Search
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Flatliners (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
The undiscovered country… which they shouldn’t have returned to.
The movies have depicted the hereafter in varied ways over the years. From the bleached white warehouses of Powell and Pressburger’s “A Matter of Life and Death” in 1946 and Warren Beatty’s “Heaven Can Wait” in 1978 to – for me – the peak of the game: Vincent Ward’s mawkish but gorgeously rendered oil-paint version of heaven in 1998’s “What Dreams May Come”. Joel Schmacher’s 1990’s “Flatliners” saw a set of “brat pack” movie names of the day (including Kevin Bacon, Julia Roberts, William Baldwin and Kiefer Sutherland) as experimenting trainee doctors, cheating death to experience the afterlife and getting more than they bargained for. The depictions of the afterlife were unmemorable: in that I don’t remember them much! (I think there was some sort of spooky tree involved, but that’s about it!)
But the concept was sufficiently enticing – who isn’t a little bit intrigued by the question of “what’s beyond”? – that Cross Creek Pictures thought it worthy of dusting off and giving it another outing in pursuit of dirty lucre. But unfortunately this offering adds little to the property’s reputation.
In this version, the lead role is headed up by Ellen Page (“Inception”) who is a great actress… too good for this stuff. Also in that category is Diego Luna, who really made an impact in “Rogue One” but here has little to work with in terms of backstory. The remaining three doctors – Nina Dobrev as “the sexy one”; James Norton (“War and Peace”) as “the posh boy” and Kiersey Clemons as the “cute but repressed one”, all have even less backstory and struggle to make a great impact.
Still struggling to get the high score on Angry Birds: from left to right Ray (Diego Luna), Sophia (Kiersey Clemons), Marlo (Nina Dobrev), Courtney (Ellen Page) and Jamie (James Norton).
Also putting in an appearance, as the one link from the original film, is Kiefer Sutherland as a senior member of the teaching staff. But he’s not playing the same character (that WOULD have been a bloody miracle!) and although Sutherland adds gravitas he really is given criminally little to do. What was director Niels Arden Oplev (“The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”) thinking?
In terms of the story, it’s pretty much a re-hash of Peter Filardi’s original, with Ben Ripley (“Source Code”) adding a few minor tweaks to the screenplay to update it for the current generation. But I will levy the same criticism of this film as I levied at the recent Stephen King adaptation of “It”: for horror to work well it need to obey some decent ‘rules of physics’ and although most of the scenes work (since a lot of the “action” is sensibly based inside the character’s heads) there are the occasional linkages to the ‘real world’ that generate a “WTF???” response. A seemingly indestructible Mini car (which is also clearly untraceable by the police!) and a knife incident at the dockside are two cases in point.
Is there anything good to say about this film? Well, there are certainly a few tense moments that make the hairs on your neck at least start to stand to attention. But these are few and far between, amongst a sea of movie ‘meh’. It’s certainly not going to be the worst film I see this year, since at least I wasn’t completely bored for the two hours. But I won’t remember this one in a few weeks. As a summary in the form of a “Black Adder” quote, it’s all a bit like a broken pencil….. pointless.
But the concept was sufficiently enticing – who isn’t a little bit intrigued by the question of “what’s beyond”? – that Cross Creek Pictures thought it worthy of dusting off and giving it another outing in pursuit of dirty lucre. But unfortunately this offering adds little to the property’s reputation.
In this version, the lead role is headed up by Ellen Page (“Inception”) who is a great actress… too good for this stuff. Also in that category is Diego Luna, who really made an impact in “Rogue One” but here has little to work with in terms of backstory. The remaining three doctors – Nina Dobrev as “the sexy one”; James Norton (“War and Peace”) as “the posh boy” and Kiersey Clemons as the “cute but repressed one”, all have even less backstory and struggle to make a great impact.
Still struggling to get the high score on Angry Birds: from left to right Ray (Diego Luna), Sophia (Kiersey Clemons), Marlo (Nina Dobrev), Courtney (Ellen Page) and Jamie (James Norton).
Also putting in an appearance, as the one link from the original film, is Kiefer Sutherland as a senior member of the teaching staff. But he’s not playing the same character (that WOULD have been a bloody miracle!) and although Sutherland adds gravitas he really is given criminally little to do. What was director Niels Arden Oplev (“The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”) thinking?
In terms of the story, it’s pretty much a re-hash of Peter Filardi’s original, with Ben Ripley (“Source Code”) adding a few minor tweaks to the screenplay to update it for the current generation. But I will levy the same criticism of this film as I levied at the recent Stephen King adaptation of “It”: for horror to work well it need to obey some decent ‘rules of physics’ and although most of the scenes work (since a lot of the “action” is sensibly based inside the character’s heads) there are the occasional linkages to the ‘real world’ that generate a “WTF???” response. A seemingly indestructible Mini car (which is also clearly untraceable by the police!) and a knife incident at the dockside are two cases in point.
Is there anything good to say about this film? Well, there are certainly a few tense moments that make the hairs on your neck at least start to stand to attention. But these are few and far between, amongst a sea of movie ‘meh’. It’s certainly not going to be the worst film I see this year, since at least I wasn’t completely bored for the two hours. But I won’t remember this one in a few weeks. As a summary in the form of a “Black Adder” quote, it’s all a bit like a broken pencil….. pointless.
Ten Below Zero
6.0
Rate It
Book
“In here,” he said, pushing on the skin above my heart, “you're ten below zero. And you’re...
JT (287 KP) rated End of Watch (2012) in Movies
Mar 10, 2020
Officer Brian Taylor’s (Jake Gyllenhaal) opening monologue in which we see a car chase and shoot out from the front dashboard camera of a Los Angeles black and white, sets the tone for what will be a gripping action flick.
It’s an indication that this cop film is not going to be as clear cut as any before it, and its no frills policy will surely shock most viewers as officers Taylor and Zavala (Michael Peña) tackle everything from the mundane to the murderous on their watch. We follow the pair during their daily routines which includes in the locker room, the briefing room as well as unique camera set ups from inside the patrol car and a hand held that Taylor carries along with him.
It’s incredibly well shot, and takes the conventional cop film and gives it a big slice of realism. It would give you the impression of what a real ride along might include, and the kinds of situations they find themselves in.
“I am the police, and I’m here to arrest you. You’ve broken the law.”
These situations might affect you in different ways, like the one involving two young children, which is particularly hard to watch. Director David Ayer has not shied away from the brutality of the surroundings the officers find themselves in, and uncomfortable scenarios are all part and parcel of this job. It’s not long before they start to ruffle a few feathers not just on the streets but within their own department. When they uncover a drug cartel which is a small piece of a very large jigsaw they are marked for death.
The film is also looked at from the view point of LA’s criminal underworld, where it seems everyone has a hand held camera and likes to film themselves. It seems a bit stupid really and maybe Ayer should have kept that side of the story to the conventional camera, it doesn’t work all that well if I’m honest. The relationship between Taylor and Zavala is probably the most believable of any on screen buddy cop partnerships, not since Lethal Weapon (the first film at least) has a pairing conveyed such emotion and chemistry. You’d almost believe that these two had been together for years.
Ayer has had plenty of experience in this field already, having written the scripts for S.W.A.T, Training Day and The Fast and the Furious, but those films only looked at cops from the outside. End of Watch goes in just that little bit further which helps to make it unique from all the rest.
It’s an indication that this cop film is not going to be as clear cut as any before it, and its no frills policy will surely shock most viewers as officers Taylor and Zavala (Michael Peña) tackle everything from the mundane to the murderous on their watch. We follow the pair during their daily routines which includes in the locker room, the briefing room as well as unique camera set ups from inside the patrol car and a hand held that Taylor carries along with him.
It’s incredibly well shot, and takes the conventional cop film and gives it a big slice of realism. It would give you the impression of what a real ride along might include, and the kinds of situations they find themselves in.
“I am the police, and I’m here to arrest you. You’ve broken the law.”
These situations might affect you in different ways, like the one involving two young children, which is particularly hard to watch. Director David Ayer has not shied away from the brutality of the surroundings the officers find themselves in, and uncomfortable scenarios are all part and parcel of this job. It’s not long before they start to ruffle a few feathers not just on the streets but within their own department. When they uncover a drug cartel which is a small piece of a very large jigsaw they are marked for death.
The film is also looked at from the view point of LA’s criminal underworld, where it seems everyone has a hand held camera and likes to film themselves. It seems a bit stupid really and maybe Ayer should have kept that side of the story to the conventional camera, it doesn’t work all that well if I’m honest. The relationship between Taylor and Zavala is probably the most believable of any on screen buddy cop partnerships, not since Lethal Weapon (the first film at least) has a pairing conveyed such emotion and chemistry. You’d almost believe that these two had been together for years.
Ayer has had plenty of experience in this field already, having written the scripts for S.W.A.T, Training Day and The Fast and the Furious, but those films only looked at cops from the outside. End of Watch goes in just that little bit further which helps to make it unique from all the rest.
So You Think You Know About Britain?
Book
When it comes to immigration, the population explosion, the collapse of the family, the north-south...
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Friday the 13th (2009) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019 (Updated Jun 20, 2019)
**I wrote this review a decade ago. I was going to change some stuff (mostly the last couple lines of the last paragraph), but thought it was too crude and hilarious to remove. Hopefully you feel the same way. Thanks for reading.**
In 1980, Pamela Voorhees set out to kill all the counselors at Camp Crystal Lake. Several years ago, the counselors did nothing as Mrs. Voorhees' son, Jason, drowned in the lake. Now, as the camp is about to re-open, Mrs. Voorhees has returned to seek revenge for her son and she only has one more victim before she accomplishes that goal. Unfortunately for Mrs. Voorhees, she didn't count on this particular camp counselor decapitating her and ending her reign of terror once and for all. Unbeknownst to anyone at the time, Jason was still alive and witnessed his mother's gruesome death. Now, in the present day, Jason is the one who seeks revenge and anyone who even comes near Camp Crystal Lake is at risk of feeling his onslaught.
It's been something like five and a half years since we last saw Jason Voorhees in the theater. So was it worth the wait? Does the remake measure up to the rest of the franchise? Is it a remake worth seeing at all? Does it continue the trend with 2009 being a strong year for the horror genre? The short answer to all of these questions is yes.
I've always been partial to the Friday the 13th franchise. Jason Voorhees has always been my favorite when it comes slasher films. So I was beyond excited by the time today finally rolled around. The film opens with a flashback that chronicles what would be the ending to the original film. Jump to the present day. Some kids decide to hike out into the woods to have some fun and wind up about a half mile from Camp Blood. Everything is fun and games until one of them turns up missing. The survivors wind up exploring and get picked off one by one while Jason wears a bag over his head. After the scene in the trailer where Jason runs towards the girl on the ground and swings his machete, we get a black screen with "Friday the 13th" in red plastered across it.
Six weeks later, Clay is looking for his sister, Whitney. She was one of the victims of the attack we just witnessed. It seems as though everyone has given up hope looking for her except him. Meanwhile, Trent and his friends are going up to his dad's cabin for the weekend which just so happens to reside on Camp Crystal Lake. It's basically just more pigs being sent out to slaughter from there. Jason's bag gets pulled off right before he disposes of one of his victims in a barn. It's there that he stumbles across a hockey mask and things begin to pick up from there.
The film definitely delivers in all of the elements that make up the formula to a Friday the 13th film. There's plenty of T&A and sex for any sexhound. I haven't seen any R-rated film with this much nudity and sexual content in quite a while. The kills are also pretty satisfactory for a Friday fan. I think Trent's death is probably the most memorable, but I'm partial to Amanda's death because it was an interesting twist on the sleeping bag kill. Officer Bracke's kill was also a favorite of mine. Then, of course, there's Jason's death. It's interesting since it seems obvious how things are going to turn out for Jason, but it winds up happening in a round-a-bout way. Something is thrown in there to throw the audience off and that not many would see coming. Kind of like a, "Oh, maybe he'll die this way instead," kind of thing. Thinking back on it, it also felt like a throwback to one of the earlier sequels, which is pretty cool.
We can't finish this review without talking about Derek Mears as the man behind the hockey mask. I feel like he did a great job. I prefer him over Ken Kirzinger in Freddy Vs Jason. He kind of reminded me as a cross between C.J. Graham(part VI) and Kane Hodder(parts VII-IX). He also ran at times, which may put some people off. I actually enjoyed the running quite a bit. It reminded me of Jason in The Final Chapter, which is my favorite F13 film. He had the body movements down to perfection and is a worthy addition to the list of actors who have donned the hockey mask.
My one complaint is that it seemed like it was hard to see what was going on in certain scenes. The camera would be too shaky or scenes wouldn't have enough lighting and be too dark. It's really a minor complaint though as it usually only lasted a few seconds when it did occur.
So, all in all, I feel like it was well worth the wait for this film. I am really hoping it does well because I would welcome sequels with open arms. The remake follows the Friday the 13th formula extremely well. Right down to the ending. I guess the only thing that's not like some of the previous sequels is the acting, which seems to be top notch for a slasher film. As a Friday the 13th fan, I'm more than satisfied with the remake. To tell the truth, it was just nice to see a film with Jason Voorhees in theaters again. And as I've told quite a few friends, the feeling I had after walking out of the theater was equivalent to the way I feel after I blow my load. Not many films can plaster that on their movie poster, but this one could. And really, that's the biggest compliment of all.
In 1980, Pamela Voorhees set out to kill all the counselors at Camp Crystal Lake. Several years ago, the counselors did nothing as Mrs. Voorhees' son, Jason, drowned in the lake. Now, as the camp is about to re-open, Mrs. Voorhees has returned to seek revenge for her son and she only has one more victim before she accomplishes that goal. Unfortunately for Mrs. Voorhees, she didn't count on this particular camp counselor decapitating her and ending her reign of terror once and for all. Unbeknownst to anyone at the time, Jason was still alive and witnessed his mother's gruesome death. Now, in the present day, Jason is the one who seeks revenge and anyone who even comes near Camp Crystal Lake is at risk of feeling his onslaught.
It's been something like five and a half years since we last saw Jason Voorhees in the theater. So was it worth the wait? Does the remake measure up to the rest of the franchise? Is it a remake worth seeing at all? Does it continue the trend with 2009 being a strong year for the horror genre? The short answer to all of these questions is yes.
I've always been partial to the Friday the 13th franchise. Jason Voorhees has always been my favorite when it comes slasher films. So I was beyond excited by the time today finally rolled around. The film opens with a flashback that chronicles what would be the ending to the original film. Jump to the present day. Some kids decide to hike out into the woods to have some fun and wind up about a half mile from Camp Blood. Everything is fun and games until one of them turns up missing. The survivors wind up exploring and get picked off one by one while Jason wears a bag over his head. After the scene in the trailer where Jason runs towards the girl on the ground and swings his machete, we get a black screen with "Friday the 13th" in red plastered across it.
Six weeks later, Clay is looking for his sister, Whitney. She was one of the victims of the attack we just witnessed. It seems as though everyone has given up hope looking for her except him. Meanwhile, Trent and his friends are going up to his dad's cabin for the weekend which just so happens to reside on Camp Crystal Lake. It's basically just more pigs being sent out to slaughter from there. Jason's bag gets pulled off right before he disposes of one of his victims in a barn. It's there that he stumbles across a hockey mask and things begin to pick up from there.
The film definitely delivers in all of the elements that make up the formula to a Friday the 13th film. There's plenty of T&A and sex for any sexhound. I haven't seen any R-rated film with this much nudity and sexual content in quite a while. The kills are also pretty satisfactory for a Friday fan. I think Trent's death is probably the most memorable, but I'm partial to Amanda's death because it was an interesting twist on the sleeping bag kill. Officer Bracke's kill was also a favorite of mine. Then, of course, there's Jason's death. It's interesting since it seems obvious how things are going to turn out for Jason, but it winds up happening in a round-a-bout way. Something is thrown in there to throw the audience off and that not many would see coming. Kind of like a, "Oh, maybe he'll die this way instead," kind of thing. Thinking back on it, it also felt like a throwback to one of the earlier sequels, which is pretty cool.
We can't finish this review without talking about Derek Mears as the man behind the hockey mask. I feel like he did a great job. I prefer him over Ken Kirzinger in Freddy Vs Jason. He kind of reminded me as a cross between C.J. Graham(part VI) and Kane Hodder(parts VII-IX). He also ran at times, which may put some people off. I actually enjoyed the running quite a bit. It reminded me of Jason in The Final Chapter, which is my favorite F13 film. He had the body movements down to perfection and is a worthy addition to the list of actors who have donned the hockey mask.
My one complaint is that it seemed like it was hard to see what was going on in certain scenes. The camera would be too shaky or scenes wouldn't have enough lighting and be too dark. It's really a minor complaint though as it usually only lasted a few seconds when it did occur.
So, all in all, I feel like it was well worth the wait for this film. I am really hoping it does well because I would welcome sequels with open arms. The remake follows the Friday the 13th formula extremely well. Right down to the ending. I guess the only thing that's not like some of the previous sequels is the acting, which seems to be top notch for a slasher film. As a Friday the 13th fan, I'm more than satisfied with the remake. To tell the truth, it was just nice to see a film with Jason Voorhees in theaters again. And as I've told quite a few friends, the feeling I had after walking out of the theater was equivalent to the way I feel after I blow my load. Not many films can plaster that on their movie poster, but this one could. And really, that's the biggest compliment of all.
Ross (3284 KP) rated The Bone Ships in Books
Oct 28, 2019
This book is the start of RJ Barker's second fantasy series - a swashbuckling adventure. Where in his first series, the Wounded Kingdom, the world-building was minimal (or rather, it was just enough to be able to tell the story he wanted to tell), here the reader is thrown in at the deep end. The world the book takes place in is one where the bones of sea dragons are used to build ships, which themselves are generally used to battle against other nations' ships to steal their bones. This is because there are no more of these dragons, or so they thought ...
The first quarter of this book feels like wading through treacle, it is so thick with unexplained terms, creatures, materials and nautical job titles. Even things like trees are renamed as "gion" or "varisk", making it really hard to make head or tale of.
The story follows Joron, a depressed man lumbered with the role of shipwife (captain) on a black ship (one manned by those serving a prolonged death sentence for numerous crimes). His ship is abruptly taken over by Lucky Meas, shipwife of great renown, and his mediocre crew miraculously turned into one that would die for each other.
The crew soon find themselves secretly hunting down a rumoured dragon, not to kill it and take its bones, but to protect it from those trying to do so. And then kill it where nobody can salvage its bones and, hey presto, the world will be at peace.
The journey part of the story is really quite painfully dragged out, with some long sections of ship training (I am now very well versed in how to load, aim and fire a made up ship's crossbow!) and some mediocre action scenes thrown in to pad the story out (most of which involve the crew embarking on an impossible mission that they accomplish nonetheless).
Joron is not a likeable main character. He, much like the main character in the Wounded Kingdom, is a whiney brat who has to be battered into submission before adding any value to those around him. I didn't care in the least about him, or the fate of those on the ship. There was a point where my reading ground to a halt, when I could no longer take the seemingly endless sea voyage and cringeworthy pirate speak.
The final quarter of the book is more action-packed and some scenes are massive improvements, compelling the reader to carry on. However, by that point I was fed up with the book and the crew and their bloody pointless journey.
The first quarter of this book feels like wading through treacle, it is so thick with unexplained terms, creatures, materials and nautical job titles. Even things like trees are renamed as "gion" or "varisk", making it really hard to make head or tale of.
The story follows Joron, a depressed man lumbered with the role of shipwife (captain) on a black ship (one manned by those serving a prolonged death sentence for numerous crimes). His ship is abruptly taken over by Lucky Meas, shipwife of great renown, and his mediocre crew miraculously turned into one that would die for each other.
The crew soon find themselves secretly hunting down a rumoured dragon, not to kill it and take its bones, but to protect it from those trying to do so. And then kill it where nobody can salvage its bones and, hey presto, the world will be at peace.
The journey part of the story is really quite painfully dragged out, with some long sections of ship training (I am now very well versed in how to load, aim and fire a made up ship's crossbow!) and some mediocre action scenes thrown in to pad the story out (most of which involve the crew embarking on an impossible mission that they accomplish nonetheless).
Joron is not a likeable main character. He, much like the main character in the Wounded Kingdom, is a whiney brat who has to be battered into submission before adding any value to those around him. I didn't care in the least about him, or the fate of those on the ship. There was a point where my reading ground to a halt, when I could no longer take the seemingly endless sea voyage and cringeworthy pirate speak.
The final quarter of the book is more action-packed and some scenes are massive improvements, compelling the reader to carry on. However, by that point I was fed up with the book and the crew and their bloody pointless journey.
Matthew Krueger (10051 KP) rated Creepshow 2 (1987) in Movies
Sep 27, 2019
More Scary Stories To Tell In The Dark
Creepshow 2- is also a very good movie, with its three stories. That are horrorfyed and terrorfyed. Each one of them of are scary.
The Plot: This second horror anthology presents more eerie tales based on Stephen King stories. One episode finds a cigar-store Native American statue coming to life to avenge the death of the shop owner (George Kennedy) and his wife (Dorothy Lamour). Another features a group of teens menaced by a blob-like creature. The final installment follows a wealthy and callous woman (Lois Chiles) who hits a hitchhiker with her car and decides to flee the scene, but the victim isn't inclined to remain dead.
It features three more horror segments consisting of Old Chief Wooden Head, The Raft and The Hitchhiker.
Originally, the film was planned to have five stories much like the first film, two of these consisted of Pinfall and Cat from Hell. These two segments, however, were cut from the film due to the film's budget. "Cat from Hell", which would later be used in Tales from the Darkside: The Movie, focused on a wealthy old man hiring a hitman for $100,000 to kill a black cat, which was believed to killed three other people inside the residence he lives in and fears to be next. Unbeknownst to them, the cat soon exacts cosmic revenge on the two.
Pinfall", which was set to appear after Old Chief Wood'nhead, told the story of two rivalry teams consisted of the Regi-Men and the Bad News Boors competing in a bowling alley owned by an aged millionaire; the owner is soon killed in a freak accident and the teams found out afterwards that he would award one of them $5 million for whoever got the highest score. Soon, things turn up for the worst of the Regi-Team when the Boors, after they were killed in a fiery car-crash purposely caused by the Regi-Team, return as burnt-up revenants and soon get their revenge on their killers. Unlike Cat from Hell which managed to be brought onto the screen through a different film, Pinfall was never shot and never appeared outside of the film's original script.
During "The Raft" segment, actor Daniel Beer cited that he had almost died from hypothermia due to the water being very cold. While the crew wanted him to continue working with his role, the director Michael Gornick brought him to the hospital as he feared the actor would leave the set and never return if they get him to keep working during his cold condition. After a full recovery, he managed to finish the segment.
Again i would highly reccordmend this movie.
The Plot: This second horror anthology presents more eerie tales based on Stephen King stories. One episode finds a cigar-store Native American statue coming to life to avenge the death of the shop owner (George Kennedy) and his wife (Dorothy Lamour). Another features a group of teens menaced by a blob-like creature. The final installment follows a wealthy and callous woman (Lois Chiles) who hits a hitchhiker with her car and decides to flee the scene, but the victim isn't inclined to remain dead.
It features three more horror segments consisting of Old Chief Wooden Head, The Raft and The Hitchhiker.
Originally, the film was planned to have five stories much like the first film, two of these consisted of Pinfall and Cat from Hell. These two segments, however, were cut from the film due to the film's budget. "Cat from Hell", which would later be used in Tales from the Darkside: The Movie, focused on a wealthy old man hiring a hitman for $100,000 to kill a black cat, which was believed to killed three other people inside the residence he lives in and fears to be next. Unbeknownst to them, the cat soon exacts cosmic revenge on the two.
Pinfall", which was set to appear after Old Chief Wood'nhead, told the story of two rivalry teams consisted of the Regi-Men and the Bad News Boors competing in a bowling alley owned by an aged millionaire; the owner is soon killed in a freak accident and the teams found out afterwards that he would award one of them $5 million for whoever got the highest score. Soon, things turn up for the worst of the Regi-Team when the Boors, after they were killed in a fiery car-crash purposely caused by the Regi-Team, return as burnt-up revenants and soon get their revenge on their killers. Unlike Cat from Hell which managed to be brought onto the screen through a different film, Pinfall was never shot and never appeared outside of the film's original script.
During "The Raft" segment, actor Daniel Beer cited that he had almost died from hypothermia due to the water being very cold. While the crew wanted him to continue working with his role, the director Michael Gornick brought him to the hospital as he feared the actor would leave the set and never return if they get him to keep working during his cold condition. After a full recovery, he managed to finish the segment.
Again i would highly reccordmend this movie.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Misbehaviour (2020) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
A film guide on how to sit on the fence.
It’s only 50 years ago, but the timeframe of Misbehaviour feels like a very different world. Although only 9 years old in 1970, I remember sitting around the tele with my family to enjoy the regular Eric and Julia Morley ‘cattle market’ of girls parading in national dress and swimsuits. We were not alone. At its peak in the 70’s over 18 million Britons watched the show (not surprising bearing in mind there were only three channels to choose from in 1970… no streaming… no video players… not even smartphones to distract you!)
The background.
“Misbehaviour” tells the story of this eventful 1970 Miss World competition. It was eventful for a number of reasons: the Women’s Lib movement was rising in popularity, and the event was disrupted a flour-bombing group of women in the audience; the compere Bob Hope did an appallingly misjudged and mysoginistic routine that died a death; and, after significant pressure against the apartheid regime in South Africa, the country surprised the world by sending two entrants to the show – one white (Miss South Africa) and one black (Miss Africa South).
The movie charts the events leading up to that night and some of the fallout that resulted from it.
A strong ensemble cast.
“Misbehaviour” has a great cast.
Leading the women are posh-girl Sally Alexander (Keira Knightley) and punk-girl Jo Robinson (Jessie Buckley). I’m normally a big fan of both of these ladies. But here I never felt either of them connected particularly well with their characters. In particular, Buckley (although delivering as a similar maverick in “Wild Rose“) always felt a bit forced and out of place here.
On the event organisation side is Rhys Ifans, almost unrecognisable as Eric Morley, and Keeley Hawes as Julia Morley. Ifans gets the mannerisms of the impresario spot-on (as illustrated by some real-life footage shown at the end of the film). Also splendid is funny-man Miles Jupp as their “fixer” Clive.
Less successful for me was Greg Kinnear as Bob Hope. Hope clearly has such an unusual moon-shaped face that it’s difficult to find anyone to cast as a lookalike.
Just who is exploiting who here?
There’s no question in my mind that the event, in retrospect, is obscenely inappropriate – even though, bizarrely, it still runs to this day. But my biggest problem with the movie is that it never seems to pin its colours to any particular mast. It clearly illustrates the inappropriateness of Hope’s off-colour jokes and the instruction from host Michael Aspel (Charlie Anson), asking the swimsuit models to “show their rear view” to the audience, is gobsmackingly crass.
However, the script then takes a sympathetic view to the candidates from Grenada, South Africa, etc. who are clearly ‘using their bodies’ to get a leg-up to fame and fortune back in their home countries. (Final scenes showing the woman today, clearly affluent and happy, doesn’t help with that!)
As such, the movie sits magnificently on the fence and never reaches a ‘verdict’.
The racial sub-story.
Equally problematic is the really fascinating racial sub-story: this was an event, held in a UK that was racially far less tolerant than it is today, where no black person had EVER won. Indeed, a win was in most peoples’ eyes unthinkable. This was a time when “black lives didn’t matter”. Here we have Miss Grenada (an excellent Gugu Mbatha-Raw) and the utterly captivating Miss Africa South (a debut performance by Loreece Harrison) threatening to turn the tables . There was surely potential to get a lot more value out of this aspect of the story, but it is generally un-mined.
Perhaps a problem here is that there is so much story potential around this one historical event that there is just too much to fit comfortably into one screenplay. The writers Rebecca Frayn and Gaby Chiappe end up just giving a few bursts on the liquidizer and getting a slightly grey mush.
Nostalgia – it’s not what it used to be.
All this is not to say the movie was a write off. It’s a perfectly pleasant watch and for those (like me) of a certain age, the throwback fashions, vehicles and attitudes deliver a burst of nostalgia for the flawed but rose-coloured days of my first decade on the planet.
But it all feels like a bit of a missed opportunity to properly tackle either one of the two key issues highlighted in the script. As a female-led project (the director is Philippa Lowthorpe) I really wanted this to be good. But I’m afraid for me it’s all a bit “meh”.
If asked “would you like to watch that again?”… I would probably, politely, show my rear view and decline.
The background.
“Misbehaviour” tells the story of this eventful 1970 Miss World competition. It was eventful for a number of reasons: the Women’s Lib movement was rising in popularity, and the event was disrupted a flour-bombing group of women in the audience; the compere Bob Hope did an appallingly misjudged and mysoginistic routine that died a death; and, after significant pressure against the apartheid regime in South Africa, the country surprised the world by sending two entrants to the show – one white (Miss South Africa) and one black (Miss Africa South).
The movie charts the events leading up to that night and some of the fallout that resulted from it.
A strong ensemble cast.
“Misbehaviour” has a great cast.
Leading the women are posh-girl Sally Alexander (Keira Knightley) and punk-girl Jo Robinson (Jessie Buckley). I’m normally a big fan of both of these ladies. But here I never felt either of them connected particularly well with their characters. In particular, Buckley (although delivering as a similar maverick in “Wild Rose“) always felt a bit forced and out of place here.
On the event organisation side is Rhys Ifans, almost unrecognisable as Eric Morley, and Keeley Hawes as Julia Morley. Ifans gets the mannerisms of the impresario spot-on (as illustrated by some real-life footage shown at the end of the film). Also splendid is funny-man Miles Jupp as their “fixer” Clive.
Less successful for me was Greg Kinnear as Bob Hope. Hope clearly has such an unusual moon-shaped face that it’s difficult to find anyone to cast as a lookalike.
Just who is exploiting who here?
There’s no question in my mind that the event, in retrospect, is obscenely inappropriate – even though, bizarrely, it still runs to this day. But my biggest problem with the movie is that it never seems to pin its colours to any particular mast. It clearly illustrates the inappropriateness of Hope’s off-colour jokes and the instruction from host Michael Aspel (Charlie Anson), asking the swimsuit models to “show their rear view” to the audience, is gobsmackingly crass.
However, the script then takes a sympathetic view to the candidates from Grenada, South Africa, etc. who are clearly ‘using their bodies’ to get a leg-up to fame and fortune back in their home countries. (Final scenes showing the woman today, clearly affluent and happy, doesn’t help with that!)
As such, the movie sits magnificently on the fence and never reaches a ‘verdict’.
The racial sub-story.
Equally problematic is the really fascinating racial sub-story: this was an event, held in a UK that was racially far less tolerant than it is today, where no black person had EVER won. Indeed, a win was in most peoples’ eyes unthinkable. This was a time when “black lives didn’t matter”. Here we have Miss Grenada (an excellent Gugu Mbatha-Raw) and the utterly captivating Miss Africa South (a debut performance by Loreece Harrison) threatening to turn the tables . There was surely potential to get a lot more value out of this aspect of the story, but it is generally un-mined.
Perhaps a problem here is that there is so much story potential around this one historical event that there is just too much to fit comfortably into one screenplay. The writers Rebecca Frayn and Gaby Chiappe end up just giving a few bursts on the liquidizer and getting a slightly grey mush.
Nostalgia – it’s not what it used to be.
All this is not to say the movie was a write off. It’s a perfectly pleasant watch and for those (like me) of a certain age, the throwback fashions, vehicles and attitudes deliver a burst of nostalgia for the flawed but rose-coloured days of my first decade on the planet.
But it all feels like a bit of a missed opportunity to properly tackle either one of the two key issues highlighted in the script. As a female-led project (the director is Philippa Lowthorpe) I really wanted this to be good. But I’m afraid for me it’s all a bit “meh”.
If asked “would you like to watch that again?”… I would probably, politely, show my rear view and decline.
ClareR (6253 KP) rated Happy Family in Books
Oct 29, 2019
One to look out for next year!
Happy Family is set in the near future, where people game via glasses and one augmented reality game in particular is very popular: Happy Family. This game was invented by Tom Hannah, also an artist, who has hidden himself away with his suicidal thoughts in Spain in the middle of nowhere, after the death of his mother. Germaine Kiecke, an art academic, is a huge fan of Tom’s and wants to interview him for her new book. But Tom is guarded by a strange girl and three huge dogs who are named after the Marx brothers. Germaine has had a traumatic upbringing as an orphan in Belgium in a notorious orphanage called ‘Motherhood’. Thus she finds it impossible to express her feelings except through Tom’s game Happy Family. So when she finds out that something threatens this game for her and millions of others, she’s forced to take a look at how she lives her life.
Germaine was a difficult character to get an understanding of, but I think in view of her childhood that was reasonable. The other characters who also relied on Tom Hannah in some way were actually very amusing - whether they were supposed to be or not, I don’t know, but towards the end of the novel, their antics descended (or ascended!) into slapstick. For various reasons that I won’t go into (I don’t want to spoil it!), this was both sad and funny - there was a healthy dose of black humour throughout really.
I read this on The Pigeonhole, and the other readers had a real mix of opinions: it seems to have been a real ‘marmite’ book. Personally, I loved it. It ticked a lot of boxes for me, first and foremost being it’s quirkiness. There was some gaming talk, but it was relevant to the story and the characters, and I don’t actually think there was that much considering that it was set against the backdrop of the game (and lets face it, I have two teenage sons who are obsessed with the Xbox 🙄).
I really enjoyed this book, and thanks to The Pigeonhole for serialising it.
Germaine was a difficult character to get an understanding of, but I think in view of her childhood that was reasonable. The other characters who also relied on Tom Hannah in some way were actually very amusing - whether they were supposed to be or not, I don’t know, but towards the end of the novel, their antics descended (or ascended!) into slapstick. For various reasons that I won’t go into (I don’t want to spoil it!), this was both sad and funny - there was a healthy dose of black humour throughout really.
I read this on The Pigeonhole, and the other readers had a real mix of opinions: it seems to have been a real ‘marmite’ book. Personally, I loved it. It ticked a lot of boxes for me, first and foremost being it’s quirkiness. There was some gaming talk, but it was relevant to the story and the characters, and I don’t actually think there was that much considering that it was set against the backdrop of the game (and lets face it, I have two teenage sons who are obsessed with the Xbox 🙄).
I really enjoyed this book, and thanks to The Pigeonhole for serialising it.
From Scratch
Book
A poignant and transporting cross-cultural love story set against the lush backdrop of the Sicilian...