Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Denial (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Jewry Trial.
It’s the mid-90’s and Deborah Lipstadt (Rachael Weisz, “The Lobster“), an American professor of Holocaust studies at a US university has written a book naming and shaming David Irving (Timothy Spall, “Mr Turner”) as a Nazi-apologist who denies that the Holocaust ever happened. Filing a law suit against Penguin Books and Lipstadt in the UK, Lipstadt chooses to fight rather than settle and takes the case to the High Courts in a much publicised trial.
Help is required and Lipstadt is assigned a hot-shot solicitor (if that’s not an oxymoron) in the form of Anthony Julius (Andrew Scott, “Sherlock”) and top barrister Richard Rampton (Tom Wilkinson, “Selma“). The stage is set for an epic legal battle that will establish not just legal precedent but also historical precedent affecting the entire Jewish people.
This film’s trailer really appealed to me, and I was looking forward to this film. And that view clearly also got through to people of my age bracket (and older) since the cinema was pretty full. But ultimately I was disappointed by the film.
But first the good points.
The cinematography by Haris Zambarloukos (“Thor”, “Mamma Mia”) is memorable, particularly for the Auschwitz tour which is done in an impressively bleak way on an astoundingly bleak winter’s day.
Andrew Scott, so woefully miscast as “C” in “Spectre“, here is a nice shoo-in for the cocksure but aloof expert. And Tom Wilkinson, who can seldom put a movie foot wrong, is also perfectly cast as the claret-swigging defence-lead: passionless and analytical even when facing the horrors of a trip to Auschwitz.
Timothy Spall’s Irving is well portrayed as the intelligent and articulate – albeit deluded – eccentric he no doubt is.
There are also some nice cameo performances, including John Sessions (“Florence Foster Jenkins“) as an Oxbridge history boffin and Mark Gatiss (“Sherlock”) as an Auschwitz expert.
However, these positives don’t outweigh the big negative that the broader ensemble cast never really gels together well. The first time this is evident is in an office meeting of the defence team where the interactions have a sheen of falseness about them that is barely hidden behind some weak script and forced nervous laughter. Tea can’t help.
In particular, attractive Kiwi actress Caren Pistorius (“The Light Between Oceans“) seems to have been given a poor hand to play with as the junior member of the team. A late night interaction with her boyfriend, who whinges at her for having to work late, seems to be taken from a more sexist age: “the 70’s called and they want their script back”.
None of this is helped by Rachel Weisz, who I’m normally a fan of, but here she is hindered by some rather dodgy lines by David Hare (“The Reader”) and an unconvincing (well, to me at least) New York accent. For me I’m afraid she just doesn’t seem to adequately convey her passion for the cause.
While the execution of the court scenes are well done, the film is hampered by its opening five words: “Based on a True Story”. This is something of a disease at the moment in the movies, and whilst in many films (the recent “Lion” for example) the story is in the journey rather than the result, with “Denial” the story is designed to build to a tense result that unfortunately lacks any sort of tension – since the result is pre-ordained.
This is all a great shame, since director Mick Jackson (“LA Story”, in his first feature for nearly 15 years) has the potential here for a great movie. Perhaps a more fictionalised version (“vaguely based on a true story”) might have provided more of a foundation for a better film?
Help is required and Lipstadt is assigned a hot-shot solicitor (if that’s not an oxymoron) in the form of Anthony Julius (Andrew Scott, “Sherlock”) and top barrister Richard Rampton (Tom Wilkinson, “Selma“). The stage is set for an epic legal battle that will establish not just legal precedent but also historical precedent affecting the entire Jewish people.
This film’s trailer really appealed to me, and I was looking forward to this film. And that view clearly also got through to people of my age bracket (and older) since the cinema was pretty full. But ultimately I was disappointed by the film.
But first the good points.
The cinematography by Haris Zambarloukos (“Thor”, “Mamma Mia”) is memorable, particularly for the Auschwitz tour which is done in an impressively bleak way on an astoundingly bleak winter’s day.
Andrew Scott, so woefully miscast as “C” in “Spectre“, here is a nice shoo-in for the cocksure but aloof expert. And Tom Wilkinson, who can seldom put a movie foot wrong, is also perfectly cast as the claret-swigging defence-lead: passionless and analytical even when facing the horrors of a trip to Auschwitz.
Timothy Spall’s Irving is well portrayed as the intelligent and articulate – albeit deluded – eccentric he no doubt is.
There are also some nice cameo performances, including John Sessions (“Florence Foster Jenkins“) as an Oxbridge history boffin and Mark Gatiss (“Sherlock”) as an Auschwitz expert.
However, these positives don’t outweigh the big negative that the broader ensemble cast never really gels together well. The first time this is evident is in an office meeting of the defence team where the interactions have a sheen of falseness about them that is barely hidden behind some weak script and forced nervous laughter. Tea can’t help.
In particular, attractive Kiwi actress Caren Pistorius (“The Light Between Oceans“) seems to have been given a poor hand to play with as the junior member of the team. A late night interaction with her boyfriend, who whinges at her for having to work late, seems to be taken from a more sexist age: “the 70’s called and they want their script back”.
None of this is helped by Rachel Weisz, who I’m normally a fan of, but here she is hindered by some rather dodgy lines by David Hare (“The Reader”) and an unconvincing (well, to me at least) New York accent. For me I’m afraid she just doesn’t seem to adequately convey her passion for the cause.
While the execution of the court scenes are well done, the film is hampered by its opening five words: “Based on a True Story”. This is something of a disease at the moment in the movies, and whilst in many films (the recent “Lion” for example) the story is in the journey rather than the result, with “Denial” the story is designed to build to a tense result that unfortunately lacks any sort of tension – since the result is pre-ordained.
This is all a great shame, since director Mick Jackson (“LA Story”, in his first feature for nearly 15 years) has the potential here for a great movie. Perhaps a more fictionalised version (“vaguely based on a true story”) might have provided more of a foundation for a better film?
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Saving Private Ryan (1998) in Movies
Feb 25, 2019 (Updated Feb 25, 2019)
Groundbreaker mired in slop
Contains spoilers, click to show
Regarded as one of the best war films ever made, it certainly qualifies. The opening twenty minutes are still as breathtaking, shocking and disturbing realistic as they were back in 1998. It is hard to imagine that it has now been over twelve years since Saving Private Ryan broke the mold of World War II film making.
Winner of five Academy Awards, including Best Director for Spielberg, Best Cinematography, and Sound, which was astonishing, even by today's standards, it failed to win Best Picture, losing out to Shakespeare In Love. Shakespeare In Love! Don't get me wrong, it's a good film, but easily forgettable compared to Ryan, only proving yet again that if you touch upon the British monarchy you get Oscars.
The film is a fictional account of four brothers, all serving in the U.S. Army, three of which were killed in action on or around the D-Day landings. The fourth, James Ryan played by Matt Damon is somewhere in Europe, and Tom Hanks with his platoon are sent to bring him home, to spare his mother anymore heartache.
Tom Hanks, who was also snubbed at the 1998 Oscars for his perfect performance as Captain Miller, the everyman who was losing himself in the horrors of war, underplayed his role perfectly. He is believable on every level, emotionally, physically and has a sense of subtly with makes him of Hollywood's greats.
The action is visceral, gritty and horrifying. But never played for crass effect. Scenes of soldiers intestines spilling out, limbs flying a sunder and brutal killing left, right and centre are recreated for one purpose. To truly demonstrate the horrors of war, and to change our perceptions of the global conflict which had almost become a joke, a setting for gung- ho action films, where the Yanks reign supreme and single-handedly win the war.
This shows troops crying, hurting and making decisions which should not be made under any moral circumstances, but you understand why, whether you agree or not. There is no doubt that Spielberg is not innocent of making an American film, but it is about as even-handed as you might expect, with the exception of Tora! Tora! Tora! or The Longest Day.
So, the action is first-rate, graphic and perfectly toned to recreate to horror of the last century's greatest and most of destructive conflicts. But that's only half the story.
The other half is the talking, reminiscing and the almost sepia tone is more than a little cloying. The U.S. General's monologues, which seem to consist almost entirely of Lincoln quotations are overly sentimental, erring on the side of sloppy patriotism rather than Jingoism, which is hardly a bad thing but it isn't good either.
The civilian scenes, such as Mrs Ryan, washing a plate as she sees the car drive down to road to inform her of her sons deaths are so sentimental that they jar against the realism of the war scenes. It's not so much contrast as it is as extreme as black and white.
The action is obviously interspersed, as all war films are, with rest stops and moments of talking, pondering etc., but the scenes drag on too long and disrupt the tone of the film. On the other hand, the direction is brilliant when explaining the situations during and around the action, but Spielberg seemed to think that we needed these sloppy and often boring moments, such as The Church, and the outside the cafe in Ramelle, to express the emotional torment of the characters, but I think that these scenes are so boring and pointless that I' can hardly remember them, as my attention drifts off during them! But I do have an understanding of the soldiers, and this was achieved, quite adorably without these scenes.
Overall, this is a film of two halves if ever there was one. The battle scenes and the journey through war-torn France are brilliant, gritty and educational, but the scenes of American sentimentality are in danger of derailing the whole film. Many feel that is the best war film of all time. I do not agree, favouring Black Hawk Down over this, but I would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge that Blank Hawk Down owes a debt to Saving Private Ryan, by opening the door to the gritty war dramas of the naughties and to the style itself.
This film is on of the most important contributions to cinema ever, and has done so much to finally show to true nature of WWII and war in general. But even though I would rate this 10/10 if it was just for the war scenes, the slop just gets in the way and devalues what should have been perfection.
Winner of five Academy Awards, including Best Director for Spielberg, Best Cinematography, and Sound, which was astonishing, even by today's standards, it failed to win Best Picture, losing out to Shakespeare In Love. Shakespeare In Love! Don't get me wrong, it's a good film, but easily forgettable compared to Ryan, only proving yet again that if you touch upon the British monarchy you get Oscars.
The film is a fictional account of four brothers, all serving in the U.S. Army, three of which were killed in action on or around the D-Day landings. The fourth, James Ryan played by Matt Damon is somewhere in Europe, and Tom Hanks with his platoon are sent to bring him home, to spare his mother anymore heartache.
Tom Hanks, who was also snubbed at the 1998 Oscars for his perfect performance as Captain Miller, the everyman who was losing himself in the horrors of war, underplayed his role perfectly. He is believable on every level, emotionally, physically and has a sense of subtly with makes him of Hollywood's greats.
The action is visceral, gritty and horrifying. But never played for crass effect. Scenes of soldiers intestines spilling out, limbs flying a sunder and brutal killing left, right and centre are recreated for one purpose. To truly demonstrate the horrors of war, and to change our perceptions of the global conflict which had almost become a joke, a setting for gung- ho action films, where the Yanks reign supreme and single-handedly win the war.
This shows troops crying, hurting and making decisions which should not be made under any moral circumstances, but you understand why, whether you agree or not. There is no doubt that Spielberg is not innocent of making an American film, but it is about as even-handed as you might expect, with the exception of Tora! Tora! Tora! or The Longest Day.
So, the action is first-rate, graphic and perfectly toned to recreate to horror of the last century's greatest and most of destructive conflicts. But that's only half the story.
The other half is the talking, reminiscing and the almost sepia tone is more than a little cloying. The U.S. General's monologues, which seem to consist almost entirely of Lincoln quotations are overly sentimental, erring on the side of sloppy patriotism rather than Jingoism, which is hardly a bad thing but it isn't good either.
The civilian scenes, such as Mrs Ryan, washing a plate as she sees the car drive down to road to inform her of her sons deaths are so sentimental that they jar against the realism of the war scenes. It's not so much contrast as it is as extreme as black and white.
The action is obviously interspersed, as all war films are, with rest stops and moments of talking, pondering etc., but the scenes drag on too long and disrupt the tone of the film. On the other hand, the direction is brilliant when explaining the situations during and around the action, but Spielberg seemed to think that we needed these sloppy and often boring moments, such as The Church, and the outside the cafe in Ramelle, to express the emotional torment of the characters, but I think that these scenes are so boring and pointless that I' can hardly remember them, as my attention drifts off during them! But I do have an understanding of the soldiers, and this was achieved, quite adorably without these scenes.
Overall, this is a film of two halves if ever there was one. The battle scenes and the journey through war-torn France are brilliant, gritty and educational, but the scenes of American sentimentality are in danger of derailing the whole film. Many feel that is the best war film of all time. I do not agree, favouring Black Hawk Down over this, but I would be remiss if I didn't acknowledge that Blank Hawk Down owes a debt to Saving Private Ryan, by opening the door to the gritty war dramas of the naughties and to the style itself.
This film is on of the most important contributions to cinema ever, and has done so much to finally show to true nature of WWII and war in general. But even though I would rate this 10/10 if it was just for the war scenes, the slop just gets in the way and devalues what should have been perfection.
Zuky the BookBum (15 KP) rated Bird Box in Books
Mar 15, 2018
Read my review here! https://bookbumzuky.wordpress.com/2017/01/27/bird-box-by-josh-malerman/
<b><i>The sky is falling, the sky is dying, the sky is dead.</b></i>
One day you wake up and read a horrifying news story, there are people who are seeing things that make them go insane. So insane that they are driven to kill themselves. Soon, the entire world is infected with this <i>thing</i> and your only hope of survival is this: <b>do not open your eyes.</b>
This book was skin crawling-ly creepy! The plot is so unique and it really chills you to the bone at times. I liked how, as a reader, you were left just as blind as Malorie was, with Malerman giving you the opportunity to believe if there was something evil lurking, or not. This novel plays into one of my deepest fears. Being blind. Thinking about going blind has always scared me, but especially the thought of having to become blind involuntarily. Not being able to use your sight when you have the ability to do so would be excruciating and terrifying.
Malorie was such a refreshing, interesting and bold character. I loved her from page one and I never stopped loving her throughout. Her being a paranoid, helpless mother really brought out the scariness of the entire apocalyptic situation so well that you just know this book would have been nowhere near as good if Malerman has chosen to lead with another character, such as Tom, or Shannon.
Throughout, this book had me on the edge of my seat with fear and trepidation. One scene that really got to me in this novel was the scene in the bar. Malorie not being able to open her eyes to see what Victor was fussing about or having the ability to know if there was danger in the room with her really gave me goosebumps.
My only qualm with this novel was one aspect of the main plot line that I felt was left at a bit of a loose end. I guess, in some ways, it was good that it was left unspoken. We only have our thoughts about it to simmer in, to make our decisions as we did with so much of this book. But on the other hand, I would have liked an outcome of why and where.
This is by far one of the scariest novels Ive read in a long time and I want more of Malermans writing, right now!
<b><i>The sky is falling, the sky is dying, the sky is dead.</b></i>
One day you wake up and read a horrifying news story, there are people who are seeing things that make them go insane. So insane that they are driven to kill themselves. Soon, the entire world is infected with this <i>thing</i> and your only hope of survival is this: <b>do not open your eyes.</b>
This book was skin crawling-ly creepy! The plot is so unique and it really chills you to the bone at times. I liked how, as a reader, you were left just as blind as Malorie was, with Malerman giving you the opportunity to believe if there was something evil lurking, or not. This novel plays into one of my deepest fears. Being blind. Thinking about going blind has always scared me, but especially the thought of having to become blind involuntarily. Not being able to use your sight when you have the ability to do so would be excruciating and terrifying.
Malorie was such a refreshing, interesting and bold character. I loved her from page one and I never stopped loving her throughout. Her being a paranoid, helpless mother really brought out the scariness of the entire apocalyptic situation so well that you just know this book would have been nowhere near as good if Malerman has chosen to lead with another character, such as Tom, or Shannon.
Throughout, this book had me on the edge of my seat with fear and trepidation. One scene that really got to me in this novel was the scene in the bar. Malorie not being able to open her eyes to see what Victor was fussing about or having the ability to know if there was danger in the room with her really gave me goosebumps.
My only qualm with this novel was one aspect of the main plot line that I felt was left at a bit of a loose end. I guess, in some ways, it was good that it was left unspoken. We only have our thoughts about it to simmer in, to make our decisions as we did with so much of this book. But on the other hand, I would have liked an outcome of why and where.
This is by far one of the scariest novels Ive read in a long time and I want more of Malermans writing, right now!
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Bronson (2009) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019 (Updated Jun 20, 2019)
Michael Peterson has always wanted to be famous, but didn't really have any potential to be much of anything. So he robbed a post office and received a seven year sentence. That seven years soon became over thirty and the majority of it was spent in solitary confinement. It was during this time that Michael Peterson let his alter-ego, Charles Bronson, take over. During his multi-year prison sentence, Peterson became violent and unpredictable. To this day, he's still considered to be Britain's most famous prisoner. Michael Peterson was no more and Charles Bronson was all that remained.
Bronson is one of the more interesting films I've had the pleasure of sitting through as of late. In the trailer (and movie poster), a quote can be seen where a reviewer called the film, "A Clockwork Orange for the 21st century." That quote is really spot-on. There is a big Clockwork Orange influence in this film. While Michael Peterson narrates the entire film, the film jumps between what actually happened and Peterson performing in front of an audience in a rather large theater. The make-up, the setting, and Hardy's performance are all very Clockwork Orange-esque. Another film that came to mind was Snatch. The action sequences and a lot of the humor gave off the same kind of vibe Guy Ritchie's film did. Bronson is very much its own film, but shares the same beloved qualities of the films mentioned.
Bronson is what it is because of Tom Hardy's performance. He's guiding you through his life, his dreams, and his goals while you're with him the duration of the film, so it's only logical that he steals the show since he gets the most screen time. The fact that he doesn't waste any of it is something to be proud of though. He makes what would be a rather dismal story entertaining, exciting, and worth sitting through. Hardy's performance is the highlight of the film. There's really no questioning that.
Bronson was really a sleeper hit for me since its premise didn't interest me at all, but it wound up luring me in with its trailer. It's a very unorthodox type of film that isn't like many other films out there. Films like Bronson think outside the box of normal cinema and is the type of gem you'd hope to find whenever you journey out to your favorite theater. If you're looking for a film that is a knock-down-drag-out, eccentric, thrill-ride with a strong lead actor performance, then look no further. Bronson is exactly what you're looking for.
Bronson is one of the more interesting films I've had the pleasure of sitting through as of late. In the trailer (and movie poster), a quote can be seen where a reviewer called the film, "A Clockwork Orange for the 21st century." That quote is really spot-on. There is a big Clockwork Orange influence in this film. While Michael Peterson narrates the entire film, the film jumps between what actually happened and Peterson performing in front of an audience in a rather large theater. The make-up, the setting, and Hardy's performance are all very Clockwork Orange-esque. Another film that came to mind was Snatch. The action sequences and a lot of the humor gave off the same kind of vibe Guy Ritchie's film did. Bronson is very much its own film, but shares the same beloved qualities of the films mentioned.
Bronson is what it is because of Tom Hardy's performance. He's guiding you through his life, his dreams, and his goals while you're with him the duration of the film, so it's only logical that he steals the show since he gets the most screen time. The fact that he doesn't waste any of it is something to be proud of though. He makes what would be a rather dismal story entertaining, exciting, and worth sitting through. Hardy's performance is the highlight of the film. There's really no questioning that.
Bronson was really a sleeper hit for me since its premise didn't interest me at all, but it wound up luring me in with its trailer. It's a very unorthodox type of film that isn't like many other films out there. Films like Bronson think outside the box of normal cinema and is the type of gem you'd hope to find whenever you journey out to your favorite theater. If you're looking for a film that is a knock-down-drag-out, eccentric, thrill-ride with a strong lead actor performance, then look no further. Bronson is exactly what you're looking for.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Courier (2020) in Movies
Aug 16, 2021
Cumberbatch is brilliant. (1 more)
Great real life history lesson
A peerless Cumberbatch and a miscast Buckley.
It's not to be confused with the Olga Kurylenko / Gary Oldman 2019 movie of the same title. But with a fresh Berlin current-day Russian spy scandal in the news this week, seeing the cold war spy drama "The Courier" is a timely thing to do.
Positives:
- Benedict Cumberbatch is outstandingly good in this. He could have been born to play the slightly bemused English gentlemen of the time. All golf, tweed suits and gentlemen's clubs. No spoilers, but there is a physical transformation as well that's impressive to observe. The film would have been decidedly so-so I think without that core central performance.
- The film is based on a true story. As someone who was born in 1961, it's a good reminder to count our blessings that you, me and everyone else are still around to live our lives at all. The world was on the brink of a precipice and learning the story of Wynne's part in this was insightful history.
- There's a nice catchy Russian-themed score by Abel Korzeniowski.
Negatives:
- I'm a big fan of Jessie Buckley. Really, I am. And to be fair to her, her performance is really good. I particularly liked a scene where she dismissed on the doorstep a local busybody. But I just didn't see her as Wynne's pearl-neckless-wearing wife in this part. Perhaps the problem is that although there's a 13 year age gap between the leads, I always imagine Buckley as being much younger that her 31 years. For whatever reason, the casting didn't work for me.
Summary Thoughts on "The Courier": As a true-life spy story, the movie is interesting and Cumberbatch's performance is brilliant. But I can't say that I was 100% grabbed by it. While having a few moments of high drama and tension - particularly one on a plane - I never felt that to be maintained for enough of the movie. Director Dominic Cooke has a limited filmography (with the Saoirse Ronan movie "On Chesil Beach" being his only other feature) and writer Tom O'Connor is the guy behind the more flippant "Hitman's Bodyguard" films. Perhaps a more experienced writer/director team would have elevated this to a higher level.
So it's eminently watchable but not memorable. Just a marginal hit in my book.
(For the full graphical review, please check out onemannsmovies on the web, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks.)
Positives:
- Benedict Cumberbatch is outstandingly good in this. He could have been born to play the slightly bemused English gentlemen of the time. All golf, tweed suits and gentlemen's clubs. No spoilers, but there is a physical transformation as well that's impressive to observe. The film would have been decidedly so-so I think without that core central performance.
- The film is based on a true story. As someone who was born in 1961, it's a good reminder to count our blessings that you, me and everyone else are still around to live our lives at all. The world was on the brink of a precipice and learning the story of Wynne's part in this was insightful history.
- There's a nice catchy Russian-themed score by Abel Korzeniowski.
Negatives:
- I'm a big fan of Jessie Buckley. Really, I am. And to be fair to her, her performance is really good. I particularly liked a scene where she dismissed on the doorstep a local busybody. But I just didn't see her as Wynne's pearl-neckless-wearing wife in this part. Perhaps the problem is that although there's a 13 year age gap between the leads, I always imagine Buckley as being much younger that her 31 years. For whatever reason, the casting didn't work for me.
Summary Thoughts on "The Courier": As a true-life spy story, the movie is interesting and Cumberbatch's performance is brilliant. But I can't say that I was 100% grabbed by it. While having a few moments of high drama and tension - particularly one on a plane - I never felt that to be maintained for enough of the movie. Director Dominic Cooke has a limited filmography (with the Saoirse Ronan movie "On Chesil Beach" being his only other feature) and writer Tom O'Connor is the guy behind the more flippant "Hitman's Bodyguard" films. Perhaps a more experienced writer/director team would have elevated this to a higher level.
So it's eminently watchable but not memorable. Just a marginal hit in my book.
(For the full graphical review, please check out onemannsmovies on the web, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks.)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated A United Kingdom (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“In to Africa”.
I managed to miss this film when it was first shown at the end of 2016. And what a shame as it would have UNDOUBTEDLY made my “Films of the Year” list.
Directed by Amma Asante (“Belle”) this is the true tale of a real-life fairy story, featuring a handsome prince and his love, who can never be his princess thanks to the Machievellian schemings of court-do-gooders and bureaucrats.
The prince in this case is Seretse Kham (David Oyelowo, “Selma“) , heir to the throne of Bechuanaland (now Botswana), who meets and falls in love with a lowly white Lloyd’s of London clerk Ruth Williams (Rosamund Pike, “Gone Girl“, “The World’s End“). The plot has many parallels with that of another film from earlier this year: “Loving” with Ruth Negga and Joel Edgerton. As an inter-racial couple in 1947 this is taboo enough, but the fact that Kham is soon to be king in a country bordering the apartheid tinderkeg that is South Africa blows the affair up to be a diplomatic crisis.
Concern in the corridors of power for Prime Minister Atlee (Anton Lesser) being faced up to by the couple’s supporter – a young Anthony Wedgewood Benn (Jack Lowden).
Defying the officials he marries his true love, driving a wedge between both his own uncle (Vusi Kunene ) and sister (Terry Pheto) and making Ruth an outcast in both countries. As things turn from bad to worse, can true love conquer all their adversities?
Just everything about this film delights. Oyelowo and Pike – always a safe pair of hands – add real emotional depth to their roles. Their relationship feels natural and loving without either of them trying too hard. The estrangement of Ruth from her parents (particularly her father played by Nicholas Lyndhurst) is truly touching.
Another star turn is Harry Potter alumni Tom Felton, playing Rufus Lancaster – a weaselly and very unpleasant local official. I have a prediction…. that in 30 year’s time, the young Potter actor that will be the ‘Ian McKellen of his day’ (that is, a world recognized great actor… not necessarily gay!) will be Felton.
Sam McCurdy (“The Descent”) delivers cinematography of Africa that is vibrant (to be fair, for anyone lucky enough to visit Africa will know, cameras just love the place) and the John Barry-esque music by Patrick Doyle (“Murder on the Orient Express“) is pitch perfect for the mood.
When it says “Based on a true story” it means it: the real family.
A beautifully crafted film that older viewers will just love.
Directed by Amma Asante (“Belle”) this is the true tale of a real-life fairy story, featuring a handsome prince and his love, who can never be his princess thanks to the Machievellian schemings of court-do-gooders and bureaucrats.
The prince in this case is Seretse Kham (David Oyelowo, “Selma“) , heir to the throne of Bechuanaland (now Botswana), who meets and falls in love with a lowly white Lloyd’s of London clerk Ruth Williams (Rosamund Pike, “Gone Girl“, “The World’s End“). The plot has many parallels with that of another film from earlier this year: “Loving” with Ruth Negga and Joel Edgerton. As an inter-racial couple in 1947 this is taboo enough, but the fact that Kham is soon to be king in a country bordering the apartheid tinderkeg that is South Africa blows the affair up to be a diplomatic crisis.
Concern in the corridors of power for Prime Minister Atlee (Anton Lesser) being faced up to by the couple’s supporter – a young Anthony Wedgewood Benn (Jack Lowden).
Defying the officials he marries his true love, driving a wedge between both his own uncle (Vusi Kunene ) and sister (Terry Pheto) and making Ruth an outcast in both countries. As things turn from bad to worse, can true love conquer all their adversities?
Just everything about this film delights. Oyelowo and Pike – always a safe pair of hands – add real emotional depth to their roles. Their relationship feels natural and loving without either of them trying too hard. The estrangement of Ruth from her parents (particularly her father played by Nicholas Lyndhurst) is truly touching.
Another star turn is Harry Potter alumni Tom Felton, playing Rufus Lancaster – a weaselly and very unpleasant local official. I have a prediction…. that in 30 year’s time, the young Potter actor that will be the ‘Ian McKellen of his day’ (that is, a world recognized great actor… not necessarily gay!) will be Felton.
Sam McCurdy (“The Descent”) delivers cinematography of Africa that is vibrant (to be fair, for anyone lucky enough to visit Africa will know, cameras just love the place) and the John Barry-esque music by Patrick Doyle (“Murder on the Orient Express“) is pitch perfect for the mood.
When it says “Based on a true story” it means it: the real family.
A beautifully crafted film that older viewers will just love.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated War Horse (2011) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
Steven Spielberg is undoubtedly one of the world’s most loved directors and is without question, the king of blockbuster cinema. He thrilled us with dinosaurs in 1993’s blockbuster Jurassic Park, had us in tears with E.T. and had our hearts pumping out of our chests with the Indiana Jones series.
However, here, the ‘king’ relaxes a little and delves into proper old fashioned story telling with the emotional rollercoaster that is War Horse. Teaming up with John Williams once again, the duo delivers a beautiful score to accompany a beautifully shot film.
Jeremy Irvine stars alongside a full roster of celebrities including Harry Potter’s David Thewlis and Thor’s Tom Hiddlestone in what can only be described as one of Spielberg’s greatest films.
The film opens with some awe inspiring shots of the Devon countryside, with Albert Narracott (Jeremy Irvine) staring, masterfully at two horses in a field. Fast forward a few years and his alcoholic father Ted, played wonderfully by Peter Mullen purchases one of them in an auction, hoping to turn it into a plough horse. This horse becomes the focus of the entire film and is nicknamed Joey by Irvine’s character.
After the usual, Spielberg sentimentality, Joey is summoned to help the English army in the First World War. Obviously, this doesn’t go down too well with Albert and he promises that one day, they will find each other. It’s hard to describe just how heart-breaking these scenes are, as Joey is led away by his new trainer (Tom Hiddlestone) and all Albert can do is watch.
After being defeated by the Germans in a deadly ambush, Albert is informed that Hiddlestone’s character, Captain Nicholls has been killed in battle. Assuming the worst, Albert starts to prepare to either reunite with his beloved steed, or discover whether or not he has perished.
Spielberg has created a shockingly beautiful film as Joey loses Captain Nicholls and roams the countryside unmanned trying to escape the clutches of the German army. Unfortunately, on occasion, he runs right into them and becomes an artillery horse, pulling canons and other weapons.
The shots of no-man’s land as the horse time and time again escapes are breath-taking and show the scale of the destruction like nothing I’ve ever seen. Spielberg has a knack for scale and in War Horse, this is exceptionally poignant; shots of a horse graveyard and the grey barren landscape are examples of fine film-making. To say you’ll be in tears is somewhat of an understatement as Joey, terrified from the ordeal he is being taken through loses comrades, crashes through barbed wire and nearly gives up on life.
This coupled with John Williams best score since Jurassic Park ensures that this is a subtle blockbuster to be enjoyed by all.
However, the film isn’t perfect. On occasion, it delves into unnecessary sentimentality and Spielberg must’ve had a book of movie clichés with him at some points during the shoot, like the cheesy sunset ending and the token pulling through in the face of adversity. These are, however, small points in a film which is a spectacle to behold.
The animals no doubt steal the show, but their human counterparts do well in their roles. Jeremy Irvine is fabulous and was an unusual but totally justified choice for the part. David Thewlis shows how versatile he really is as an actor, playing the heartless landlord, ready to ship the Narracott family out of their farm.
War Horse is a film which hits with a huge dose of emotion. John Williams and Steven Spielberg are an unstoppable combination and what the film does best is show off its directors prowess as an artist, not a film-maker. The special effects are sparse because the story doesn’t require them, but when they are there, such as in the battle scenes, they help the story along, instead of hindering it.
It may not quite match the dizzy heights of Schindler’s List and Jurassic Park as Spielberg’s best, but it fits in between excellent Spielberg and spectacular Spielberg. Take some tissues and prepare yourself and you’ll be all set.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2012/01/22/review-war-horse-2012/
However, here, the ‘king’ relaxes a little and delves into proper old fashioned story telling with the emotional rollercoaster that is War Horse. Teaming up with John Williams once again, the duo delivers a beautiful score to accompany a beautifully shot film.
Jeremy Irvine stars alongside a full roster of celebrities including Harry Potter’s David Thewlis and Thor’s Tom Hiddlestone in what can only be described as one of Spielberg’s greatest films.
The film opens with some awe inspiring shots of the Devon countryside, with Albert Narracott (Jeremy Irvine) staring, masterfully at two horses in a field. Fast forward a few years and his alcoholic father Ted, played wonderfully by Peter Mullen purchases one of them in an auction, hoping to turn it into a plough horse. This horse becomes the focus of the entire film and is nicknamed Joey by Irvine’s character.
After the usual, Spielberg sentimentality, Joey is summoned to help the English army in the First World War. Obviously, this doesn’t go down too well with Albert and he promises that one day, they will find each other. It’s hard to describe just how heart-breaking these scenes are, as Joey is led away by his new trainer (Tom Hiddlestone) and all Albert can do is watch.
After being defeated by the Germans in a deadly ambush, Albert is informed that Hiddlestone’s character, Captain Nicholls has been killed in battle. Assuming the worst, Albert starts to prepare to either reunite with his beloved steed, or discover whether or not he has perished.
Spielberg has created a shockingly beautiful film as Joey loses Captain Nicholls and roams the countryside unmanned trying to escape the clutches of the German army. Unfortunately, on occasion, he runs right into them and becomes an artillery horse, pulling canons and other weapons.
The shots of no-man’s land as the horse time and time again escapes are breath-taking and show the scale of the destruction like nothing I’ve ever seen. Spielberg has a knack for scale and in War Horse, this is exceptionally poignant; shots of a horse graveyard and the grey barren landscape are examples of fine film-making. To say you’ll be in tears is somewhat of an understatement as Joey, terrified from the ordeal he is being taken through loses comrades, crashes through barbed wire and nearly gives up on life.
This coupled with John Williams best score since Jurassic Park ensures that this is a subtle blockbuster to be enjoyed by all.
However, the film isn’t perfect. On occasion, it delves into unnecessary sentimentality and Spielberg must’ve had a book of movie clichés with him at some points during the shoot, like the cheesy sunset ending and the token pulling through in the face of adversity. These are, however, small points in a film which is a spectacle to behold.
The animals no doubt steal the show, but their human counterparts do well in their roles. Jeremy Irvine is fabulous and was an unusual but totally justified choice for the part. David Thewlis shows how versatile he really is as an actor, playing the heartless landlord, ready to ship the Narracott family out of their farm.
War Horse is a film which hits with a huge dose of emotion. John Williams and Steven Spielberg are an unstoppable combination and what the film does best is show off its directors prowess as an artist, not a film-maker. The special effects are sparse because the story doesn’t require them, but when they are there, such as in the battle scenes, they help the story along, instead of hindering it.
It may not quite match the dizzy heights of Schindler’s List and Jurassic Park as Spielberg’s best, but it fits in between excellent Spielberg and spectacular Spielberg. Take some tissues and prepare yourself and you’ll be all set.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2012/01/22/review-war-horse-2012/
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated The Stars Are Fire in Books
Feb 13, 2018
Grace Holland is living a fairly ordinary-if not particularly happy-life with her husband Gene and their two young children in Maine. It's the late 1940s, and Grace's life revolves around Gene and her family. She cannot drive, she does not have a job, and her role in life is pretty clearly laid out: serve her husband and their children. All that changes when an awful drought hits Maine. As a horrible string of fires burns near Bar Harbor, where Grace and her family live, Gene joins a group of other men to help fight the blazes. Suddenly, Grace is awoken in the night by little Claire: the fire is upon the house. Gene is still gone, so Claire rushes to save Claire and baby Tom, as well as her best friend Rosie and Rosie's two young children. They huddle in the sand near the ocean for hours, and when they are finally rescued, nothing will ever be the same.
<i>This was an amazing book. </i> I'm not always an historical fiction fan (the story is based on actual fire that occurred in Maine), but I'll make an exception for Shreve, whom I've loved since her beautiful novel, [b:The Pilot's Wife|5191|The Pilot's Wife|Anita Shreve|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1435011220s/5191.jpg|3131254]. There is just something poignant and touching about this novel. I was immediately drawn into Grace's story, and I read the novel quickly over the course of a day or so. Shreve creates a fierce and wonderful character in Grace, and you cannot help but root for her.
Grace is held back by so much in her life: her gender, her financial circumstances, her husband. After experiencing such a terrible loss: her entire town is basically burned to the ground, including her home, it's amazing to watch her resilience in the face of such horror. In many ways, it's not as if a lot happens in this novel, yet I feel like so much occurs during Grace's journey. I so loved her spirit, and I also wanted to swoop in and take away all the horrible things that occurred in her life.
I don't want to go into much detail and ruin the details of the plot, but I'll just say that this is a lovely book, with well-drawn characters--led by the tough and wonderful Grace. I was captivated by the story, and I would certainly recommend the novel. 4 stars.
<center><a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">Blog</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/mwcmoto">Twitter</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+KristyHamiltonbooks">Google+</a></center>;
<i>This was an amazing book. </i> I'm not always an historical fiction fan (the story is based on actual fire that occurred in Maine), but I'll make an exception for Shreve, whom I've loved since her beautiful novel, [b:The Pilot's Wife|5191|The Pilot's Wife|Anita Shreve|https://images.gr-assets.com/books/1435011220s/5191.jpg|3131254]. There is just something poignant and touching about this novel. I was immediately drawn into Grace's story, and I read the novel quickly over the course of a day or so. Shreve creates a fierce and wonderful character in Grace, and you cannot help but root for her.
Grace is held back by so much in her life: her gender, her financial circumstances, her husband. After experiencing such a terrible loss: her entire town is basically burned to the ground, including her home, it's amazing to watch her resilience in the face of such horror. In many ways, it's not as if a lot happens in this novel, yet I feel like so much occurs during Grace's journey. I so loved her spirit, and I also wanted to swoop in and take away all the horrible things that occurred in her life.
I don't want to go into much detail and ruin the details of the plot, but I'll just say that this is a lovely book, with well-drawn characters--led by the tough and wonderful Grace. I was captivated by the story, and I would certainly recommend the novel. 4 stars.
<center><a href="http://justacatandabookatherside.blogspot.com/">Blog</a>; ~ <a href="https://twitter.com/mwcmoto">Twitter</a>; ~ <a href="https://www.facebook.com/justacatandabook/">Facebook</a>; ~ <a href="https://plus.google.com/u/0/+KristyHamiltonbooks">Google+</a></center>;
Charlie Cobra Reviews (1840 KP) rated The Umbrella Academy in TV
Jul 5, 2020
A Gamble That Pays Off - 8/10
The Umbrella Academy is a 2019 dark comedy sci-fi/drama superhero tv show developed by Steve Blackman and Jeremy Slater for Netflix. It's an adaptation of the comic book series created by Gerard Way and Gabriel Ba and published by Dark Horse Comics. The series was produced by Borderline Entertainment, Dark Horse Entertainment, and Universal Cable Productions. Starring Ellen Page, Tom Hopper, David Castaneda, and Kate Walsh.
On October 1st, 1989, 43 women around the world give birth although none of them were pregnant that morning. Eccentric billionaire Sir Reginald Hargreeves (Colman Feore) adopts 7 of the children and turns them into a superhero team called, "The Umbrella Academy. The children are given numbers instead of names and even though 6 of them fight crime, 1 of them, Vanya/#7 (Ellen Page) is kept apart for not having any powers. Present day, the estranged siblings reunite when they learn their father has died. At the funeral, #5 (Aidan Gallagher), which has been missing for over a decade, reappears from the future out of a blue portal and reveals to the others, that the world will end in a matter of days.
This show is stellar. It's a ride that you shouldn't miss. It's good to see a comic book series adaptation that is not from Marvel or DC and you can feel that it's a fresh take and different. I think the writers for the show did a good job on making it very three-dimensional. It's rated TV-14 so it's for teenagers and adults but also for comic book fans and sci-fi fans. That being said it does get pretty weird and far out there, so might not be for everybody but it's definitely better than what the critics are saying. Yes it does have some issues; like the dialogue might not be the best, there being some plot holes possibly, and some complaints of other comic book shows or movies having done that before. But it does have plenty of pluses; the soundtrack is phenomenal, the CGI is on par with that of big-budget movies, and the casting is very good. They were able to pull off the whole dysfunctional family vibe very well. I wanted to give it a point higher but I did understand some of the other points that other critics made about it. I give it a 8/10 but I also give it my "Must See" seal of approval. So if you haven't seen it yet what are you waiting for.
On October 1st, 1989, 43 women around the world give birth although none of them were pregnant that morning. Eccentric billionaire Sir Reginald Hargreeves (Colman Feore) adopts 7 of the children and turns them into a superhero team called, "The Umbrella Academy. The children are given numbers instead of names and even though 6 of them fight crime, 1 of them, Vanya/#7 (Ellen Page) is kept apart for not having any powers. Present day, the estranged siblings reunite when they learn their father has died. At the funeral, #5 (Aidan Gallagher), which has been missing for over a decade, reappears from the future out of a blue portal and reveals to the others, that the world will end in a matter of days.
This show is stellar. It's a ride that you shouldn't miss. It's good to see a comic book series adaptation that is not from Marvel or DC and you can feel that it's a fresh take and different. I think the writers for the show did a good job on making it very three-dimensional. It's rated TV-14 so it's for teenagers and adults but also for comic book fans and sci-fi fans. That being said it does get pretty weird and far out there, so might not be for everybody but it's definitely better than what the critics are saying. Yes it does have some issues; like the dialogue might not be the best, there being some plot holes possibly, and some complaints of other comic book shows or movies having done that before. But it does have plenty of pluses; the soundtrack is phenomenal, the CGI is on par with that of big-budget movies, and the casting is very good. They were able to pull off the whole dysfunctional family vibe very well. I wanted to give it a point higher but I did understand some of the other points that other critics made about it. I give it a 8/10 but I also give it my "Must See" seal of approval. So if you haven't seen it yet what are you waiting for.
