Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Greatest Showman (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
This IS the Greatest Show!
I sometimes wonder how “proper” UK film critics view films early for review. Is there a ‘special screening’ which all the film critics attend in London? The point I’m getting at is whether the collective critical opinion of a movie can be swayed by a critic leaping to their feet and wildly applauding a film like “Star Wars: The Last Jedi” or, alternatively, snorting in derision at a film like “The Greatest Showman”. For sometimes the critics seem to get it massively wrong across the board, panning a film that the general public will adore. Unfortunately, this has the effect of putting the general public off seeing it, especially in the lethargic post-Christmas period. I think here is a case in point. It’s not the best little film in the world, but as a musical crowd-pleaser it delivers in spades.
Will you like “The Greatest Showman”? This will be dictated almost entirely by whether you are a “musicals” person or not! For “The Greatest Showman” is a frothy, very loud, cheesy and high-energy musical, much more aligned, in fact, to the mainstream genre from the 40’s and 50’s than “La La Land” was.
Roll up, roll up. The circus cast entertain.
In a VERY loose interpretation of the early life of Phineas Taylor Barnum, the American huckster and impressario, we start the story with a pre-pubescent Barnum (Ellis Rubin, sung by Ziv Zaifman) as a young tailor’s assistant punching above his weight with young socialite Charity (Skylar Dunn), firmly against the wishes of her father. Spin forward (via song) and the hitched Barnum’s – now Hugh Jackman (“Logan“) and Michelle Williams (“Manchester By The Sea“) – are barely scraping a living. But Barnum has “A Million Dreams” and hits on the novel idea of opening an entertainment (coined “a circus” by journalist James Gordon Bennett (Paul Sparks)) where he offers both respect and a family to those of the city who are deformed, rejected and socially shunned. Barnum’s show is shockingly entertaining – as in both filling seats and shocking the morally-self-righteous upper classes. But never one to rest on his laurels, Barnum’s endless ambition drives him to break his social ceiling by importing the “Swedish songbird”, opera singer Jenny Lind (Rebecca Ferguson, “Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation“, “The Snowman“) ), for an ambitious and extravegant tour of the States. All does not exactly go to plan.
Washing day tunes. Hugh Jackman and Michelle Williams take to the rooftops.
As I’ve said, most critics have been making sniffy noises about this film. But I am not one of them…. I LOVED IT, have already bought the glorious soundtrack album and will be looking forwards to the DVD release. For this is joy in a box. Sure, the story is a bit weak, the characterisations of everyone (other than Barnum) pretty lightweight, but it’s a musical extravaganza! Live with it!
Hugh Jackman, who of course started his career in stage musicals, is marvellously charismatic as Barnum although his singing does tend to the “shouty” end of the scale in many of the numbers. He’s joined here by fellow musicals star Zac Efron (let’s forget “Dirty Grandpa“) as the fictitious Phillip Carlyle: a socialite playwright and partner.
But the acting and singing revelation for me was Zendaya (“Spider-Man: Homecoming“) as Efron’s (scandalous) inter-racial love interest, who has a fantastically athletic body, sings and dances wonderfully and has a magnetic stare. A marvellous trapeze routine between Efron and Zendaya (“Rewrite The Stars”) is one of the high-spots of the film for me.
An energetic dance. Zendaya and Efron take to the skies.
Elsewhere Williams proves she has a singing voice as well as being a top flight actress and the bearded lady (Broadway star Keala Settle) belts out one of the show-stopping numbers “This is Me” (although she is a little ‘shrill’ for my musical tastes).
It would be nice to extend that compliment to the wonderful Rebecca Ferguson as the “greatest singer in the world” – but she is (wisely I think) dubbed here by Loren Allred (a finalist on the US version of “The Voice”). It is a bit of a shock when “the great opera singer” opens her mouth and a modern love song comes out, but once you get over that then the combination of Ferguson’s acting and Allred’s singing makes “Never Enough” one of the standout songs in the movie. (It’s been described as “a bit Eurovision” by Kevin Maher, “The Times” critic, which I can see but I don’t care! I find it marvellously moving).
A dangerous songbird’s nest for the married Barnum. Rebecca Ferguson and Hugh Jackman.
If you haven’t guessed it, there are some fantastic songs in this movie, written by “La La Land” song composers Benj Pasek and Justin Paul and at least one of these surely must be Oscar nominated (I’m not sure what the cut-off would be for the 2018 Oscars?).
There’s also a lot of talent in the backroom with production design and memorable costumes. Where I’d single out particular praise though is in the choreography and the editing on show.
Firstly, the choreography of “beats” in the song to the action on screen is brilliantly done, done, probably at its most impressive in a shot-glass bar-room scene between Jackman and Efron. And never (hats off to the special effects guys and cinematographer Seamus McGarvey) have you seen washing on a washing line so cleverly in time with the music.
Secondly in terms of the film editing, I am a sucker for clever “transition” shots, and there are some in this movie that just took my breath away: a transition to a pregnant Charity; a transition from ballet practice to ballet performance; there are numerous others!
Inverted magnetism. Zendaya as the trapeze artist Anne Wheeler.
I have decided to park some of my minor criticisms within the greater joy of the whole: some of the dialogue (by Jenny Bicks and Bill Condon) is as cheesy as hell, but probably no more so than in some of the Judy Garland/Mickey Rooney musicals. Where I had my biggest problem is in some of the lip synching to the songs. This is an age where the live recording of songs in films like “Les Miserables” and “La La Land” has set the bar high, and returning to the norm (I had the same problem with “Beauty and the Beast“) becomes noticeable and irritating to me. (Perhaps this is just me!).
It’s certainly not a perfect film, but its energy and drive carry it through as a memorable movie musical that may well take on a life of its own as word-of-mouth gets it more widely viewed (outside of the rather difficult Christmas holiday season). It would also be a good film for youngsters, with a bit of judicious editing (there is one moment of violence in the first 10 minutes that I would choose to edit out). From my perspective it is certainly a truly impressive debut for advert director Michael Gracey. Recommended for musical fans.
Will you like “The Greatest Showman”? This will be dictated almost entirely by whether you are a “musicals” person or not! For “The Greatest Showman” is a frothy, very loud, cheesy and high-energy musical, much more aligned, in fact, to the mainstream genre from the 40’s and 50’s than “La La Land” was.
Roll up, roll up. The circus cast entertain.
In a VERY loose interpretation of the early life of Phineas Taylor Barnum, the American huckster and impressario, we start the story with a pre-pubescent Barnum (Ellis Rubin, sung by Ziv Zaifman) as a young tailor’s assistant punching above his weight with young socialite Charity (Skylar Dunn), firmly against the wishes of her father. Spin forward (via song) and the hitched Barnum’s – now Hugh Jackman (“Logan“) and Michelle Williams (“Manchester By The Sea“) – are barely scraping a living. But Barnum has “A Million Dreams” and hits on the novel idea of opening an entertainment (coined “a circus” by journalist James Gordon Bennett (Paul Sparks)) where he offers both respect and a family to those of the city who are deformed, rejected and socially shunned. Barnum’s show is shockingly entertaining – as in both filling seats and shocking the morally-self-righteous upper classes. But never one to rest on his laurels, Barnum’s endless ambition drives him to break his social ceiling by importing the “Swedish songbird”, opera singer Jenny Lind (Rebecca Ferguson, “Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation“, “The Snowman“) ), for an ambitious and extravegant tour of the States. All does not exactly go to plan.
Washing day tunes. Hugh Jackman and Michelle Williams take to the rooftops.
As I’ve said, most critics have been making sniffy noises about this film. But I am not one of them…. I LOVED IT, have already bought the glorious soundtrack album and will be looking forwards to the DVD release. For this is joy in a box. Sure, the story is a bit weak, the characterisations of everyone (other than Barnum) pretty lightweight, but it’s a musical extravaganza! Live with it!
Hugh Jackman, who of course started his career in stage musicals, is marvellously charismatic as Barnum although his singing does tend to the “shouty” end of the scale in many of the numbers. He’s joined here by fellow musicals star Zac Efron (let’s forget “Dirty Grandpa“) as the fictitious Phillip Carlyle: a socialite playwright and partner.
But the acting and singing revelation for me was Zendaya (“Spider-Man: Homecoming“) as Efron’s (scandalous) inter-racial love interest, who has a fantastically athletic body, sings and dances wonderfully and has a magnetic stare. A marvellous trapeze routine between Efron and Zendaya (“Rewrite The Stars”) is one of the high-spots of the film for me.
An energetic dance. Zendaya and Efron take to the skies.
Elsewhere Williams proves she has a singing voice as well as being a top flight actress and the bearded lady (Broadway star Keala Settle) belts out one of the show-stopping numbers “This is Me” (although she is a little ‘shrill’ for my musical tastes).
It would be nice to extend that compliment to the wonderful Rebecca Ferguson as the “greatest singer in the world” – but she is (wisely I think) dubbed here by Loren Allred (a finalist on the US version of “The Voice”). It is a bit of a shock when “the great opera singer” opens her mouth and a modern love song comes out, but once you get over that then the combination of Ferguson’s acting and Allred’s singing makes “Never Enough” one of the standout songs in the movie. (It’s been described as “a bit Eurovision” by Kevin Maher, “The Times” critic, which I can see but I don’t care! I find it marvellously moving).
A dangerous songbird’s nest for the married Barnum. Rebecca Ferguson and Hugh Jackman.
If you haven’t guessed it, there are some fantastic songs in this movie, written by “La La Land” song composers Benj Pasek and Justin Paul and at least one of these surely must be Oscar nominated (I’m not sure what the cut-off would be for the 2018 Oscars?).
There’s also a lot of talent in the backroom with production design and memorable costumes. Where I’d single out particular praise though is in the choreography and the editing on show.
Firstly, the choreography of “beats” in the song to the action on screen is brilliantly done, done, probably at its most impressive in a shot-glass bar-room scene between Jackman and Efron. And never (hats off to the special effects guys and cinematographer Seamus McGarvey) have you seen washing on a washing line so cleverly in time with the music.
Secondly in terms of the film editing, I am a sucker for clever “transition” shots, and there are some in this movie that just took my breath away: a transition to a pregnant Charity; a transition from ballet practice to ballet performance; there are numerous others!
Inverted magnetism. Zendaya as the trapeze artist Anne Wheeler.
I have decided to park some of my minor criticisms within the greater joy of the whole: some of the dialogue (by Jenny Bicks and Bill Condon) is as cheesy as hell, but probably no more so than in some of the Judy Garland/Mickey Rooney musicals. Where I had my biggest problem is in some of the lip synching to the songs. This is an age where the live recording of songs in films like “Les Miserables” and “La La Land” has set the bar high, and returning to the norm (I had the same problem with “Beauty and the Beast“) becomes noticeable and irritating to me. (Perhaps this is just me!).
It’s certainly not a perfect film, but its energy and drive carry it through as a memorable movie musical that may well take on a life of its own as word-of-mouth gets it more widely viewed (outside of the rather difficult Christmas holiday season). It would also be a good film for youngsters, with a bit of judicious editing (there is one moment of violence in the first 10 minutes that I would choose to edit out). From my perspective it is certainly a truly impressive debut for advert director Michael Gracey. Recommended for musical fans.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Public Enemies (2009) in Movies
Jun 22, 2019
The year is 1933 and bank robberies are at an all time high. John Dillinger, Baby Face Nelson, and Pretty Boy Floyd are at the top of their game. In the public eye, robbers are looked at as heroes instead of criminals. Dillinger enjoys the fruit of his labor to the fullest until the day Melvin Purvis is put in charge of the FBI division down in Chicago. Word traveled fast of how one of FBI's top agents (Purvis) took down Pretty Boy Floyd and hopes are high that he can help in the newly announced "war on crime." Once Purvis arrived in Chicago, the crime wave of the 30's that was on a steady uprise took a drastic decline. Bank robberies were never the same as Dillinger's friends began dropping like flies. As Dillinger's motto of not thinking about tomorrow since he's too busy enjoying today comes back to haunt him, he soon realizes that he can only hide for so long and that the feds will catch up with him sooner or later.
The most noticeable thing about the film is its cinematography. Michael Mann has used the same method of shooting Public Enemies with HD digital cameras like he did with Collateral. This could be a hassle to some viewers as the picture isn't as shaky as it was in something like Cloverfield, but isn't as crystal clear and steady as you may have found in some of Mann's earlier work like Heat or most other films, for that matter. Perspective plays a huge role in this film. Certain lighting seems to come off better being shot in HD digital and it certainly shows, but the imperfections seem to give the film more character. Some people might throw the word, "edgy," around, but we'll settle on saying this style of filming feels like a more realistic approach. It makes the audience feel like they're actually amongst these gangsters during their heyday.
It almost felt like Christian Bale didn't really want to be there. Between this and Terminator: Salvation, he's really lacking the charisma and talent he's shown in films like The Prestige and The Machinist or even American Psycho. Maybe he's just hit his peak and has nothing else up his sleeve to wow audiences. Bale has hit an eye-catching slump, which is hard to say since this is coming from a long time fan. As long as he continues to be cast in big budget films though and those films wind up doing extremely well at the box office, then not many people are going to notice a difference in the actor's lackluster performance.
Johnny Depp, on the other hand, stole every scene he was in. His cockiness and confidence in his abilities in what he does just gave life to Dillinger that makes you generally like him. You want to see him escape as soon as he gets caught, pull off that next big robbery, and succeed at everything he does so he can run off with Billie Frechette (Marion Cotillard) and live happily ever after. His dialogue is also generally pretty incredible. In the scene where he's confronting Agent Purvis from behind bars, Dillinger is asking Purvis about what it was like to kill a man. How their eyes looked and how you can literally watch a man just drift away by staring into their eyes while they're dying. That that whole experience could keep a man up at night. Purvis asks Dillinger what keeps him up at night. Dillinger, who always seemed to be chewing gum, replies, "Coffee." Dillinger just felt like one of Depp's better acting roles, as of late. He showed more emotion than we're generally used to seeing from him and it was just an incredibly strong performance from the Oscar nominee.
The film has a lot of great dialogue, intriguing character interaction, and it's interesting watching the story unfold of how the crime wave of the 30s may have come to an end, but what really makes the film worth seeing is the shootouts. Any scene that begins with somebody holding a gun is worth getting excited over. There's a scene in the woods in the latter half of the film that is worth the price of admission alone. It takes place at night and everything is littered with darkness until the tommy guns make an appearance. The way the guns light up everything else around the characters firing them was a nice touch. Small explosions erupting from a chamber every time somebody pulled the trigger. This is some of the best gunfire to ever be filmed.
When it comes to Public Enemies, it is one of the best films of the year which is mentioned in at least one of the TV spots. Anyone who was a fan of Michael Mann's previous films (or gangster films, in general) will more than likely walk away from this film satisfied. Johnny Depp is still at the top of his game while Christian Bale seems to be winding down. Public Enemies is a film worthy of the summer blockbuster season which will satisfy the appetite of any fan of crime films.
The most noticeable thing about the film is its cinematography. Michael Mann has used the same method of shooting Public Enemies with HD digital cameras like he did with Collateral. This could be a hassle to some viewers as the picture isn't as shaky as it was in something like Cloverfield, but isn't as crystal clear and steady as you may have found in some of Mann's earlier work like Heat or most other films, for that matter. Perspective plays a huge role in this film. Certain lighting seems to come off better being shot in HD digital and it certainly shows, but the imperfections seem to give the film more character. Some people might throw the word, "edgy," around, but we'll settle on saying this style of filming feels like a more realistic approach. It makes the audience feel like they're actually amongst these gangsters during their heyday.
It almost felt like Christian Bale didn't really want to be there. Between this and Terminator: Salvation, he's really lacking the charisma and talent he's shown in films like The Prestige and The Machinist or even American Psycho. Maybe he's just hit his peak and has nothing else up his sleeve to wow audiences. Bale has hit an eye-catching slump, which is hard to say since this is coming from a long time fan. As long as he continues to be cast in big budget films though and those films wind up doing extremely well at the box office, then not many people are going to notice a difference in the actor's lackluster performance.
Johnny Depp, on the other hand, stole every scene he was in. His cockiness and confidence in his abilities in what he does just gave life to Dillinger that makes you generally like him. You want to see him escape as soon as he gets caught, pull off that next big robbery, and succeed at everything he does so he can run off with Billie Frechette (Marion Cotillard) and live happily ever after. His dialogue is also generally pretty incredible. In the scene where he's confronting Agent Purvis from behind bars, Dillinger is asking Purvis about what it was like to kill a man. How their eyes looked and how you can literally watch a man just drift away by staring into their eyes while they're dying. That that whole experience could keep a man up at night. Purvis asks Dillinger what keeps him up at night. Dillinger, who always seemed to be chewing gum, replies, "Coffee." Dillinger just felt like one of Depp's better acting roles, as of late. He showed more emotion than we're generally used to seeing from him and it was just an incredibly strong performance from the Oscar nominee.
The film has a lot of great dialogue, intriguing character interaction, and it's interesting watching the story unfold of how the crime wave of the 30s may have come to an end, but what really makes the film worth seeing is the shootouts. Any scene that begins with somebody holding a gun is worth getting excited over. There's a scene in the woods in the latter half of the film that is worth the price of admission alone. It takes place at night and everything is littered with darkness until the tommy guns make an appearance. The way the guns light up everything else around the characters firing them was a nice touch. Small explosions erupting from a chamber every time somebody pulled the trigger. This is some of the best gunfire to ever be filmed.
When it comes to Public Enemies, it is one of the best films of the year which is mentioned in at least one of the TV spots. Anyone who was a fan of Michael Mann's previous films (or gangster films, in general) will more than likely walk away from this film satisfied. Johnny Depp is still at the top of his game while Christian Bale seems to be winding down. Public Enemies is a film worthy of the summer blockbuster season which will satisfy the appetite of any fan of crime films.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Ford v Ferrari (aka Le Mans '66) (2019) in Movies
Nov 20, 2019
Damon, Bale and fast cars (1 more)
Epic technical film making - cinematography, editing and sound - Oscar bait
A linear story on a circular track - but beautifully done.
Despite the love affair cinema has had with cars over the years, the sport of motor racing on film has been patchy. Too often the drama on the track has been deluged with melodrama off the track, as in John Frankenheimer's "Grand Prix" from 1966. While recent efforts such as Ron Howard's "Rush" have brought modern filming techniques to better convey the speed and excitement, it is Steve McQueen's "Le Mans" from 1971 that had previously set the bar for realism in the sport. But even there, there were a few off-track love stories to interweave into the action.
I wouldn't hesitate to suggest that "Le Mans '66" is a strong contender for the motor racing high-water mark.
The film was marketed as "Ford v Ferrari" in the US. (What... do the American distributors think their film-goers are so stupid that if "Le" is in the title they will think it sub-titled foreign language??). But it's a valid title, since the movie tells the true story of when Henry Ford... the second... (Tracy Letts) throws his toys out of the pram at Ford's faltering progress. ("James Bond does not drive a Ford". "That's because he's a degenerate!" snaps back Ford, which kind of typifies the problem"). Marketing man Lee Iacocca (Jon Bernthal) persuades retired hot-shot racer Carroll Shelby (Matt Damon) to take Ford's blank-cheque to build a car to win the Le Mans 24 hour race.
Shelby enlists maverick Brit racer Ken Miles (Christian Bale) to help design and drive the next-generation machine. But neither had banked on the interference of the hoards of Ford suits, led by VP Leo Beebe (Josh Lucas). An explosion is imminent! And its not just from the over-heated brake pads!
What's really odd about this film is how linear the story is. While we get to see the family life of Miles (to add necessary context to what follows) these are merely minor diversions. There are no sub-plots or flashback scenes. It just relates the history from beginning to end, enlivened by some of the best and most exciting motor-racing footage put to celluloid.
At a bladder-testing 152 minutes, this really shouldn't have worked. I should have got bored and restless. But I really didn't.
In many ways - bladders aside - I think this will appeal in particular to an older breed of movie-goer. It's a 100% 'sit back in your seat and enjoy' cinema treat.
This is the first film Matt Damon and Christian Bale have made together, and I understand that Damon specifically signed on since he wanted to work with Bale. And there is palpable chemistry there. The movie includes one of the best 'bad-fights' since Colin Firth and Hugh Grant locked horns in the Bridget Jones films. And Damon - never one of the most expressive actors in the world - here really shines.
Bale also appears to be having a whale of a time. Not having to adopt a US accent suits him, as he blasts and swears his way through various UK-specific expletives that probably passed the US-censors by! He often tends to play characters in movies that are difficult to warm to, but here - although suitably spiky and irascible - the family man really shines through and you feel a real warmth for the guy.
There's a strong supporting cast behind the leads, with Tracy Letts' fast-driving breakdown being a standout moment. I wonder how many takes they needed on that for Damon to keep a semi-straight face?! Also impressive as the son Peter Miles is Noah Jupe. If you're wondering where the hell you've seen him before, he was young (Marcus in "A Quiet Place").
Where the film comes alive is on the track, and a particular shout out should to to the technical teams. Cinematography is by Phedon Papamichael ("Walk the Line"), film editing is led by Andrew Buckland and Michael McCusker. And sound mixing - which to my ear was piston-valve perfect - is by Steven Morrow. Also worthy of note is a kick-ass driving soundtrack by Marco Beltrami that genuinely excited. These categories are fearsomly hard to predict in awards season, but you might like to listen out for those names.
If I was going to pick at any faults in the film, it would be that Ford exec Leo Beebe is painted a little too much as a "boo-hiss" pantomime villain in the piece. It could have been perhaps toned down 20% or so.
James Mangold ("Logan"; "Walk the Line") directs in style. From the rather po-faced trailer, you might think this is a "car movie that's not for me". But it really is a tremendously fun movie, with some genuinely laugh-out-loud moments mixed in with edge-of-your-seat action and some heart-rending moments.
Above all, this is a film that really benefits from the wide-screen and sound-system that only a big cinema can provide. As such this goes on my "get out and see it" list without any hesitation! It's going to make my movies of the year: and I'm off to see it again on Saturday!
Read the full review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/11/20/one-manns-movies-film-review-le-mans-66-2019/
I wouldn't hesitate to suggest that "Le Mans '66" is a strong contender for the motor racing high-water mark.
The film was marketed as "Ford v Ferrari" in the US. (What... do the American distributors think their film-goers are so stupid that if "Le" is in the title they will think it sub-titled foreign language??). But it's a valid title, since the movie tells the true story of when Henry Ford... the second... (Tracy Letts) throws his toys out of the pram at Ford's faltering progress. ("James Bond does not drive a Ford". "That's because he's a degenerate!" snaps back Ford, which kind of typifies the problem"). Marketing man Lee Iacocca (Jon Bernthal) persuades retired hot-shot racer Carroll Shelby (Matt Damon) to take Ford's blank-cheque to build a car to win the Le Mans 24 hour race.
Shelby enlists maverick Brit racer Ken Miles (Christian Bale) to help design and drive the next-generation machine. But neither had banked on the interference of the hoards of Ford suits, led by VP Leo Beebe (Josh Lucas). An explosion is imminent! And its not just from the over-heated brake pads!
What's really odd about this film is how linear the story is. While we get to see the family life of Miles (to add necessary context to what follows) these are merely minor diversions. There are no sub-plots or flashback scenes. It just relates the history from beginning to end, enlivened by some of the best and most exciting motor-racing footage put to celluloid.
At a bladder-testing 152 minutes, this really shouldn't have worked. I should have got bored and restless. But I really didn't.
In many ways - bladders aside - I think this will appeal in particular to an older breed of movie-goer. It's a 100% 'sit back in your seat and enjoy' cinema treat.
This is the first film Matt Damon and Christian Bale have made together, and I understand that Damon specifically signed on since he wanted to work with Bale. And there is palpable chemistry there. The movie includes one of the best 'bad-fights' since Colin Firth and Hugh Grant locked horns in the Bridget Jones films. And Damon - never one of the most expressive actors in the world - here really shines.
Bale also appears to be having a whale of a time. Not having to adopt a US accent suits him, as he blasts and swears his way through various UK-specific expletives that probably passed the US-censors by! He often tends to play characters in movies that are difficult to warm to, but here - although suitably spiky and irascible - the family man really shines through and you feel a real warmth for the guy.
There's a strong supporting cast behind the leads, with Tracy Letts' fast-driving breakdown being a standout moment. I wonder how many takes they needed on that for Damon to keep a semi-straight face?! Also impressive as the son Peter Miles is Noah Jupe. If you're wondering where the hell you've seen him before, he was young (Marcus in "A Quiet Place").
Where the film comes alive is on the track, and a particular shout out should to to the technical teams. Cinematography is by Phedon Papamichael ("Walk the Line"), film editing is led by Andrew Buckland and Michael McCusker. And sound mixing - which to my ear was piston-valve perfect - is by Steven Morrow. Also worthy of note is a kick-ass driving soundtrack by Marco Beltrami that genuinely excited. These categories are fearsomly hard to predict in awards season, but you might like to listen out for those names.
If I was going to pick at any faults in the film, it would be that Ford exec Leo Beebe is painted a little too much as a "boo-hiss" pantomime villain in the piece. It could have been perhaps toned down 20% or so.
James Mangold ("Logan"; "Walk the Line") directs in style. From the rather po-faced trailer, you might think this is a "car movie that's not for me". But it really is a tremendously fun movie, with some genuinely laugh-out-loud moments mixed in with edge-of-your-seat action and some heart-rending moments.
Above all, this is a film that really benefits from the wide-screen and sound-system that only a big cinema can provide. As such this goes on my "get out and see it" list without any hesitation! It's going to make my movies of the year: and I'm off to see it again on Saturday!
Read the full review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/11/20/one-manns-movies-film-review-le-mans-66-2019/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Rock the Kasbah (2016) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Music is a language that transcends race, gender, age, and nationality. It is timeless. It is transformative. Music has the power to shape and redefine culture. In Rock the Kasbah, Bill Murray plays Richie Lanz, a washed up Rock manager who seeks to bring one of his acts to Afghanistan as part of the USO tour. Within the first day of arrival, his plans are unraveled as his singer (Zooey Deschanel) panics and runs off with his money and passport in order to return back to America.
After meeting a myriad of characters (Bruce Willis, Kate Hudson. Danny McBride) in Kabul, he is presented with a new opportunity to introduce the world to a true talent. He discovers a young Pashtun girl with an amazing voice who dreams of being able to compete on “Afghan Star,” a musical competition show similar to “American Idol.” Cultural norms forbid her from singing and participating in the competition which demonstrate the complexity of Afghan culture, history, and politics. Understanding the threat to himself and Salima (Leem Lubany), Richie arranges for her to appear on the show, defying traditions and customs.
The film itself is a decent adaptation of the real story captured in the documentary Afghan Star which examines the life of Setara who must go into hiding because of her appearance in the competition. Rock the Kasbah has moments of genuine humor which fully utilizes Bill Murray’s true talents. Unfortunately, there are points where the plot and the storyline does not seem to fit together seamlessly. One great aspect of the film is its use of music to demonstrate the reach that it has across cultural lines. The love of music and artistic expression which had been severely restricted during the years of Taliban rule and Mujahedeen influence survived and is emblematic of how the people and the culture is much more complex and relatable than many would assume. This film goes beyond a story of a young singer trying to express herself and a manager trying to reclaim the glory of years ago. It is about the culture, history, and political framework of Afghanistan and the Afghan people.
It promotes them in a more positive light without relegating them to being a monolithic culture and people. It provides more insight into the circumstances that many of the people both in the cities and the tribal regions deal with. Audiences will be satisfied Rock the Kasbah as it is a musical and comedic showcase. They may even find themselves singing “Wild World” long after the credits roll.
After meeting a myriad of characters (Bruce Willis, Kate Hudson. Danny McBride) in Kabul, he is presented with a new opportunity to introduce the world to a true talent. He discovers a young Pashtun girl with an amazing voice who dreams of being able to compete on “Afghan Star,” a musical competition show similar to “American Idol.” Cultural norms forbid her from singing and participating in the competition which demonstrate the complexity of Afghan culture, history, and politics. Understanding the threat to himself and Salima (Leem Lubany), Richie arranges for her to appear on the show, defying traditions and customs.
The film itself is a decent adaptation of the real story captured in the documentary Afghan Star which examines the life of Setara who must go into hiding because of her appearance in the competition. Rock the Kasbah has moments of genuine humor which fully utilizes Bill Murray’s true talents. Unfortunately, there are points where the plot and the storyline does not seem to fit together seamlessly. One great aspect of the film is its use of music to demonstrate the reach that it has across cultural lines. The love of music and artistic expression which had been severely restricted during the years of Taliban rule and Mujahedeen influence survived and is emblematic of how the people and the culture is much more complex and relatable than many would assume. This film goes beyond a story of a young singer trying to express herself and a manager trying to reclaim the glory of years ago. It is about the culture, history, and political framework of Afghanistan and the Afghan people.
It promotes them in a more positive light without relegating them to being a monolithic culture and people. It provides more insight into the circumstances that many of the people both in the cities and the tribal regions deal with. Audiences will be satisfied Rock the Kasbah as it is a musical and comedic showcase. They may even find themselves singing “Wild World” long after the credits roll.
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift (2006) in Movies
Jun 6, 2021
I've been told that 'The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift' is the worst of the franchise and, so far, I'd have to agree. For what it is it's not terrible but it's not great either.
In my review for the the first 'The Fast and the Furious' I mentioned that parts of it felt like one of those movies set in a high school, well, 'Tokyo Drift' takes that and runs (Rides?) with it. The opening scenes are exactly that, a high school movie, we have the jocks being, well, jocks, as portraited in most 80's & 90's movies, bulling and making life miserable for those that aren't there own. But don't worry the film soon shifts from an American high school to a Japanese one and, lets face it we knew it would have to happen, the clues in the title after all. To be fair, from this point on most of the action is on the roads and not the school but as a lot of the plot revolves around Sean and Neela, a girl he met in his new school the high school film feel remains.
One good thing that 'Tokyo Drift' manages is to continue the idea of 'Family' that is present in the previous films with Sean finding his new family in Tokyo and his relationship with his, first his mother and then his farther and also with Neela having to choose which side side (or which family) she belongs to as well as the surprise cameo at the end (it's an old film but I didn't know about it so I'm probably not the only one).
One thing missing from 'Tokyo Drift' was the crime aspect (except, of course the street racing), the first movie had touched on it with the truck robbery's and the second was almost all about finding and moving the drug money. The Yakuza are mentioned and there are underground clubs but the yakuza are there more as another symbol of family and the clubs just are, there is no one investigating them and they are more just an excuse to have lots of scantily clad women wondering around.
If you just want a film that you can turn your brain off to then 'The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift' is ok, it has action in the form of car chases, plenty of 'eye candy' and a bit of a story. Just don't expect anything to taxing.
In my review for the the first 'The Fast and the Furious' I mentioned that parts of it felt like one of those movies set in a high school, well, 'Tokyo Drift' takes that and runs (Rides?) with it. The opening scenes are exactly that, a high school movie, we have the jocks being, well, jocks, as portraited in most 80's & 90's movies, bulling and making life miserable for those that aren't there own. But don't worry the film soon shifts from an American high school to a Japanese one and, lets face it we knew it would have to happen, the clues in the title after all. To be fair, from this point on most of the action is on the roads and not the school but as a lot of the plot revolves around Sean and Neela, a girl he met in his new school the high school film feel remains.
One good thing that 'Tokyo Drift' manages is to continue the idea of 'Family' that is present in the previous films with Sean finding his new family in Tokyo and his relationship with his, first his mother and then his farther and also with Neela having to choose which side side (or which family) she belongs to as well as the surprise cameo at the end (it's an old film but I didn't know about it so I'm probably not the only one).
One thing missing from 'Tokyo Drift' was the crime aspect (except, of course the street racing), the first movie had touched on it with the truck robbery's and the second was almost all about finding and moving the drug money. The Yakuza are mentioned and there are underground clubs but the yakuza are there more as another symbol of family and the clubs just are, there is no one investigating them and they are more just an excuse to have lots of scantily clad women wondering around.
If you just want a film that you can turn your brain off to then 'The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift' is ok, it has action in the form of car chases, plenty of 'eye candy' and a bit of a story. Just don't expect anything to taxing.
Smart Ride: Transit Directions, Real Time Predictions and Transportation Routes
Navigation and Travel
App
Smart Ride® empowers your commute by providing real-time arrivals and alerts for many major North...
Firefly - Season 1
9.3
Rate It
TV Season
Firefly is an American space western drama television series created by writer and director Joss...
Firefly Serenity Joss Whedon Browncoats TV Series Fox
KittyMiku (138 KP) rated Sold to the Werewolf Prince in Books
May 23, 2019
Contains spoilers, click to show
This book is very short and has a good thought behind it. Since the world Hannah is now trying to integrate into is all about being kind and polite at all costs, its easy to see why she would have troubles with some of it. If offending someone meant execution, any human would have a problem living there without issue. I think that is the biggest idea I found to be enjoyable in the book. I love the idea of aliens and space travel, but the view point on having to keep your tongue tied to always be able to be kind to someone is what pique my interest. However, its not just your voice and words, its in your actions too. That whole world made sure everyone at all times are kept in a pleasured and blissful state.
At first, I was intrigued on the aliens and the life on their planet, but I found my interest leading me more towards how Hannah explained how Humans act to one another and how its hard to come by people who are naturally kind and respectful. Though the idea of being executed for saying anything in any way that could offend someone is kind of hard to get behind, I also feel like its something we should all strive for anyways. I can see the disadvantages of always being kind and polite as well though. In the book, Hannah had made it clear she was never sure what would offend someone and get her possibly killed and so she kept a lot of questions and thoughts to herself. I can completely understand that. To a degree though, I think keeping unkind things or questions that could be offense to yourself to be a great idea. However, when it comes to asking things about someone's religion or culture, I would think that wouldn't create a lot of offense. After all, we are all curious about something we don't understand or don't know. It did bring up a lot of things that we allow our children to say and do that isn't kind and allows others to feel unworthy or disrespected. For example name calling. In the story Hannah had tried to explain there are ways to say something to make in endearing. She used the term "bookworm". She went on to explain that in school people called her a bookworm to be mean and hurtful, it was an insult, but at home her mother used the term endearingly because Hannah always had her nose in a book. And if we are honest with ourselves, we know this is often a true case. Kids at school can be mean and hurtful if you don't fit in, but sometimes the insults they deal can also be ones of endearment from those we love. An example of this is the label gamer. In schools being a gamer meant you didn't have a ton of friends and often were picked on because you preferred to be at home playing your games than going to parties. However, if your wife is playfully teasing you by calling you a gamer, or uses it as an endearing term, it is not hurtful at all. Isn't it funny how something so silly as a single word used to describe you can have duel purposes; Hurtful and endearing?
I think Hannah's explanation of that was pretty dead on, but that wasn't all she brought up that reminded me of how awful humans can be. She has brought up how possessive humans can be to materials, enough to kill or have a hand in killing someone else for it. This is something we actually see everyday, if we allow ourselves too. People kill other people for money and material objects. People kill animals, and we aren't talking about for food purposes, because they want to or because it will allow them to make money for certain pieces of the animal. They aren't just hurtful, they are lethal to others and their environment. I found myself cringing at how real her words were. I know these things are going on in the world, we all do, but to have it spoken out loud so bluntly makes you wish it would just stop. In the book, Hannah had stated the American Government had stated that aliens had visited and they covered it up. And Prince Tamkin had stated because of human hostile nature, they didn't see why they should bother with the humans. He said most aliens didn't see the humans worth the hassle. That brings me to question if it is possible that this is also true.
Think about it. Let's say this particular book is correct in the fact aliens exist and they gave up trying to communicate with us because of our hostile natures. Always putting ourselves first and anyone, anything else last. It would make sense in a way, don't you think? I know this is a Sci-fi romance book, but at the same time, it does make a lot of sense. Hannah had said we were egotistical and self centered, thinking we had the best technology in the universe and that we can take anything we want and its true. As a race, humans are horrible creatures. That's not to say there aren't good ones out there. Even Hannah had explained that there were groups of people who fought for the Earth and others. Just as there are people in the real world who do that same. So if Wright can have a lot of truth in the book, who is not to say she was able to come up with a reason on why aliens stay away from Earth? Even though the space travel seems still to far for us to know if that was that is a real thing or not, it is still something worth thinking about.
I do have one major compliant about the book. The intercourse scenes. There were a total of three heavily detailed scenes that I don't completely understand. Do not get my wrong, the first scene was to make it so you understood that pleasing the woman in the bedroom was extremely important and it completely proved this case. However, I do not feels that so much needed to be in the book. The story could have used more details on the alien planet and the major city they resided in. I would have loved to know more about it. I would have loved to actually have seen the different communities and wild life. I was disappointed there wasn't more but instead I got steamy intercourse scenes that would make adult movie stars blush.
I would rate this book 3 stars out of 5 stars. It had brought up a lot of topics to discuss and ponder on and definitely left me wanting more, but the intercourse scenes were over the top and just too much for me. I would have been find with just the first one and maybe shorter scenes for the others. To me it just took away from the story in a way I didn't like.
At first, I was intrigued on the aliens and the life on their planet, but I found my interest leading me more towards how Hannah explained how Humans act to one another and how its hard to come by people who are naturally kind and respectful. Though the idea of being executed for saying anything in any way that could offend someone is kind of hard to get behind, I also feel like its something we should all strive for anyways. I can see the disadvantages of always being kind and polite as well though. In the book, Hannah had made it clear she was never sure what would offend someone and get her possibly killed and so she kept a lot of questions and thoughts to herself. I can completely understand that. To a degree though, I think keeping unkind things or questions that could be offense to yourself to be a great idea. However, when it comes to asking things about someone's religion or culture, I would think that wouldn't create a lot of offense. After all, we are all curious about something we don't understand or don't know. It did bring up a lot of things that we allow our children to say and do that isn't kind and allows others to feel unworthy or disrespected. For example name calling. In the story Hannah had tried to explain there are ways to say something to make in endearing. She used the term "bookworm". She went on to explain that in school people called her a bookworm to be mean and hurtful, it was an insult, but at home her mother used the term endearingly because Hannah always had her nose in a book. And if we are honest with ourselves, we know this is often a true case. Kids at school can be mean and hurtful if you don't fit in, but sometimes the insults they deal can also be ones of endearment from those we love. An example of this is the label gamer. In schools being a gamer meant you didn't have a ton of friends and often were picked on because you preferred to be at home playing your games than going to parties. However, if your wife is playfully teasing you by calling you a gamer, or uses it as an endearing term, it is not hurtful at all. Isn't it funny how something so silly as a single word used to describe you can have duel purposes; Hurtful and endearing?
I think Hannah's explanation of that was pretty dead on, but that wasn't all she brought up that reminded me of how awful humans can be. She has brought up how possessive humans can be to materials, enough to kill or have a hand in killing someone else for it. This is something we actually see everyday, if we allow ourselves too. People kill other people for money and material objects. People kill animals, and we aren't talking about for food purposes, because they want to or because it will allow them to make money for certain pieces of the animal. They aren't just hurtful, they are lethal to others and their environment. I found myself cringing at how real her words were. I know these things are going on in the world, we all do, but to have it spoken out loud so bluntly makes you wish it would just stop. In the book, Hannah had stated the American Government had stated that aliens had visited and they covered it up. And Prince Tamkin had stated because of human hostile nature, they didn't see why they should bother with the humans. He said most aliens didn't see the humans worth the hassle. That brings me to question if it is possible that this is also true.
Think about it. Let's say this particular book is correct in the fact aliens exist and they gave up trying to communicate with us because of our hostile natures. Always putting ourselves first and anyone, anything else last. It would make sense in a way, don't you think? I know this is a Sci-fi romance book, but at the same time, it does make a lot of sense. Hannah had said we were egotistical and self centered, thinking we had the best technology in the universe and that we can take anything we want and its true. As a race, humans are horrible creatures. That's not to say there aren't good ones out there. Even Hannah had explained that there were groups of people who fought for the Earth and others. Just as there are people in the real world who do that same. So if Wright can have a lot of truth in the book, who is not to say she was able to come up with a reason on why aliens stay away from Earth? Even though the space travel seems still to far for us to know if that was that is a real thing or not, it is still something worth thinking about.
I do have one major compliant about the book. The intercourse scenes. There were a total of three heavily detailed scenes that I don't completely understand. Do not get my wrong, the first scene was to make it so you understood that pleasing the woman in the bedroom was extremely important and it completely proved this case. However, I do not feels that so much needed to be in the book. The story could have used more details on the alien planet and the major city they resided in. I would have loved to know more about it. I would have loved to actually have seen the different communities and wild life. I was disappointed there wasn't more but instead I got steamy intercourse scenes that would make adult movie stars blush.
I would rate this book 3 stars out of 5 stars. It had brought up a lot of topics to discuss and ponder on and definitely left me wanting more, but the intercourse scenes were over the top and just too much for me. I would have been find with just the first one and maybe shorter scenes for the others. To me it just took away from the story in a way I didn't like.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The DUFF (2015) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Disappointingly Generic
The school-set comedy genre has been done to death over the last two decades. From body swap comedies like 17 Again that hang on the pulling power of their stars, to films that now have a cult following like 10 Things I Hate About You, each of them has little to offer once the end credits roll.
With the brilliant Mean Girls being one of the only exceptions to the trend, the latest film to tackle the genre is The DUFF, but is Ari Sandel’s directorial debut worthy of a recommendation?
The DUFF follows daily life at a typical American high-school with typical US teens separated into categories depending on their social standing.
Enter Bianca Piper, played by the brilliant Mae Whitman, a vastly intelligent girl who is unaware of her place in the rankings as the DUFF – Designated Ugly Fat Friend – that is until her hunky next door neighbour Wesley (Robbie Amell) informs her of that fact.
What ensues is a selection of mildly amusing scenes interspersed with some touching social commentary about what it means to be normal in an ever-changing world as Bianca tries to come to terms with her place in the school hierarchy.
Despite the obvious focus on looks and beauty, the film does have a deeper message of self-worth and it’s a shame this is rarely touched upon outside of the finale.
Perhaps The DUFF’s strongest suit is in its unique filming style. The use of technology and social media helps distinguish it from its rivals and what it lacks in story is made up for with clever uses of animation and an engaging soundtrack.
Just when you think the film has decided to settle in a rut and remain there for the duration, it throws you off course with a clever cut-scene or use of technology and there are two moments in particular that had the audience in stitches.
Unfortunately, the rest of the film isn’t that funny. The story is predictable and the will-they-won’t-they romantic subplot is massively clichéd and dull because the characters, apart from Bianca, simply don’t register – there is no reason to care for them.
Mae Whitman is a force to be reckoned with as Bianca and is by far the most intriguing member of a disappointingly bland cast. Elsewhere, Ken Jeong (Community, The Hangover) and Allison Janney (Hairspray) pop up as a concerned teacher and Bianca’s mother, but they are both wasted in ultimately thankless roles.
Overall, it’s easy to feel sorry for films like The DUFF. The school-set genre has fizzled out in recent years and hasn’t got its mojo back despite numerous efforts from movies much less accomplished than this one.
Mae Whitman and the use of Family Guy-esque cut-scenes are the main plus points here, but despite its best intentions, it’s hard to give it too much of a recommendation and is probably best reserved for a late-night DVD viewing.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/04/12/disappointingly-generic-the-duff-review/
With the brilliant Mean Girls being one of the only exceptions to the trend, the latest film to tackle the genre is The DUFF, but is Ari Sandel’s directorial debut worthy of a recommendation?
The DUFF follows daily life at a typical American high-school with typical US teens separated into categories depending on their social standing.
Enter Bianca Piper, played by the brilliant Mae Whitman, a vastly intelligent girl who is unaware of her place in the rankings as the DUFF – Designated Ugly Fat Friend – that is until her hunky next door neighbour Wesley (Robbie Amell) informs her of that fact.
What ensues is a selection of mildly amusing scenes interspersed with some touching social commentary about what it means to be normal in an ever-changing world as Bianca tries to come to terms with her place in the school hierarchy.
Despite the obvious focus on looks and beauty, the film does have a deeper message of self-worth and it’s a shame this is rarely touched upon outside of the finale.
Perhaps The DUFF’s strongest suit is in its unique filming style. The use of technology and social media helps distinguish it from its rivals and what it lacks in story is made up for with clever uses of animation and an engaging soundtrack.
Just when you think the film has decided to settle in a rut and remain there for the duration, it throws you off course with a clever cut-scene or use of technology and there are two moments in particular that had the audience in stitches.
Unfortunately, the rest of the film isn’t that funny. The story is predictable and the will-they-won’t-they romantic subplot is massively clichéd and dull because the characters, apart from Bianca, simply don’t register – there is no reason to care for them.
Mae Whitman is a force to be reckoned with as Bianca and is by far the most intriguing member of a disappointingly bland cast. Elsewhere, Ken Jeong (Community, The Hangover) and Allison Janney (Hairspray) pop up as a concerned teacher and Bianca’s mother, but they are both wasted in ultimately thankless roles.
Overall, it’s easy to feel sorry for films like The DUFF. The school-set genre has fizzled out in recent years and hasn’t got its mojo back despite numerous efforts from movies much less accomplished than this one.
Mae Whitman and the use of Family Guy-esque cut-scenes are the main plus points here, but despite its best intentions, it’s hard to give it too much of a recommendation and is probably best reserved for a late-night DVD viewing.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/04/12/disappointingly-generic-the-duff-review/
Art Authority for iPad
Art & Design, Education and Reference
App
"Best iPad Reference App" -- App Store editorial team. Art Authority for iPad transports you to an...