kingdom. The attack by the Dark Fey on the castle was also one of those parts that made me wonder what the hell was going on. They are massacred on a big scale by the red powder which earlier in the film, it said that it was hard to make or took a long time, but they had butt loads of it in this battle. They had so much that when the Dark Fey retreat and change where they attack the humans even had traps setup in those areas as well. I mean it made for an interesting intense battle scene but Maleficent was the only one of her kind the humans had ever seen and only the Queen's servant said she saw one similar to her save her from the water. How did they know an army was coming and attacking by air. Good planning, smart Queen I guess. I was greatly disappointed that Maleficent didn't turn into a dragon like the cartoon. I love seeing a good dragon on screen but I guess the Phoenix was a good change and fit more with the story especially with her sacrifice. Phoenix's are reborn from their ashes as it says. The last part I found to be laughable was that when the battle is over Aurora is like, "Weddings back on". Her and the Prince are like, we will live in peace from now on with the Moors. Ok, you were just killing each other a couple of minutes ago, and so many Dark Fey died it wasn't even funny. Oh yeah, this movie also did quite a great job of hiding any blood whatsoever in a lot of scenes where there probably should have been some maybe a little. I mean Maleficent gets shot, Connall gets shot up like swiss-cheese, and the soldiers are shooting in the final battle and everyone has weapons like axes, swords, etc.. I really wanted to give this movie a 7 but I have to give it a 6/10.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Faster (2010) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019 (Updated Jun 23, 2019)
I've always wanted to like Dwayne Johnson as an actor. He was so entertaining when he was The Rock, why can't his movies be just as entertaining? Unfortunately his best received films are the more family oriented ones and watching an ex-wrestler who used to talk about his love for pie and "laying the smackdown on all your candy asses" seems a bit bittersweet. Films like Faster are what Johnson should be sticking to, but it doesn't live up to its potential and results in another flat action film.
Wasted potential is the perfect way to describe Faster. Dwayne Johnson spends more time walking around looking pissed off than he does killing anyone or actually saying anything at all. Billy Bob Thornton doesn't do much of anything either as his character struggles between being a drug addict who doesn't amount to anything to a police officer who's about to retire and get full benefits who is also trying to get his family back together again. He spends most of his screen time drowning in his pathetic life. Then there's Dexter's Jennifer Carpenter who seems to be brought into the film to do nothing more than show up, cry a little, and say stupid things. Nothing the actors did really helped drive the story forward.
The cinematography fluctuated between being interesting and being incredibly annoying. Right when something like the way the camera was placed while the driver was driving or something as simple as reloading a gun was done in a way that seemed original to catch your attention, the film would turn around and throw shaky camera techniques at you for no reason or the scenes that caught your eye would be too brief to really make up for the mediocrity of the rest of the film. The most interesting aspect lies within the final minutes and relates to the hired killer going after the driver. That concept alone that's about the length of a one minute conversation is better than Faster as a whole.
Dwayne Johnson seems to have better luck with family films, but I think his fans would rather see him in R-rated action films since his physique and film presence fit that genre best. If he could find a film that was like Faster with a meatier role that gave him more lines and had better writing, it'd probably be a lot more satisfying. The kills in Faster should have been the highlight since the film revolved around the driver gaining revenge for his brother, but they fell short. Everything about Faster did. I was completely expecting Johnson to either turn himself over to the authorities or kill himself to be with his brother at the end of the film. The driver received the revenge he so desperately seeked and did it in a nonchalant, hot-shot vigilante kind of way to let everyone know it was him doing it. Yet police can't seem to keep up with him and he just kind of drives off into the sunset at the end. It felt like Faster was left open ended for nothing more than sequel purposes alone, which is the weakest form of a cop out for a movie ending. Coincidentally, a film called Faster managed to feel twice as long as its 98 minute duration.
In the end, Faster contains elements from both Gone in Sixty Seconds and Taxi Driver, which should result in an excellent film. Instead we're left with an action film that uses these elements at face value; it contains the fast cars and intense chases of Gone in Sixty Seconds with the uneasy and unpredictable shootouts that are reminiscent of Taxi Driver but Faster lacks the depth, star power, enjoyment factor, strong cast, or lasting value these two films still have today. If you plan on seeing this film, you better be sure because that's a long dark road you're headed down (sorry, couldn't resist) and that road is nothing more than a pointless detour from greater things.
Wasted potential is the perfect way to describe Faster. Dwayne Johnson spends more time walking around looking pissed off than he does killing anyone or actually saying anything at all. Billy Bob Thornton doesn't do much of anything either as his character struggles between being a drug addict who doesn't amount to anything to a police officer who's about to retire and get full benefits who is also trying to get his family back together again. He spends most of his screen time drowning in his pathetic life. Then there's Dexter's Jennifer Carpenter who seems to be brought into the film to do nothing more than show up, cry a little, and say stupid things. Nothing the actors did really helped drive the story forward.
The cinematography fluctuated between being interesting and being incredibly annoying. Right when something like the way the camera was placed while the driver was driving or something as simple as reloading a gun was done in a way that seemed original to catch your attention, the film would turn around and throw shaky camera techniques at you for no reason or the scenes that caught your eye would be too brief to really make up for the mediocrity of the rest of the film. The most interesting aspect lies within the final minutes and relates to the hired killer going after the driver. That concept alone that's about the length of a one minute conversation is better than Faster as a whole.
Dwayne Johnson seems to have better luck with family films, but I think his fans would rather see him in R-rated action films since his physique and film presence fit that genre best. If he could find a film that was like Faster with a meatier role that gave him more lines and had better writing, it'd probably be a lot more satisfying. The kills in Faster should have been the highlight since the film revolved around the driver gaining revenge for his brother, but they fell short. Everything about Faster did. I was completely expecting Johnson to either turn himself over to the authorities or kill himself to be with his brother at the end of the film. The driver received the revenge he so desperately seeked and did it in a nonchalant, hot-shot vigilante kind of way to let everyone know it was him doing it. Yet police can't seem to keep up with him and he just kind of drives off into the sunset at the end. It felt like Faster was left open ended for nothing more than sequel purposes alone, which is the weakest form of a cop out for a movie ending. Coincidentally, a film called Faster managed to feel twice as long as its 98 minute duration.
In the end, Faster contains elements from both Gone in Sixty Seconds and Taxi Driver, which should result in an excellent film. Instead we're left with an action film that uses these elements at face value; it contains the fast cars and intense chases of Gone in Sixty Seconds with the uneasy and unpredictable shootouts that are reminiscent of Taxi Driver but Faster lacks the depth, star power, enjoyment factor, strong cast, or lasting value these two films still have today. If you plan on seeing this film, you better be sure because that's a long dark road you're headed down (sorry, couldn't resist) and that road is nothing more than a pointless detour from greater things.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Lion King (2019) in Movies
Jul 21, 2019
Middle of the Road
I have to give the Walt Disney Company credit, with their Live Action remakes of their classic animated movies, they have developed a very lucrative profit stream with properties that they already own - and are well known to audiences. Some are successful (THE JUNGLE BOOK, ALADDIN), some are not quite so successful (DUMBO, ALICE IN WONDERLAND).
And...somewhere in the middle...is the LION KING.
Directed by Jon Favreau (THE JUNGLE BOOK, IRON MAN), this Lion King is a fairly faithful reproduction of the animated movie - and that is a blessing and a curse - and it, ultimately, keeps this remake squarely in the middle in terms of quality, interest and achievement.
What works: the CGI animation of the animals and scenery. Favreau shot CGI-fest films like THE JUNGLE BOOK and IRON MAN, so he knows how to do these things and they work here in a very workmanlike way. The are all professionally done - there's not a bad shot in the film. But the "wow" moments are few and far between in this film as well
The story is a timeless classic (kind of an "animal adventure Hamlet") and that works as do OME of the voice cast (more on that later)...and...of course...the songs - especially the faithful recreation of the CIRCLE OF LIFE opening - one of the best opening musical numbers in movie history.
What doesn't work: The first 1/2 of the film's pacing. It drags pretty badly early on and the songs in that part of the film (like I CAN'T WAIT TO BE KING) just don't have the energy and pizzazz that is needed. And SOME of the voice work is just plain bland and boring and (in one case) I found irritating.
So...let's talk about the voice cast. James Earl Jones (reprising Mufasa) is terrific (of course) as is John Oliver's Zazu (a much bigger presence in this film than the animated film), Chiwetel Ejiofor's Scar is appropriately menacing, if a bit bland, but "good enough" as is Beyonce's grown up Nala. I would have liked to see/feel a bit more of her "presence" in this character's voice, but that might be a Director choice and not an actress choice. John Kani's Rafiki is quite good as is the always steady/credible Alfre Woodward as Sarabi.
What doesn't work is the two voice actors cast to play Simba. Donald Glover (TV's ATLANTA) is just too bland and boring as the adult Simba. He doesn't really bring anything interesting to his voice work of this character (but does hold his own in the musical duet "Can You Feel The Love Tonight" opposite the great Beyonce).
I usually don't comment on child performances that I don't like (they are kids after all), so I won't really comment much on JD McCrary's voice performance as the young Simba except to say I didn't really how much MORE the young Simba is in this film as opposed to the older Simba - or at least it felt to me that the weakest voice performance in this film was on screen for far longer than I remembered from the animated film.
As for the best voice performances in this film - that is easy - Billy Eichner and Seth Rogan's performance as Simba's pals Timon and Pumbaa. They had big shoes to fill in comparison to the voice work in the animated film from Nathan Lane and Ernie Sabella, so they did the smart thing - they didn't even try. Much like Will Smith not trying to imitate Robin Williams in the live action ALADDIN earlier this year (another voice performance that worked well) Eichner and Rogan make these characters their own and succeeded well - these two characters/performances are the high point in the film and bring much needed life and energy to a movie that was sagging under it's own weight by the time they show up.
This Lion King will be THE Lion King for this generation - and that is "fine" - if the youngsters in my life want to watch this, I won't complain. But... I will try to steer them towards the much better animated version of this film from the 1990's.
Letter Grade: a solid B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
And...somewhere in the middle...is the LION KING.
Directed by Jon Favreau (THE JUNGLE BOOK, IRON MAN), this Lion King is a fairly faithful reproduction of the animated movie - and that is a blessing and a curse - and it, ultimately, keeps this remake squarely in the middle in terms of quality, interest and achievement.
What works: the CGI animation of the animals and scenery. Favreau shot CGI-fest films like THE JUNGLE BOOK and IRON MAN, so he knows how to do these things and they work here in a very workmanlike way. The are all professionally done - there's not a bad shot in the film. But the "wow" moments are few and far between in this film as well
The story is a timeless classic (kind of an "animal adventure Hamlet") and that works as do OME of the voice cast (more on that later)...and...of course...the songs - especially the faithful recreation of the CIRCLE OF LIFE opening - one of the best opening musical numbers in movie history.
What doesn't work: The first 1/2 of the film's pacing. It drags pretty badly early on and the songs in that part of the film (like I CAN'T WAIT TO BE KING) just don't have the energy and pizzazz that is needed. And SOME of the voice work is just plain bland and boring and (in one case) I found irritating.
So...let's talk about the voice cast. James Earl Jones (reprising Mufasa) is terrific (of course) as is John Oliver's Zazu (a much bigger presence in this film than the animated film), Chiwetel Ejiofor's Scar is appropriately menacing, if a bit bland, but "good enough" as is Beyonce's grown up Nala. I would have liked to see/feel a bit more of her "presence" in this character's voice, but that might be a Director choice and not an actress choice. John Kani's Rafiki is quite good as is the always steady/credible Alfre Woodward as Sarabi.
What doesn't work is the two voice actors cast to play Simba. Donald Glover (TV's ATLANTA) is just too bland and boring as the adult Simba. He doesn't really bring anything interesting to his voice work of this character (but does hold his own in the musical duet "Can You Feel The Love Tonight" opposite the great Beyonce).
I usually don't comment on child performances that I don't like (they are kids after all), so I won't really comment much on JD McCrary's voice performance as the young Simba except to say I didn't really how much MORE the young Simba is in this film as opposed to the older Simba - or at least it felt to me that the weakest voice performance in this film was on screen for far longer than I remembered from the animated film.
As for the best voice performances in this film - that is easy - Billy Eichner and Seth Rogan's performance as Simba's pals Timon and Pumbaa. They had big shoes to fill in comparison to the voice work in the animated film from Nathan Lane and Ernie Sabella, so they did the smart thing - they didn't even try. Much like Will Smith not trying to imitate Robin Williams in the live action ALADDIN earlier this year (another voice performance that worked well) Eichner and Rogan make these characters their own and succeeded well - these two characters/performances are the high point in the film and bring much needed life and energy to a movie that was sagging under it's own weight by the time they show up.
This Lion King will be THE Lion King for this generation - and that is "fine" - if the youngsters in my life want to watch this, I won't complain. But... I will try to steer them towards the much better animated version of this film from the 1990's.
Letter Grade: a solid B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(OfMarquis)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Dec 8, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
Had this been released on any regular week I'd have seen Joker the day it came out and not been overly bothered by the Twitter frenzy that happened in the aftermath of the opening... but, Joker came out two days into the London Film Festival and that meant I couldn't see it straight away. I ended up taking a day off in the middle of it and going out to have a regular cinema outing, it was only 6 days after release but the barrage of feedback online was enough to make me bored at the thought of seeing it.
I do not know how to do this review. It's not that I don't have things to say about it, because I do, but there's a lot of grumbling. I'm going to try bullet pointing it as it covers things that cross audience feedback with moaning.
• What is real? We see the Sophie shots replayed without her in them and we realise he imagined it but we also know that he's imagined other things... everything could be a twist on reality.
• I did not assume that the man with Bruce at home was Alfred.
• I would not have found it unbelievable had Arthur and Sophie been a couple.
• This film could easily have been a pre-origin story for the Joker character.
• I know Arthur needs every push to make the story progress but I don't see that Thomas Wayne needed to be that aggressive.
• Wouldn't it have been good if this film made no reference to anything Batman/Joker related and the first time we're actually shown the connection is in that iconic alley scene?
So there are the things I had thoughts, they all have me waffling on for ages when I voice them out loud.
Joaquin Phoenix really commits to the journey of Arthur and it's an incredible depiction. I'm not so bothered about the violence in the movie, what disturbed me more was how Phoenix manages to laugh without it showing on his face... that was chilling. Everything crafted around him really shows his life, the way he's captured in the shots, the way you see the darker side taking over him, you can see it in every scene. It's uncomfortable to watch him sometimes, but that's the way it needs to be.
As an environment you can feel the dirt and the story of the city really comes through in everything you see. There's a very clear divide between rich and poor and I really thought the sets and costumes worked perfectly.
I'm going to mention the song... it worked perfectly in the scene, it had the right tone for it and I thought it was very effective. As you look down the rest of the tracklisting it was nice to see that everything had a very theatrical leaning.
When we get to the point where Arthur, now under the guise of Joker, appears on Murray's talk show there's an element of uncertainty about what's going to happen. The escalation is chilling and when he starts his speech you can feel the change in him. That speech had a moment of understanding in it before you remember everything we've just seen. I would happily have seen the film end with that test card.
What happens after this is a big piece that feels like hallucination moments rather than real ones. I really didn't need that... BUT... it did bring us to that iconic alleyway scene. It was perfectly captured and would have been amazing if we saw the clown slip into the alleyway and then... no pearls. I groaned when I saw that. I'm fed up with it, it took that tense moment and could have left you with that sense of knowing without hitting you with that now rather common slap in the face of an image.
Unlike other films I still don't have a very clear idea of how I feel about this film, there are lots of issues I had with it but then there's that brilliant performance from Joaquin Phoenix. I'm sure this needs another viewing, but even then I'm not sure I'd be totally certain about how I felt.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/11/joker-spoilers-movie-review.html
I do not know how to do this review. It's not that I don't have things to say about it, because I do, but there's a lot of grumbling. I'm going to try bullet pointing it as it covers things that cross audience feedback with moaning.
• What is real? We see the Sophie shots replayed without her in them and we realise he imagined it but we also know that he's imagined other things... everything could be a twist on reality.
• I did not assume that the man with Bruce at home was Alfred.
• I would not have found it unbelievable had Arthur and Sophie been a couple.
• This film could easily have been a pre-origin story for the Joker character.
• I know Arthur needs every push to make the story progress but I don't see that Thomas Wayne needed to be that aggressive.
• Wouldn't it have been good if this film made no reference to anything Batman/Joker related and the first time we're actually shown the connection is in that iconic alley scene?
So there are the things I had thoughts, they all have me waffling on for ages when I voice them out loud.
Joaquin Phoenix really commits to the journey of Arthur and it's an incredible depiction. I'm not so bothered about the violence in the movie, what disturbed me more was how Phoenix manages to laugh without it showing on his face... that was chilling. Everything crafted around him really shows his life, the way he's captured in the shots, the way you see the darker side taking over him, you can see it in every scene. It's uncomfortable to watch him sometimes, but that's the way it needs to be.
As an environment you can feel the dirt and the story of the city really comes through in everything you see. There's a very clear divide between rich and poor and I really thought the sets and costumes worked perfectly.
I'm going to mention the song... it worked perfectly in the scene, it had the right tone for it and I thought it was very effective. As you look down the rest of the tracklisting it was nice to see that everything had a very theatrical leaning.
When we get to the point where Arthur, now under the guise of Joker, appears on Murray's talk show there's an element of uncertainty about what's going to happen. The escalation is chilling and when he starts his speech you can feel the change in him. That speech had a moment of understanding in it before you remember everything we've just seen. I would happily have seen the film end with that test card.
What happens after this is a big piece that feels like hallucination moments rather than real ones. I really didn't need that... BUT... it did bring us to that iconic alleyway scene. It was perfectly captured and would have been amazing if we saw the clown slip into the alleyway and then... no pearls. I groaned when I saw that. I'm fed up with it, it took that tense moment and could have left you with that sense of knowing without hitting you with that now rather common slap in the face of an image.
Unlike other films I still don't have a very clear idea of how I feel about this film, there are lots of issues I had with it but then there's that brilliant performance from Joaquin Phoenix. I'm sure this needs another viewing, but even then I'm not sure I'd be totally certain about how I felt.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/11/joker-spoilers-movie-review.html
Honest Review for Free Copy of Book
Readers should not be fooled by the title The Geek Who Came From The Cold: Surviving The Post-USSR Era On A Hollywood Diet by Leon Kaminsky has nothing to do with food or dieting at all. The “Hollywood Diet” mentioned in the title is movies, mainly those from the US. A little bit of knowledge about Russia and their policies would be helpful when reading this book but is not required.
Leon is a young boy growing up in Russia at the end of the 1900s. He has a nervous problem (possibly anxiety) and has a hard time at school and with other people in general. Leon quickly falls in love with movies, specifically those from Hollywood after seeing them for the first time. Like so many other people who are not exactly social for one reason or another, he trades social interaction for watching films. His love for movies over the years borders on the edge of obsession as he knows not only actors and directors but also the Russian’s who voice over the tapes to translate them. His daily and weekly schedule revolves around what movies are being played on TV or at the theaters.
He takes readers through the difficulty of obtaining some of the popular movies that can be found just about anywhere here in the United States. This difficulty is not only because of how much Russia censored movies from just about anywhere but because the titles are often changed as well. Leon shares his excitement and the challenges he faced to get his first VCR play and to transport his VHS collection when his family moved. He even talks about when owning a VCR was illegal in Russia and when people would give anything to have one, including offering to trade a boat for a VCR.
What I liked best was that the informative quality of the book was wonderful and the author clearly did his research (I even wondered at times if the book was based on the author’s own childhood). I appreciated the human qualities of the book, such as the struggles Leon faces at school. New facts about Russia was presented to the readers in a way that prevented anything from feeling too overly informative. What I did not like was the fact that the book ends fairly abruptly. I would have liked to see at least one chapter about after the family’s move to Germany. There were also multiple sections where it would begin on one topic and end on another, seemingly unrelated topic.
Movie fans will enjoy this book but it is recommended that they be somewhat familiar with movies from the 1980s (I think was the time period of most movies mentioned in the book, I myself am far from a movie buff at all) and newer. High school students may not be able to fully appreciate the cinematic history in this book and may feel more like a history book to them. It should also be noted as VHS tapes are already a thing of the past (I am holding on to a few to show my children in the future) upcoming generations may not know what the book is talking about without asking their parents or google. Finally, I give this book a rating of 3 out of 4. This book is very informative about a topic not many people are probably aware of. Sadly this gives it a very narrow target audience. The way the book is written makes it feel like it is an autobiography about a movie lover growing up where movies are largely controlled. The plot of the book is frequently lost through during all the movie talk.
https://www.facebook.com/nightreaderreviews
Leon is a young boy growing up in Russia at the end of the 1900s. He has a nervous problem (possibly anxiety) and has a hard time at school and with other people in general. Leon quickly falls in love with movies, specifically those from Hollywood after seeing them for the first time. Like so many other people who are not exactly social for one reason or another, he trades social interaction for watching films. His love for movies over the years borders on the edge of obsession as he knows not only actors and directors but also the Russian’s who voice over the tapes to translate them. His daily and weekly schedule revolves around what movies are being played on TV or at the theaters.
He takes readers through the difficulty of obtaining some of the popular movies that can be found just about anywhere here in the United States. This difficulty is not only because of how much Russia censored movies from just about anywhere but because the titles are often changed as well. Leon shares his excitement and the challenges he faced to get his first VCR play and to transport his VHS collection when his family moved. He even talks about when owning a VCR was illegal in Russia and when people would give anything to have one, including offering to trade a boat for a VCR.
What I liked best was that the informative quality of the book was wonderful and the author clearly did his research (I even wondered at times if the book was based on the author’s own childhood). I appreciated the human qualities of the book, such as the struggles Leon faces at school. New facts about Russia was presented to the readers in a way that prevented anything from feeling too overly informative. What I did not like was the fact that the book ends fairly abruptly. I would have liked to see at least one chapter about after the family’s move to Germany. There were also multiple sections where it would begin on one topic and end on another, seemingly unrelated topic.
Movie fans will enjoy this book but it is recommended that they be somewhat familiar with movies from the 1980s (I think was the time period of most movies mentioned in the book, I myself am far from a movie buff at all) and newer. High school students may not be able to fully appreciate the cinematic history in this book and may feel more like a history book to them. It should also be noted as VHS tapes are already a thing of the past (I am holding on to a few to show my children in the future) upcoming generations may not know what the book is talking about without asking their parents or google. Finally, I give this book a rating of 3 out of 4. This book is very informative about a topic not many people are probably aware of. Sadly this gives it a very narrow target audience. The way the book is written makes it feel like it is an autobiography about a movie lover growing up where movies are largely controlled. The plot of the book is frequently lost through during all the movie talk.
https://www.facebook.com/nightreaderreviews
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Jojo Rabbit (2019) in Movies
Oct 14, 2019
The premise of Jojo Rabbit is a bold one, and something that could have very easily been executed terribly on-screen.
Whilst you might feel some apprehension about the concept of a 10-year-old boy who has Hitler as an imaginary friend, Taika Waititi has turned it into something brilliant and poignant.
As mentioned above, the film follows Johannes ‘Jojo’ Betzler, who lives in Nazi Germany. He’s a fanatic and is driven by his desire to serve Adolf Hitler in the German army during World War II, even joining a Hitler Youth Camp which is run by Captain Klenzendorf (Sam Rockwell).
Jojo is unlike any other child protagonist I’ve seen, because it’s easy to have very mixed feelings about who he is as a person. He’s a child and his everyday behaviour is indicative of someone who lacks maturity, resulting in some laugh out loud moments.
However, a lot of what he says happens to be horrendous insults towards the Jewish community. He’s fuelled by a love of Hitler (even going as far as to describe him as his ‘best friend’).
Throughout the film, he imagines scenarios in which Hitler is there with him, such as when he’s looking in the mirror and giving himself a pep-talk.
The strength of Jojo Rabbit‘s protagonist is a testament to actor Roman Griffin Davis, and I found it hard to believe that this was his first ever film performance. He’s funny, flawed, and a very well-rounded character brilliantly brought to life.
As for Jojo’s imaginary Hitler, he’s hysterically funny and not at all how you’d imagine the real man to be. Played brilliantly by director Taika Waititi, he is a caricature of a deplorable historical figure, and fuels Jojo’s delusions of how wonderful he is.
He’s simply someone’s interpretation of a political leader, created by a child who has been brainwashed into believing Nazi propaganda by adults in his life.
This bubbly oversimplification of a dictator is what you’d expect from a naive child, who isn’t fully aware of the atrocities around him.
The fact Taika Waititi plays this version of Hitler feels important, because he’s mocking him in the best possible way. As a Jewish man, it feels very appropriate that he criticises Hitler’s ideology through his satirical performance. It was brilliant.
Adding jokes to such a horrific situation is difficult, but this is where Jojo Rabbit really excels. The balance between humour and gut-punching reality checks is beautifully done, and there were times when I wasn’t sure whether my tears were from laughing or because I was genuinely sad at what I’d just seen.
Relationships are an important part of the film, particularly the one between Jojo and his mother Rosie (Scarlett Johansson). However, this becomes strained when he finds out that his mother is hiding a young Jewish woman in their home.
Jojo’s meeting with Elsa Korr (Thomasin McKenzie) is central to the story and gives us a real insight into the horrific treatment of Jewish people during this period, and the extreme lengths they’d go to keep themselves safe.
Despite Elsa’s life constantly being in jeopardy, she’s very sassy and gives young Jojo a run for his money once the two meet. The way the two characters bounce off each other is exceptional, and again, you’ll laugh and cry in equal measure.
I was also impressed by some brief appearances in the film such as Rebel Wilson as Fraulein Rahm, who I found hilarious in this film. I must admit I’m not always a fan of her work, but here she really delivered.
Stephen Merchant as Captain Deertz and Archie Yates as young Yorki are also worthy of praise, as every time they were on screen I found them delightful to watch. Much like Roman Griffin Davis, this was Archie’s first film, and he stole the show every time he was in a scene.
Jojo Rabbit is, simply put, political satire at its finest. As a result of this, it’s an emotional rollercoaster and one that I am excited to revisit whenever I get the chance.
It’s darkly funny with an important overall message of confronting ideologies, and I’d urge you to seek it out ASAP.
Whilst you might feel some apprehension about the concept of a 10-year-old boy who has Hitler as an imaginary friend, Taika Waititi has turned it into something brilliant and poignant.
As mentioned above, the film follows Johannes ‘Jojo’ Betzler, who lives in Nazi Germany. He’s a fanatic and is driven by his desire to serve Adolf Hitler in the German army during World War II, even joining a Hitler Youth Camp which is run by Captain Klenzendorf (Sam Rockwell).
Jojo is unlike any other child protagonist I’ve seen, because it’s easy to have very mixed feelings about who he is as a person. He’s a child and his everyday behaviour is indicative of someone who lacks maturity, resulting in some laugh out loud moments.
However, a lot of what he says happens to be horrendous insults towards the Jewish community. He’s fuelled by a love of Hitler (even going as far as to describe him as his ‘best friend’).
Throughout the film, he imagines scenarios in which Hitler is there with him, such as when he’s looking in the mirror and giving himself a pep-talk.
The strength of Jojo Rabbit‘s protagonist is a testament to actor Roman Griffin Davis, and I found it hard to believe that this was his first ever film performance. He’s funny, flawed, and a very well-rounded character brilliantly brought to life.
As for Jojo’s imaginary Hitler, he’s hysterically funny and not at all how you’d imagine the real man to be. Played brilliantly by director Taika Waititi, he is a caricature of a deplorable historical figure, and fuels Jojo’s delusions of how wonderful he is.
He’s simply someone’s interpretation of a political leader, created by a child who has been brainwashed into believing Nazi propaganda by adults in his life.
This bubbly oversimplification of a dictator is what you’d expect from a naive child, who isn’t fully aware of the atrocities around him.
The fact Taika Waititi plays this version of Hitler feels important, because he’s mocking him in the best possible way. As a Jewish man, it feels very appropriate that he criticises Hitler’s ideology through his satirical performance. It was brilliant.
Adding jokes to such a horrific situation is difficult, but this is where Jojo Rabbit really excels. The balance between humour and gut-punching reality checks is beautifully done, and there were times when I wasn’t sure whether my tears were from laughing or because I was genuinely sad at what I’d just seen.
Relationships are an important part of the film, particularly the one between Jojo and his mother Rosie (Scarlett Johansson). However, this becomes strained when he finds out that his mother is hiding a young Jewish woman in their home.
Jojo’s meeting with Elsa Korr (Thomasin McKenzie) is central to the story and gives us a real insight into the horrific treatment of Jewish people during this period, and the extreme lengths they’d go to keep themselves safe.
Despite Elsa’s life constantly being in jeopardy, she’s very sassy and gives young Jojo a run for his money once the two meet. The way the two characters bounce off each other is exceptional, and again, you’ll laugh and cry in equal measure.
I was also impressed by some brief appearances in the film such as Rebel Wilson as Fraulein Rahm, who I found hilarious in this film. I must admit I’m not always a fan of her work, but here she really delivered.
Stephen Merchant as Captain Deertz and Archie Yates as young Yorki are also worthy of praise, as every time they were on screen I found them delightful to watch. Much like Roman Griffin Davis, this was Archie’s first film, and he stole the show every time he was in a scene.
Jojo Rabbit is, simply put, political satire at its finest. As a result of this, it’s an emotional rollercoaster and one that I am excited to revisit whenever I get the chance.
It’s darkly funny with an important overall message of confronting ideologies, and I’d urge you to seek it out ASAP.