Search
Search results
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Crazy Rich Asians (2018) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
Crazy Rich Asians, Kevin Kwan’s romantic comedy has been delivered to the theaters with all of the glamour and glitz portrayed in the bestselling novel. This film features an all Asian Cast, a rarity, since the last American studio film to feature that was Joy Luck Club 25 years ago. This movie marks the first time Asians are cast as leads in a romantic comedy.
Rachel Chu’s (Constance Wu) journey to meet her boyfriend Nick Young’s (Henry Golding) family could be a bit of a fish out of water tale. Rachel is the daughter of a Chinese single mother who immigrated to America. Being an economics professor at NYU, is pretty prestigious accomplishment and Rachel loves what she does. She has been seeing Nick for over a year. He has his best friend’s wedding in Singapore and suggests that Rachel comes along to meet his friends and family.
Nick is from a well off family, a subject that he had never mentioned before. The first thing that tips her off is the treatment that they receive on the plane. When Rachel finds out that his family is well off, it does not change their relationship. However, she still does not realize how extensive the family finances are and is definitely not aware of the social status of the Youngs.
Singapore in all of its crisp and elegant beauty is a character in itself. We are taken to the many sites on the island as it is shown to Rachel. From the moment the couple arrive, they are met at the airport by Colin Khoo (Chris Pang), Nick’s best friend the groom and Araminta Lee (Sonoya Mizuno) the bride. They are taken to one of the Hawker’s Centre full of stalls, each specializing in a handful of dishes, some with a Michelin Star. We see an incredible smorgasbord in a quick cut of food porn. Nothing in Rachel’s first taste of town indicates the opulence that is to come.
Rachel goes to see Piek Goh(Awkwafina), her roommate during college. The Goh family is “new wealth” and we see the gilded display throughout to the point of excess. We meet Piek’s parents , Neenah (Chieng Mun Koh) and Wye Mun (Ken Jeong, bringing his brand of weird, creepy and awkward as Piek’s dad). The Gohs welcome Rachel with such warmth and treats her like family. This is where she learns how affluent and respected the Young’s are in Singapore. Piek takes it upon herself to provide her best friend with a fabulous suit of armor and education in order to survive the introduction to the world of the Youngs.
Meeting the Youngs is comparable to being introduced to the Royal Family of Singapore and Rachel was not aware of the social graces that are expected in the circles of the crazy rich. You can see that she is not accustomed to the superabundance that she is witnesses and is a little overwhelmed in trying to adapt. As Nick introduces her to his mother Eleanor (Michelle Yeoh), Rachel immediately gleams that his mother does not like her. Thus begins the power play between them. Eleanor doesn’t think that Rachel is an appropriate candidate to be the future Mrs. Young and Rachel wants to be accepted as she is and now feels the need to prove that she is good enough for Nick.
The only member of Nick’s family that Rachel has met is Astrid Young Teo (Gemma Chan) his cousin. If Eleanor is the Queen, then Astrid is the princess. She doesn’t walk, she glides. The societal cognoscenti hold her in high esteem. The women want to have her style and the men want to have her. With all the grace and beauty, she reigns in the land of the crazy rich. Rachel liked her some much that she says Astrid is who she wants to be when she grows up. Those who think that her life golden, is unaware that she has her own problems.
We are introduced to the wedding party and the extensive lavishness of the super rich of Asia. It may seem ridiculous and an exaggeration, but the lifestyle of the crazy rich and Asian is based on reality. As Rachel carefully steps through the social landmines that have appeared, she becomes more confident in her own ability and recognizes the game and how to play it.
I thoroughly enjoyed this movie, I wanted to see it again to catch all the things that I did not soak in from the first viewing. The story has a great balance of comedy and drama with Ken Jeong and Awkwafina gifting us with hilarious one liners and Constance Wu playing the confident woman learning how to find her footing. Henry Golding does exceptionally well on his first ever feature film, playing the man who has found love outside of the world of the Crazy Rich Asians.
This is an excellent romantic comedy that is served on a golden platter. Jon M. Chu has delivered a wonderfully delicious story that deserve to be watched over and over again. If you are a fan of the romantic comedy genre, take the time with this gem of a movie.
Rachel Chu’s (Constance Wu) journey to meet her boyfriend Nick Young’s (Henry Golding) family could be a bit of a fish out of water tale. Rachel is the daughter of a Chinese single mother who immigrated to America. Being an economics professor at NYU, is pretty prestigious accomplishment and Rachel loves what she does. She has been seeing Nick for over a year. He has his best friend’s wedding in Singapore and suggests that Rachel comes along to meet his friends and family.
Nick is from a well off family, a subject that he had never mentioned before. The first thing that tips her off is the treatment that they receive on the plane. When Rachel finds out that his family is well off, it does not change their relationship. However, she still does not realize how extensive the family finances are and is definitely not aware of the social status of the Youngs.
Singapore in all of its crisp and elegant beauty is a character in itself. We are taken to the many sites on the island as it is shown to Rachel. From the moment the couple arrive, they are met at the airport by Colin Khoo (Chris Pang), Nick’s best friend the groom and Araminta Lee (Sonoya Mizuno) the bride. They are taken to one of the Hawker’s Centre full of stalls, each specializing in a handful of dishes, some with a Michelin Star. We see an incredible smorgasbord in a quick cut of food porn. Nothing in Rachel’s first taste of town indicates the opulence that is to come.
Rachel goes to see Piek Goh(Awkwafina), her roommate during college. The Goh family is “new wealth” and we see the gilded display throughout to the point of excess. We meet Piek’s parents , Neenah (Chieng Mun Koh) and Wye Mun (Ken Jeong, bringing his brand of weird, creepy and awkward as Piek’s dad). The Gohs welcome Rachel with such warmth and treats her like family. This is where she learns how affluent and respected the Young’s are in Singapore. Piek takes it upon herself to provide her best friend with a fabulous suit of armor and education in order to survive the introduction to the world of the Youngs.
Meeting the Youngs is comparable to being introduced to the Royal Family of Singapore and Rachel was not aware of the social graces that are expected in the circles of the crazy rich. You can see that she is not accustomed to the superabundance that she is witnesses and is a little overwhelmed in trying to adapt. As Nick introduces her to his mother Eleanor (Michelle Yeoh), Rachel immediately gleams that his mother does not like her. Thus begins the power play between them. Eleanor doesn’t think that Rachel is an appropriate candidate to be the future Mrs. Young and Rachel wants to be accepted as she is and now feels the need to prove that she is good enough for Nick.
The only member of Nick’s family that Rachel has met is Astrid Young Teo (Gemma Chan) his cousin. If Eleanor is the Queen, then Astrid is the princess. She doesn’t walk, she glides. The societal cognoscenti hold her in high esteem. The women want to have her style and the men want to have her. With all the grace and beauty, she reigns in the land of the crazy rich. Rachel liked her some much that she says Astrid is who she wants to be when she grows up. Those who think that her life golden, is unaware that she has her own problems.
We are introduced to the wedding party and the extensive lavishness of the super rich of Asia. It may seem ridiculous and an exaggeration, but the lifestyle of the crazy rich and Asian is based on reality. As Rachel carefully steps through the social landmines that have appeared, she becomes more confident in her own ability and recognizes the game and how to play it.
I thoroughly enjoyed this movie, I wanted to see it again to catch all the things that I did not soak in from the first viewing. The story has a great balance of comedy and drama with Ken Jeong and Awkwafina gifting us with hilarious one liners and Constance Wu playing the confident woman learning how to find her footing. Henry Golding does exceptionally well on his first ever feature film, playing the man who has found love outside of the world of the Crazy Rich Asians.
This is an excellent romantic comedy that is served on a golden platter. Jon M. Chu has delivered a wonderfully delicious story that deserve to be watched over and over again. If you are a fan of the romantic comedy genre, take the time with this gem of a movie.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore (2022) in Movies
Apr 30, 2022
The Magic is Fading
Alas, the magic is fading in the Wizarding World
The 3rd installment of the Fantastic Beasts saga, THE SECRETS OF DUMBLEDORE is satisfying enough for fans of the ongoing Wizarding World of Harry Potter universe and will be time well spent for those of you that have watched all 8 Harry Potter films and the first 2 FANTASTIC BEASTS films, but it is nothing…magical.
Picking up where the 2nd film (THE CRIMES OF GRINDEWALD) left off, the arch-nemesis of Dumbledore (a game Jude Law) is in power and looking to start a war with the Muggles (non-magic folk). A ragtag group of heroes (are there any other kind) led by Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) are humanity’s only hope.
And…while this worked well in the first series of film…this setup falls rather flat as it has a “been there done that” feel to it that is not really elevated above the ordinary.
The reason are numerous:
First, Newt Scamander is no Harry Potter. While Eddie Redymayne plays an interesting, quirky, central character - a character who’s unique skills were needed to defeat the bad guy in the first film - he is, really, a secondary character, yet he is the one we follow throughout the film. Kind of like watching the Harry Potter films through the eyes of Neville Longbottom.
Secondly, Grindewald (this time played by Mads Mikkelsen, replacing Johnny Depp) is no Voldemort. Grindewald was an interesting character set up in the first film, but by this film, he is pretty bland (and pretty blandly played by Mikkeslen who is, frankly, miscast).
Thirdly, Dumbledore (Jude Law in a very good performance, one that needed to be larger and more central) is sidelined for most of this film - a film about the battle between Grindewald and Dumbledore, a stumble (plotwise) to be sure in an awkward attempt to keeping the Newt Scamander character front and center.
Fortunately, the supporting cast is strong from Dan Fogler’s muggle, Jacob Kowalski to his love, Queenie (Alison Sudol) to Newt’s brother, Theseus (Callum Turner) to Newt’s assistant Bunty (Victoria Yeates) to Dumbledore’s brother, Aberforth (Richard Coyle) - all have their moments and are interesting (enough) to watch.
Unfortunately, Ezra Miller’s conflicted villain, Credence is poorly written with a crescendo to his character that lands with a thud. And, the inexplicable reason that Katherine Waterston’s main character of Tina is sidelined (rumors are she conflicted with J.K. Rowling) just doesn’t land, so, consequently, 2 major pieces from the first 2 films just don’t work.
What does work in this film is the magical sequences, as handled by Harry Potter veteran David Yates (who has now helmed 6 films in the Wizarding World franchise), the magical scenes are truly…magical. They are fun to watch and the real reason to watch this film, but the story is weak with a misguided viewpoint character that diminishes the fantasy for all.
Rumors are that this was supposed to be a 5 film franchise, but with box office diminishing for each successive Fantastic Beasts films, the filmmakers wisely decided to wrap up most storylines in this film.
It’s time to say goodbye to FANTASTIC BEASTS, but it should be time for the Wizarding World to go the way of Star Wars, Marvel and Star Trek - streaming TV series that breathes new life - and new, interesting characters - to a sagging franchise.
In the meantime, FANTASTIC BEASTS: THE SECRETS OF DUMBLEDORE is “good enough” and since it is all we have at the moment, it will have to do.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
The 3rd installment of the Fantastic Beasts saga, THE SECRETS OF DUMBLEDORE is satisfying enough for fans of the ongoing Wizarding World of Harry Potter universe and will be time well spent for those of you that have watched all 8 Harry Potter films and the first 2 FANTASTIC BEASTS films, but it is nothing…magical.
Picking up where the 2nd film (THE CRIMES OF GRINDEWALD) left off, the arch-nemesis of Dumbledore (a game Jude Law) is in power and looking to start a war with the Muggles (non-magic folk). A ragtag group of heroes (are there any other kind) led by Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) are humanity’s only hope.
And…while this worked well in the first series of film…this setup falls rather flat as it has a “been there done that” feel to it that is not really elevated above the ordinary.
The reason are numerous:
First, Newt Scamander is no Harry Potter. While Eddie Redymayne plays an interesting, quirky, central character - a character who’s unique skills were needed to defeat the bad guy in the first film - he is, really, a secondary character, yet he is the one we follow throughout the film. Kind of like watching the Harry Potter films through the eyes of Neville Longbottom.
Secondly, Grindewald (this time played by Mads Mikkelsen, replacing Johnny Depp) is no Voldemort. Grindewald was an interesting character set up in the first film, but by this film, he is pretty bland (and pretty blandly played by Mikkeslen who is, frankly, miscast).
Thirdly, Dumbledore (Jude Law in a very good performance, one that needed to be larger and more central) is sidelined for most of this film - a film about the battle between Grindewald and Dumbledore, a stumble (plotwise) to be sure in an awkward attempt to keeping the Newt Scamander character front and center.
Fortunately, the supporting cast is strong from Dan Fogler’s muggle, Jacob Kowalski to his love, Queenie (Alison Sudol) to Newt’s brother, Theseus (Callum Turner) to Newt’s assistant Bunty (Victoria Yeates) to Dumbledore’s brother, Aberforth (Richard Coyle) - all have their moments and are interesting (enough) to watch.
Unfortunately, Ezra Miller’s conflicted villain, Credence is poorly written with a crescendo to his character that lands with a thud. And, the inexplicable reason that Katherine Waterston’s main character of Tina is sidelined (rumors are she conflicted with J.K. Rowling) just doesn’t land, so, consequently, 2 major pieces from the first 2 films just don’t work.
What does work in this film is the magical sequences, as handled by Harry Potter veteran David Yates (who has now helmed 6 films in the Wizarding World franchise), the magical scenes are truly…magical. They are fun to watch and the real reason to watch this film, but the story is weak with a misguided viewpoint character that diminishes the fantasy for all.
Rumors are that this was supposed to be a 5 film franchise, but with box office diminishing for each successive Fantastic Beasts films, the filmmakers wisely decided to wrap up most storylines in this film.
It’s time to say goodbye to FANTASTIC BEASTS, but it should be time for the Wizarding World to go the way of Star Wars, Marvel and Star Trek - streaming TV series that breathes new life - and new, interesting characters - to a sagging franchise.
In the meantime, FANTASTIC BEASTS: THE SECRETS OF DUMBLEDORE is “good enough” and since it is all we have at the moment, it will have to do.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) - and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Daniel Tiger's Grr-ific Feelings
Education and Games
8.0
Rate It
App
**2015 Parents' Choice - Gold Award** **Common Sense Media - 50 Apps All Kids Should Play at Least...
Hazel (1853 KP) rated Saint Death in Books
Dec 17, 2018
<i>This ARC was provided by the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review </i>
What must life be like living in a poor neighbourhood? Every night your sleep is disturbed by gunshots, the people you know slowly disappear each time a gang raids the town, you live in fear for your own life. This is the concept international award-winning author Marcus Sedgwick explores in his latest Young Adult novel. Set in Anapra, one of the poorest communities in Mexico, Sedgwick delivers a story of poverty, gang crime and greed.
A young man – presumably still in his teens – named Arturo is living in a falling down shack, surviving on the small amount he earns at the local garage. Having kept to himself for the past year in order to remain safe, he experiences mixed emotions when his long lost friend turns up on his door stop – if you can call it that – and asks him to win $1000 by gambling at cards to appease a brutal gang leader.
What follows is an intense game against dangerous criminals with only prayers to Santa Muerte – Saint Death – to help Arturo get by. However, in the same way that the gang leaders are obsessed with wealth, Arturo begins to be overcome with greed, putting both himself and his friend in mortal danger.
<i>Saint Death</i> is not a book to be <i>liked</i>, after all, who would be fond of death, pain and violence? Instead it is a story that introduces an alternative culture to the readers – presuming that most will be from the more typical western world. Sedgwick throws us right into the slums of Mexico where religion, superstition, law and safety have an entirely different meaning. We learn that life in these areas is mostly a war between power and poverty, with the wealthy naturally championing over the rest.
Unfortunately <i>Saint Death</i> is a difficult book to read. For a start, it is a little bit boring. Whilst the events may be realistic there is no thrill or enjoyment garnered from reading about them. Understandably, Sedgwick is trying to bring a sense of culture into his work, however there is barely anything that a Young Adult reader can relate to. We are never told Arturo’s age and only assume he his in his teens, however he acts like a much older adult. It is difficult to imagine and comprehend the poverty, gangs and violence when we have not been witness to it ourselves. Whilst attempting to shock, Sedgwick lacks on description making it a challenge to picture the scene in our heads.
Prior to this book, I had only read Sedgwick’s <i>My Sword Hand is Singing</i> (2006), therefore I was unsure what to expect with his latest novel. It was my understanding that he tends to write horror or paranormal novels, whereas <i>Saint Death</i> was a complete change of genre. Of course authors experiment with their writing style all the time; some are successful, others less so. In this instance I personally think Sedgwick fell short of his goal, trying too hard to copy other writers that had influenced him to make this conversion. Whether Sedgwick decides to continue along this theme or revert back to what he has already been successful with remains to be seen, but I am hoping for the latter.
What must life be like living in a poor neighbourhood? Every night your sleep is disturbed by gunshots, the people you know slowly disappear each time a gang raids the town, you live in fear for your own life. This is the concept international award-winning author Marcus Sedgwick explores in his latest Young Adult novel. Set in Anapra, one of the poorest communities in Mexico, Sedgwick delivers a story of poverty, gang crime and greed.
A young man – presumably still in his teens – named Arturo is living in a falling down shack, surviving on the small amount he earns at the local garage. Having kept to himself for the past year in order to remain safe, he experiences mixed emotions when his long lost friend turns up on his door stop – if you can call it that – and asks him to win $1000 by gambling at cards to appease a brutal gang leader.
What follows is an intense game against dangerous criminals with only prayers to Santa Muerte – Saint Death – to help Arturo get by. However, in the same way that the gang leaders are obsessed with wealth, Arturo begins to be overcome with greed, putting both himself and his friend in mortal danger.
<i>Saint Death</i> is not a book to be <i>liked</i>, after all, who would be fond of death, pain and violence? Instead it is a story that introduces an alternative culture to the readers – presuming that most will be from the more typical western world. Sedgwick throws us right into the slums of Mexico where religion, superstition, law and safety have an entirely different meaning. We learn that life in these areas is mostly a war between power and poverty, with the wealthy naturally championing over the rest.
Unfortunately <i>Saint Death</i> is a difficult book to read. For a start, it is a little bit boring. Whilst the events may be realistic there is no thrill or enjoyment garnered from reading about them. Understandably, Sedgwick is trying to bring a sense of culture into his work, however there is barely anything that a Young Adult reader can relate to. We are never told Arturo’s age and only assume he his in his teens, however he acts like a much older adult. It is difficult to imagine and comprehend the poverty, gangs and violence when we have not been witness to it ourselves. Whilst attempting to shock, Sedgwick lacks on description making it a challenge to picture the scene in our heads.
Prior to this book, I had only read Sedgwick’s <i>My Sword Hand is Singing</i> (2006), therefore I was unsure what to expect with his latest novel. It was my understanding that he tends to write horror or paranormal novels, whereas <i>Saint Death</i> was a complete change of genre. Of course authors experiment with their writing style all the time; some are successful, others less so. In this instance I personally think Sedgwick fell short of his goal, trying too hard to copy other writers that had influenced him to make this conversion. Whether Sedgwick decides to continue along this theme or revert back to what he has already been successful with remains to be seen, but I am hoping for the latter.
Betway – Play Live Casino, Roulette & Card Games
Games and Entertainment
App
You’re sat in a casino. You know what it's like to have the urge to win. You know what it feels...
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Man Who Knew Infinity (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
In 1914, Srinivasa Ramanujan (Dev Patel) traveled from his poverty-stricken existence in Madras, India to Trinity College, Cambridge in the hope that he would have his theories published and be recognized for the mathematical genius he was. While there, despite facing racism, hostility and severe illness, he formed an important relationship with G.H. Hardy (Jeremy Irons) that would lead to breakthroughs in mathematics that are still relevant today.
It would be easy to prattle on about the tremendous talent onscreen in The Man Who Knew Infinity and with a supporting cast that features some of Britain’s best; we get exactly what we’d expect from the likes of Jeremy Irons, Toby Jones and Kevin McNally. All at the top of their game, they serve the story well with nuanced and well-rounded performances, and I’m certainly not going to take anything away from the exceptional jobs they’ve all done here. All the praise this film deserves however, needs to be directed at Dev Patel. In his role as Ramanujan, he’s completely stepped out of the shadow of his big-screen debut in Slumdog Millionaire and has proved his worth as a leading man capable of carrying the weight of an entire feature. Distancing himself also from the lovable, bumbling hotel owner in The Best Exotic Marigold movies, with Ramanujan he is allowed the room to display an incredible range, from quiet intensity to outspoken, unbridled passion and determination. Kudos also to the writers for not going The Big Short route (e.g. talking down to the uninitiated with ridiculous cutaways), but by using simple logic and examples to help convey complex information relevant to the plot.
For the performances alone, this is a solid entry in the biopic genre, but structurally speaking, it’s the editing that lets the film down. This very easily could have emerged as the next A Beautiful Mind, but between a bloated first act, a middling and wandering second act and a truncated final third, The Man Who Knew Infinity falls just short of greatness. Not only is no attention paid to Ramanujan’s achievements as a child, but too much time is given to details and subplots that are arguably inconsequential to the main narrative. This is especially evident in the inclusion of Bertrand Russell (who lived such a rich and fascinating life himself, it would take several films to do that story justice) and his being here feels like just a hollow excuse to include a cameo from another figure of historical importance. The biggest disservice though comes with the ending where we are denied a much needed catharsis and are left to suffer through a slap-dash, halfhearted montage. A restructuring from a more seasoned hand would have undoubtedly led to stronger word-of-mouth and perhaps a wider release. I also wouldn’t be surprised to learn that this is a case of “too many cooks” as the film has a staggering 43 credited producers. I get that independent features can be forced to source their funding from many places, but you can’t tell me that with all those opinions flying about that some of the original intent didn’t get lost in the noise.
As an aside, what Stephen Fry is doing here is beyond me. He’s given two scenes with perhaps a half a dozen lines, leaving his incomparable persona entirely wasted on a completely throwaway character. It’s a pity he wasn’t given a meatier role as one of Ramanujan’s antagonists.
It would be easy to prattle on about the tremendous talent onscreen in The Man Who Knew Infinity and with a supporting cast that features some of Britain’s best; we get exactly what we’d expect from the likes of Jeremy Irons, Toby Jones and Kevin McNally. All at the top of their game, they serve the story well with nuanced and well-rounded performances, and I’m certainly not going to take anything away from the exceptional jobs they’ve all done here. All the praise this film deserves however, needs to be directed at Dev Patel. In his role as Ramanujan, he’s completely stepped out of the shadow of his big-screen debut in Slumdog Millionaire and has proved his worth as a leading man capable of carrying the weight of an entire feature. Distancing himself also from the lovable, bumbling hotel owner in The Best Exotic Marigold movies, with Ramanujan he is allowed the room to display an incredible range, from quiet intensity to outspoken, unbridled passion and determination. Kudos also to the writers for not going The Big Short route (e.g. talking down to the uninitiated with ridiculous cutaways), but by using simple logic and examples to help convey complex information relevant to the plot.
For the performances alone, this is a solid entry in the biopic genre, but structurally speaking, it’s the editing that lets the film down. This very easily could have emerged as the next A Beautiful Mind, but between a bloated first act, a middling and wandering second act and a truncated final third, The Man Who Knew Infinity falls just short of greatness. Not only is no attention paid to Ramanujan’s achievements as a child, but too much time is given to details and subplots that are arguably inconsequential to the main narrative. This is especially evident in the inclusion of Bertrand Russell (who lived such a rich and fascinating life himself, it would take several films to do that story justice) and his being here feels like just a hollow excuse to include a cameo from another figure of historical importance. The biggest disservice though comes with the ending where we are denied a much needed catharsis and are left to suffer through a slap-dash, halfhearted montage. A restructuring from a more seasoned hand would have undoubtedly led to stronger word-of-mouth and perhaps a wider release. I also wouldn’t be surprised to learn that this is a case of “too many cooks” as the film has a staggering 43 credited producers. I get that independent features can be forced to source their funding from many places, but you can’t tell me that with all those opinions flying about that some of the original intent didn’t get lost in the noise.
As an aside, what Stephen Fry is doing here is beyond me. He’s given two scenes with perhaps a half a dozen lines, leaving his incomparable persona entirely wasted on a completely throwaway character. It’s a pity he wasn’t given a meatier role as one of Ramanujan’s antagonists.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Knives Out (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021
Murder mystery films tend to be more fun in theory and anticipation than they are to watch. It’s a genre that I very much enjoy and have indulged in over the years. Yet, if I look back in detail at it, I find that it is the books, especially those of Agatha Christie, that I like much more than anything lasting a couple of hours on the screen. There’s something about the mystery being rushed and squeezed into the cinema artform that is usually anti-climactic or even a full on let down.
Perhaps my favourite of the entire genre is a film that refuses to take itself seriously and is at once a pastiche of the multiple cliches that have accumulated over the years. And that film is, of course, the wonderfully camp, funny and charming 1985 romp Clue, starring Tim Curry and a slough of 80s B stars having the time of their lives. It isn’t a “good” film, it is a cult film, it’s joy being in its absolute lack of pretension or moral judgement. Like the board game that inspired it, it isn’t overly complicated or long, but has just enough cleverness, mirth and ambiance about it to always be a winner.
Rian Johnson’s take on the genre, Knives Out, is aware of these elements at all times, being above all things colourful, playful, arch and glib, but never convoluted or cerebral in an alienating way. He is something of a master at subverting a genre and wringing new life into it; take the invention of the teen noir in Brick, or the blend of assassin time travel sci-fi in Looper. He even gave an entire franchise a new breath of life by re-examining the use of humour and self referencing in Star Wars: The Last Jedi.
All of those previous films have as many detractors as mega fans, proving his style is devisive, for its audacity and its irreverence towards any idea of purism within an established model. And Knives Out is no exception to that. However, it may be the film of his that most people can agree on that they enjoyed, for one reason or another. I think it’s as interesting to ask why that is as it is to talk about the film itself… so, I will. At least, I’ll try to do both without losing my train of thought.
Firstly, it looks stunning; the palate of rich colours used in the poster and all marketing just make it look like something you want to immerse yourself in – every jacket, tie, dress, or piece of furniture is designed to precision, and it works like a dream of the genre you may have once had, as if it had been plucked directly from your subconscious. As in all good murder mysteries, the location, props and costumes should hold as much character as the actors, and the stately home of the Thrombey family certainly provides plenty of atmosphere in every texture and material on display.
Of course, the cast of characters is wonderfully put together with some inspired casting of familiar faces and actors you trust, such as Toni Collette and Michael Shannon, together with a few we don’t see enough of these days, such as Jamie Lee Curtis and Don Johnson, who both manage to create something as memorable as anything they did in their golden days. Add to the mix two bone fide action film superstars in Daniel Craig and Chris Evans, who leave the baggage of their most famous characters far behind and manage to convince you they are real actors again, the former with the aide of a jarring but hilarious Southern drawl, that grates at first but is a perfect choice on reflection.
Then there are the two lynchpins of this film’s ultimate success and joy: the exceptional legendary gravitas of 90 year old Christopher Plummer as the patriarch and victim at the centre of the intrigue, and the quite glorious revelation of Ana de Armas, whose charisma, beauty and skill in this delicately balanced role was the most impressive thing for me about the whole production. It may be Craig who is the ever present focus, as the detective tasked with solving the “crime”, but it is de Armas that you will remember most long after the credits roll.
As for the plot, well… I obviously can’t talk about it without ruining the whole thing. But, I can say that it isn’t far into the intricate web of motives, alibis and secrets before you start to sense this is going somewhere different, even unique. The examination of the relationships and personalities, and the extent to which they each demonstrate greed and selfishness is fascinating, superceding the crime that exists on the surface with a swamp of far seedier and unpleasant goings-on. Craig’s suave Benoit Blanc isn’t so much a detective here as a family therapist, or perhaps a supernatural presence in the style of the old classic, An Inspector Calls. Perhaps, it is suggested, no one completely escapes guilt and shame here… or do they? Are we looking for a murderer, or the only morally good person amidst a pack of dogs?
Another key element is how modern and unstuffy it feels, despite the country house and riches this is no play of manners, quite the opposite – no one here is on their best behaviour for the sake of decorum, and being upper class is an idea played with rather than enforced. The tea and cakes of the classic Christie, such as Murder on the Orient Express is replaced by smartphones and similar trappings, that identify it as definitely 2019 and no period piece. The concerns and themes are very much rooted in our present problems, and for that it engages and resonates in ways a costume drama just can’t do.
Upon finishing it for the first time, you may be thinking “sure, OK, I enjoyed that… but I’m not blown away here”. Then, as it sinks in over coming weeks, you find yourself recommending it to people, and thinking about how good it is in ways you didn’t initially think about. And that is surely why it was so embraced by the critics and paying public alike; it is a likeable, fun film, that can also stand some artistic scrutiny. It isn’t the smartest, or prettiest, or most meaningful film ever made, but it is enough of all three to make it an instant mini-classic, in my opinion.
I feel like there is maybe more to say about it, which is always a good sign, but that will do for now. I’d be happy to discuss it with anyone that feels the need. Or hear from anyone that didn’t like it! It would be interesting to hear that side of it, because I haven’t heard many negative comments on it at all. I don’t think I would defend it as a masterpiece to the end of the Earth, ‘cos it ain’t that good. I’m just hard pressed to find a serious fault. And it’s great when one of those sneaks up on you!
Perhaps my favourite of the entire genre is a film that refuses to take itself seriously and is at once a pastiche of the multiple cliches that have accumulated over the years. And that film is, of course, the wonderfully camp, funny and charming 1985 romp Clue, starring Tim Curry and a slough of 80s B stars having the time of their lives. It isn’t a “good” film, it is a cult film, it’s joy being in its absolute lack of pretension or moral judgement. Like the board game that inspired it, it isn’t overly complicated or long, but has just enough cleverness, mirth and ambiance about it to always be a winner.
Rian Johnson’s take on the genre, Knives Out, is aware of these elements at all times, being above all things colourful, playful, arch and glib, but never convoluted or cerebral in an alienating way. He is something of a master at subverting a genre and wringing new life into it; take the invention of the teen noir in Brick, or the blend of assassin time travel sci-fi in Looper. He even gave an entire franchise a new breath of life by re-examining the use of humour and self referencing in Star Wars: The Last Jedi.
All of those previous films have as many detractors as mega fans, proving his style is devisive, for its audacity and its irreverence towards any idea of purism within an established model. And Knives Out is no exception to that. However, it may be the film of his that most people can agree on that they enjoyed, for one reason or another. I think it’s as interesting to ask why that is as it is to talk about the film itself… so, I will. At least, I’ll try to do both without losing my train of thought.
Firstly, it looks stunning; the palate of rich colours used in the poster and all marketing just make it look like something you want to immerse yourself in – every jacket, tie, dress, or piece of furniture is designed to precision, and it works like a dream of the genre you may have once had, as if it had been plucked directly from your subconscious. As in all good murder mysteries, the location, props and costumes should hold as much character as the actors, and the stately home of the Thrombey family certainly provides plenty of atmosphere in every texture and material on display.
Of course, the cast of characters is wonderfully put together with some inspired casting of familiar faces and actors you trust, such as Toni Collette and Michael Shannon, together with a few we don’t see enough of these days, such as Jamie Lee Curtis and Don Johnson, who both manage to create something as memorable as anything they did in their golden days. Add to the mix two bone fide action film superstars in Daniel Craig and Chris Evans, who leave the baggage of their most famous characters far behind and manage to convince you they are real actors again, the former with the aide of a jarring but hilarious Southern drawl, that grates at first but is a perfect choice on reflection.
Then there are the two lynchpins of this film’s ultimate success and joy: the exceptional legendary gravitas of 90 year old Christopher Plummer as the patriarch and victim at the centre of the intrigue, and the quite glorious revelation of Ana de Armas, whose charisma, beauty and skill in this delicately balanced role was the most impressive thing for me about the whole production. It may be Craig who is the ever present focus, as the detective tasked with solving the “crime”, but it is de Armas that you will remember most long after the credits roll.
As for the plot, well… I obviously can’t talk about it without ruining the whole thing. But, I can say that it isn’t far into the intricate web of motives, alibis and secrets before you start to sense this is going somewhere different, even unique. The examination of the relationships and personalities, and the extent to which they each demonstrate greed and selfishness is fascinating, superceding the crime that exists on the surface with a swamp of far seedier and unpleasant goings-on. Craig’s suave Benoit Blanc isn’t so much a detective here as a family therapist, or perhaps a supernatural presence in the style of the old classic, An Inspector Calls. Perhaps, it is suggested, no one completely escapes guilt and shame here… or do they? Are we looking for a murderer, or the only morally good person amidst a pack of dogs?
Another key element is how modern and unstuffy it feels, despite the country house and riches this is no play of manners, quite the opposite – no one here is on their best behaviour for the sake of decorum, and being upper class is an idea played with rather than enforced. The tea and cakes of the classic Christie, such as Murder on the Orient Express is replaced by smartphones and similar trappings, that identify it as definitely 2019 and no period piece. The concerns and themes are very much rooted in our present problems, and for that it engages and resonates in ways a costume drama just can’t do.
Upon finishing it for the first time, you may be thinking “sure, OK, I enjoyed that… but I’m not blown away here”. Then, as it sinks in over coming weeks, you find yourself recommending it to people, and thinking about how good it is in ways you didn’t initially think about. And that is surely why it was so embraced by the critics and paying public alike; it is a likeable, fun film, that can also stand some artistic scrutiny. It isn’t the smartest, or prettiest, or most meaningful film ever made, but it is enough of all three to make it an instant mini-classic, in my opinion.
I feel like there is maybe more to say about it, which is always a good sign, but that will do for now. I’d be happy to discuss it with anyone that feels the need. Or hear from anyone that didn’t like it! It would be interesting to hear that side of it, because I haven’t heard many negative comments on it at all. I don’t think I would defend it as a masterpiece to the end of the Earth, ‘cos it ain’t that good. I’m just hard pressed to find a serious fault. And it’s great when one of those sneaks up on you!
A Dark Spring (Stories That Twist & Tangle)
Laura N. Andrews, R.M. Gilmore, M. Billiter, Kenneth Jobe, Barb Shuler, M.C. St. John, Ricky Wells and Kim Deister
Book
Eight original tales of suspense that will tangle your senses and keep you gripped. From murder to...
Suspense
Creating Wealth Video Podcast with Jason Hartman | No-Hype Real Estate Investing Strategies for Achieving Financial Freedom
Podcast
Companion to Jason Hartman’s highly acclaimed Creating Wealth Show (audio podcast) Learn fresh new...
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Finding Dory (2016) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Is it a return to form for Pixar/
For years, Pixar was an unstoppable force. The studio combined stunning animation with thought-provoking stories that adults and children could enjoy. From Toy Story to Wall.E, everyone, at some point will have watched a Pixar film.
Then a few things caused the bubble to burst. Firstly, other companies upped their game, big time, with Dreamworks in particular being hot on the heels of their rival. Secondly, Pixar’s own partner, Disney started churning out great animated films with Zootropolis and Wreck-it Ralph worth a mention.
Finally, Pixar lost its way. Cars and its dreadful sequel, followed by an underwhelming prequel to Monsters Inc and the marketing disaster that was The Good Dinosaur all culminated in a studio damaged by its own high standards. Now, in 2016, we have a sequel to arguably Pixar’s best film, Finding Nemo, but does Finding Dory build on its predecessor or sink faster than a stone?
Dory (Ellen DeGeneres) is a wide-eyed, blue tang fish who suffers from memory loss. The one thing she can remember is she somehow became separated from her parents as a child. With help from Nemo and Marlin, Dory embarks on an epic adventure to find them. Her journey brings her to the Marine Life Institute, a rehabilitation centre for diverse ocean species and from there; she tries to reunite with her long-lost relatives.
Finding Dory opens with a neatly packaged throwback to its predecessor, providing an easy way of getting the audience up to speed with what came before it – after all, it’s been 13 years since the release of the first film. From then on, it’s full steam ahead with a story that lacks the subtlety of Finding Nemo, but is engaging nonetheless.
The animation is you guessed it, exceptional. Nemo was one of the best films to showcase Pixar’s talents and its sequel continues that trend. The vibrancy of the colour palette is breath-taking and each shimmering wave makes you feel part of the watery depths. The blacks feel endless and the diversity of marine life just adds to the sparkle.
For adults, there are some cracking references to other films. Would you believe me if I told you Pixar managed to shoehorn an Alien homage in there? Well, they did, and it works beautifully. Couple that with a surprise turn from Sigourney Weaver as a park announcer and it’s a recipe for laughs all around.
Ellen DeGeneres takes centre stage this time around and rightly so. Dory is a loveable character, especially in her wide-eyed youth, and a very well-written one, despite her constant forgetfulness. Elsewhere, Idris Elba provides some laughs as a lazy sea lion and Ed O’Neill steals the show as a grumpy octopus.
Unfortunately, the final act of the film delves into unnecessarily and uncharacteristically silly territory. The joy of Pixar’s other works is that, despite their often out-of-this-world themes, they still feel grounded in reality. Dory’s finale is so ridiculous that it spoils the effect of the plot.
Nevertheless, you’ll be reaching for your tissues more than once as director and scriptwriter Andrew Stanton combines that heart-warming story with some lovely dialogue that will resonate with all generations.
Overall, Finding Dory isn’t the outright success it could’ve been, but it doesn’t continue the slip in Pixar’s quality either. The animation is truly wonderful and some of the references to more adult films are worked in very cleverly – but that final act; it’s just awful.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/08/01/is-it-a-return-to-form-for-pixar-finding-dory-review/
Then a few things caused the bubble to burst. Firstly, other companies upped their game, big time, with Dreamworks in particular being hot on the heels of their rival. Secondly, Pixar’s own partner, Disney started churning out great animated films with Zootropolis and Wreck-it Ralph worth a mention.
Finally, Pixar lost its way. Cars and its dreadful sequel, followed by an underwhelming prequel to Monsters Inc and the marketing disaster that was The Good Dinosaur all culminated in a studio damaged by its own high standards. Now, in 2016, we have a sequel to arguably Pixar’s best film, Finding Nemo, but does Finding Dory build on its predecessor or sink faster than a stone?
Dory (Ellen DeGeneres) is a wide-eyed, blue tang fish who suffers from memory loss. The one thing she can remember is she somehow became separated from her parents as a child. With help from Nemo and Marlin, Dory embarks on an epic adventure to find them. Her journey brings her to the Marine Life Institute, a rehabilitation centre for diverse ocean species and from there; she tries to reunite with her long-lost relatives.
Finding Dory opens with a neatly packaged throwback to its predecessor, providing an easy way of getting the audience up to speed with what came before it – after all, it’s been 13 years since the release of the first film. From then on, it’s full steam ahead with a story that lacks the subtlety of Finding Nemo, but is engaging nonetheless.
The animation is you guessed it, exceptional. Nemo was one of the best films to showcase Pixar’s talents and its sequel continues that trend. The vibrancy of the colour palette is breath-taking and each shimmering wave makes you feel part of the watery depths. The blacks feel endless and the diversity of marine life just adds to the sparkle.
For adults, there are some cracking references to other films. Would you believe me if I told you Pixar managed to shoehorn an Alien homage in there? Well, they did, and it works beautifully. Couple that with a surprise turn from Sigourney Weaver as a park announcer and it’s a recipe for laughs all around.
Ellen DeGeneres takes centre stage this time around and rightly so. Dory is a loveable character, especially in her wide-eyed youth, and a very well-written one, despite her constant forgetfulness. Elsewhere, Idris Elba provides some laughs as a lazy sea lion and Ed O’Neill steals the show as a grumpy octopus.
Unfortunately, the final act of the film delves into unnecessarily and uncharacteristically silly territory. The joy of Pixar’s other works is that, despite their often out-of-this-world themes, they still feel grounded in reality. Dory’s finale is so ridiculous that it spoils the effect of the plot.
Nevertheless, you’ll be reaching for your tissues more than once as director and scriptwriter Andrew Stanton combines that heart-warming story with some lovely dialogue that will resonate with all generations.
Overall, Finding Dory isn’t the outright success it could’ve been, but it doesn’t continue the slip in Pixar’s quality either. The animation is truly wonderful and some of the references to more adult films are worked in very cleverly – but that final act; it’s just awful.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2016/08/01/is-it-a-return-to-form-for-pixar-finding-dory-review/