Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated 1917 (2020) in Movies
Jan 12, 2020
Tour-de-Force filmmaking
I have just viewed the film that WILL WIN the Oscars for Best Picture, Director and Cinematography (and probably many, many more).
Yes, 1917 is that good.
A tour-de-force presentation of a film, 1917 tells the tale of 2 soldiers in WW 1 that are tasked with bringing a message across "no man's land" to prevent a company of soldiers from walking into an ambush.
Director Sam Mendes (SKYFALL) chose to shoot this film in such a way as to give the impression that this film is just one long shot. While it is not (he shot it in about 8 minute bursts), the choreography of the action is staged in such a way that the cuts are seamless and unnoticeable. It is a master class in Directing from Mendes, for - though it is an interesting "gimmick" that puts us (literally) in the shoes (and steps) of the 2 young soldiers on their mission - this gimmick does not get in the way of the film. It helps and enhances the film, you can sit back in your chair and forget about "the gimmick" and just get wrapped up, emotionally, in the story that is being told.
And...getting wrapped up, emotionally, you will be. For the story, events, struggles and triumphs of these 2 soldiers are brilliantly brought to the screen from Director Mendes and Cinematograper-extraordinaire Roger Deakins (14 time Oscar nominee - from SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION to his win, finally, in BLADE RUNNER 2049). These 2 (and their crew) suck you into the action and tensions of the situation. You feel every step that these soldiers take.
Since you spend the entire movie with them, Mendes has done a tremendous job of casting 2 charismatic (but not overly so) actors as the 2 soldiers. Dean-Charles Chapman (Tommen Baratheon in GAME OF THRONES) is determined, focused and single-minded as the lead soldier on this trek - he has personal stakes in this mission - as his brother is in the invasion force that is going to be ambushed. Chapman does a nice job of finding the balance - and making a true person - out of a character that has a single, over-arching mission. It is strong subtle work.
But, to me, the standout in this film is George MacKay (CAPTAIN FANTASTIC) as the buddy who is "brought along". This could have been just another "reluctant war hero" character, but MacKay brings a sense of decency and vulnerability to the early scenes of his character (where he could have just as easily played the "reluctant companion"). These nuanced character dimensions take root later on in the film and elevate this actor - and this role - above the norm.
Mendes brings in a "who's who" of modern British acting stars to fill important extended cameo roles - Colin Firth, Andrew Scott, Mark Strong and Benedict Cumberbatch all bring gravitas and heft to their brief appearances on screen.
This is not the fastest paced film you will ever see - and I think that this serves the film well. It earns its pace and I was drawn in, emotionally, in a way that would not have worked had Mendes rushed the pace (especially early on).
But this film (and Mendes and Deakins) shines during the battle scenes. Even though we are following 2 foot soldiers, they set up the boundaries of these battles in such a way that you understand what is going on - and what is at stake - at least to the 2 soldiers we are following. It is in these scenes that this film really finds its footing. I was drawn even further into the intimate, emotional stakes of these characters at those moments.
A marvelous piece of film making that shows a Director and Cinematographer at the top of their games.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Yes, 1917 is that good.
A tour-de-force presentation of a film, 1917 tells the tale of 2 soldiers in WW 1 that are tasked with bringing a message across "no man's land" to prevent a company of soldiers from walking into an ambush.
Director Sam Mendes (SKYFALL) chose to shoot this film in such a way as to give the impression that this film is just one long shot. While it is not (he shot it in about 8 minute bursts), the choreography of the action is staged in such a way that the cuts are seamless and unnoticeable. It is a master class in Directing from Mendes, for - though it is an interesting "gimmick" that puts us (literally) in the shoes (and steps) of the 2 young soldiers on their mission - this gimmick does not get in the way of the film. It helps and enhances the film, you can sit back in your chair and forget about "the gimmick" and just get wrapped up, emotionally, in the story that is being told.
And...getting wrapped up, emotionally, you will be. For the story, events, struggles and triumphs of these 2 soldiers are brilliantly brought to the screen from Director Mendes and Cinematograper-extraordinaire Roger Deakins (14 time Oscar nominee - from SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION to his win, finally, in BLADE RUNNER 2049). These 2 (and their crew) suck you into the action and tensions of the situation. You feel every step that these soldiers take.
Since you spend the entire movie with them, Mendes has done a tremendous job of casting 2 charismatic (but not overly so) actors as the 2 soldiers. Dean-Charles Chapman (Tommen Baratheon in GAME OF THRONES) is determined, focused and single-minded as the lead soldier on this trek - he has personal stakes in this mission - as his brother is in the invasion force that is going to be ambushed. Chapman does a nice job of finding the balance - and making a true person - out of a character that has a single, over-arching mission. It is strong subtle work.
But, to me, the standout in this film is George MacKay (CAPTAIN FANTASTIC) as the buddy who is "brought along". This could have been just another "reluctant war hero" character, but MacKay brings a sense of decency and vulnerability to the early scenes of his character (where he could have just as easily played the "reluctant companion"). These nuanced character dimensions take root later on in the film and elevate this actor - and this role - above the norm.
Mendes brings in a "who's who" of modern British acting stars to fill important extended cameo roles - Colin Firth, Andrew Scott, Mark Strong and Benedict Cumberbatch all bring gravitas and heft to their brief appearances on screen.
This is not the fastest paced film you will ever see - and I think that this serves the film well. It earns its pace and I was drawn in, emotionally, in a way that would not have worked had Mendes rushed the pace (especially early on).
But this film (and Mendes and Deakins) shines during the battle scenes. Even though we are following 2 foot soldiers, they set up the boundaries of these battles in such a way that you understand what is going on - and what is at stake - at least to the 2 soldiers we are following. It is in these scenes that this film really finds its footing. I was drawn even further into the intimate, emotional stakes of these characters at those moments.
A marvelous piece of film making that shows a Director and Cinematographer at the top of their games.
Letter Grade: A
9 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Lee (2222 KP) rated Military Wives (2020) in Movies
Mar 9, 2020
Based on true events, Military Wives tells the story of how the very first military wives charity group came to be formed. That initial group was soon followed by more Military Wives groups, with some of the earlier ones even starring in 2011 BBC reality show 'The Choir', led by Gareth Malone. The Military Wives choirs have continued to grow since then and now comprise of 2000 women, located at over 70 military bases around the world, producing hit singles and albums as they go from strength to strength. The movie is directed by Peter Cattaneo, who directed The Full Monty, and the trailer really does have that traditional feel-good British comedy vibe which we seem to churn out year after year in an attempt to be "this years Full Monty". I wasn't sure if this was going to be for me, but after I found myself thoroughly enjoying Fisherman's Friends last year, I went in with an open mind.
At a UK army base, soldiers are preparing to leave for another tour in Afghanistan. As they say goodbye, we're given a chance to be introduced to the wives and families who will remain in the houses located on the base while the soldiers are away. Straight away, we get real insight into the lives of these women - trying to maintain some kind of normality, while constantly living in fear of the phone call or the knock at the door that might come at any time and turn their lives upside down. The women all vary in their experience of army life - from young, newly married wives to wives who are old hands at moving from base to base and country to country, coping without their husband for long periods of time.
Kate (Kristin Scott Thomas) is married to the regiment's colonel and assumes that she is therefore superior to all the other women on the base - jumping the queue in the small on-site grocery store and generally looking down her nose at the others. Lisa (Sharon Horgan) is much more laid back than Kate, happy to just go with the flow. She has been charged with pastoral care for the wives while their partners are away, and is more than happy just to organise the odd coffee morning or a few glasses of wine rather than anything more productive and engaging for the group. With her husband away, and having to deal with a past tragedy that we learn more about as the story unfolds, Kate decides to try and poke her nose in and organise Lisa and the other wives. Consequently, Kate and Lisa clash... regularly.
After unsuccessfully trying out knitting as a suggested activity, one of the wives suggests singing. Unfortunately though, none of the women appear to be very good at singing and the bickering between Kate and Lisa doesn't really help improve them either. While Kate reads up on vocal warm-ups and learning how to conduct a choir, Lisa digs out her old electronic keyboard and is happy just to have the group try and sing along to a few old pop songs.
Military Wives does manage to follow that traditional Full Monty template I described earlier - with a mismatched bunch of inexperienced singers who eventually manage to get it together enough to be able to perform their own song at the Royal Albert Hall. However, I did feel that the emotion and the drama surrounding these women, who could lose their husband/wife at any moment, really brought something different to the movie, something which I don't feel the trailer accurately portrays. The comedy and the feel-good factor that these trailers like to put across was a lot more subtle, and as a result I enjoyed it far more than I was expecting to.
At a UK army base, soldiers are preparing to leave for another tour in Afghanistan. As they say goodbye, we're given a chance to be introduced to the wives and families who will remain in the houses located on the base while the soldiers are away. Straight away, we get real insight into the lives of these women - trying to maintain some kind of normality, while constantly living in fear of the phone call or the knock at the door that might come at any time and turn their lives upside down. The women all vary in their experience of army life - from young, newly married wives to wives who are old hands at moving from base to base and country to country, coping without their husband for long periods of time.
Kate (Kristin Scott Thomas) is married to the regiment's colonel and assumes that she is therefore superior to all the other women on the base - jumping the queue in the small on-site grocery store and generally looking down her nose at the others. Lisa (Sharon Horgan) is much more laid back than Kate, happy to just go with the flow. She has been charged with pastoral care for the wives while their partners are away, and is more than happy just to organise the odd coffee morning or a few glasses of wine rather than anything more productive and engaging for the group. With her husband away, and having to deal with a past tragedy that we learn more about as the story unfolds, Kate decides to try and poke her nose in and organise Lisa and the other wives. Consequently, Kate and Lisa clash... regularly.
After unsuccessfully trying out knitting as a suggested activity, one of the wives suggests singing. Unfortunately though, none of the women appear to be very good at singing and the bickering between Kate and Lisa doesn't really help improve them either. While Kate reads up on vocal warm-ups and learning how to conduct a choir, Lisa digs out her old electronic keyboard and is happy just to have the group try and sing along to a few old pop songs.
Military Wives does manage to follow that traditional Full Monty template I described earlier - with a mismatched bunch of inexperienced singers who eventually manage to get it together enough to be able to perform their own song at the Royal Albert Hall. However, I did feel that the emotion and the drama surrounding these women, who could lose their husband/wife at any moment, really brought something different to the movie, something which I don't feel the trailer accurately portrays. The comedy and the feel-good factor that these trailers like to put across was a lot more subtle, and as a result I enjoyed it far more than I was expecting to.
Gareth von Kallenbach (971 KP) rated The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 1 (2011) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
The pop culture phenomenon that is Twilight is wrapping up as the film adaptation of the final book in the series, Twilight: Breaking Dawn, has arrived in theaters. With the previous three films doing brisk business at the box office, it came as no surprise when it was announced that the final book in the series was being split into two films so that the studio could maximize the box office of the series.
The film opens with awkward, melancholy teen Bella (Kristen Stewart), preparing for her wedding to Edward (Robert Pattinson), as their human and vampire friends assemble for the ceremony. Of course Edward’s rival Jacob (Tayler Lautner), is highly against the union as he still carries a flame for Bella. Nonetheless, the ceremony goes off as planned and Edward whisks Bella away to a remote Brazilian island to consummate their union, which apparently is a tricky endeavor, being that she is still a mortal and he is a century old vampire.
What at first is an ideal honeymoon is soon complicated when Bella and Edward discover an unexpected challenge that threatens Bella’s well-being and poses a threat to the pact between the vampires and werewolves. I will not spoil the film, even though fans of the series and books will not be any strangers to the drama and politics of the situation, but suffice it to say there is a lot on the line for all of the characters involved.
The film was rife with issues, the main one being the atrocious acting. One would think that after three previous films with the same cast, these actors would have developed some timing and chemistry with one another, especially Stewart and Pattinson who are a couple offscreen. Nothing could be further from the truth as they stiffly deliver their lines with pained and remote expressions. I am honestly at a loss as to why Bella is so captivating to both Edward and Jacob
as she is basically a dour girl who looks incredibly uncomfortable in her own skin, and yet the two are utterly captivated by her. I found the supporting cast far more interesting than the heroine and her besotted heroes. Another issue I had was that Pattinson, who got to show his acting ability in “Water for Elephants” is given little to do aside from staring at Bella and doing profile shots.
The first half of the film is basically an MTV-style wedding and honeymoon music video but the second half of the film did manage to grab and hold my attention with the ongoing plot points. It is obvious that the story is being stretched to cover two films as there are numerous unnecessary scenes such as people walking up stairs, throwing things in a garbage can, looking in mirrors, which serve little purpose other than increasing the run time of the film. Of course all of this matters little to fans of the series. The studio knows who the core audience is and the movie panders to them every chance they can, as proven by Lautner doffing his shirt not 60 seconds into the film to the squeals of delight from the teens, tweens and grown women in the audience.
Still, because it pits the Cullens against the werewolves who were their allies in the previous film, Breaking Dawn is better than the previous films. While it raises the angst and tension, it does not provide much growth for the actors as they dutifully go through the motions as best they can with the material. While it attempts to be a darker and more mature film, it still comes across as eye candy and fantasy for young women when the story and cast deserved so
much more. That being said, the film stays true to it’s core audience and gives them exactly what they have come to expect and does not stray from what has been a successful formula.
The film opens with awkward, melancholy teen Bella (Kristen Stewart), preparing for her wedding to Edward (Robert Pattinson), as their human and vampire friends assemble for the ceremony. Of course Edward’s rival Jacob (Tayler Lautner), is highly against the union as he still carries a flame for Bella. Nonetheless, the ceremony goes off as planned and Edward whisks Bella away to a remote Brazilian island to consummate their union, which apparently is a tricky endeavor, being that she is still a mortal and he is a century old vampire.
What at first is an ideal honeymoon is soon complicated when Bella and Edward discover an unexpected challenge that threatens Bella’s well-being and poses a threat to the pact between the vampires and werewolves. I will not spoil the film, even though fans of the series and books will not be any strangers to the drama and politics of the situation, but suffice it to say there is a lot on the line for all of the characters involved.
The film was rife with issues, the main one being the atrocious acting. One would think that after three previous films with the same cast, these actors would have developed some timing and chemistry with one another, especially Stewart and Pattinson who are a couple offscreen. Nothing could be further from the truth as they stiffly deliver their lines with pained and remote expressions. I am honestly at a loss as to why Bella is so captivating to both Edward and Jacob
as she is basically a dour girl who looks incredibly uncomfortable in her own skin, and yet the two are utterly captivated by her. I found the supporting cast far more interesting than the heroine and her besotted heroes. Another issue I had was that Pattinson, who got to show his acting ability in “Water for Elephants” is given little to do aside from staring at Bella and doing profile shots.
The first half of the film is basically an MTV-style wedding and honeymoon music video but the second half of the film did manage to grab and hold my attention with the ongoing plot points. It is obvious that the story is being stretched to cover two films as there are numerous unnecessary scenes such as people walking up stairs, throwing things in a garbage can, looking in mirrors, which serve little purpose other than increasing the run time of the film. Of course all of this matters little to fans of the series. The studio knows who the core audience is and the movie panders to them every chance they can, as proven by Lautner doffing his shirt not 60 seconds into the film to the squeals of delight from the teens, tweens and grown women in the audience.
Still, because it pits the Cullens against the werewolves who were their allies in the previous film, Breaking Dawn is better than the previous films. While it raises the angst and tension, it does not provide much growth for the actors as they dutifully go through the motions as best they can with the material. While it attempts to be a darker and more mature film, it still comes across as eye candy and fantasy for young women when the story and cast deserved so
much more. That being said, the film stays true to it’s core audience and gives them exactly what they have come to expect and does not stray from what has been a successful formula.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Fast & Furious 9 (2021) in Movies
Jun 24, 2021
Ridiculous storyline (1 more)
Improbable action
Magnetic bulls**t that will no doubt attract Fast-fans
Positives:
- Glossy locations, fast cars and beautiful women: the usual Fast stuff.
- When the stunts are "real", they are good and exciting. But it's often difficult to tell when there's been a 'computer-assist'.
Negatives:
- I complained in my review for "The Hitman's Wife's Bodyguard" about it having a childish and ludicrous plot. This movie makes that look like bl***y Shakespeare! There's an attempt to add a smidgen of family tension into the mix, based on Dom's childhood trauma. But aside from that element, the 'story' (I use the term in its loosest possible sense) bounces (without any rational logic most of the time) from ludicrous situation to ludicrous situation without pause. Most of these are linked by Ramsey (the very British Nathalie Emmanuel) stating a random fact such as "Well, now he's going to need to launch a satellite". And off we go again. (That particular crazy story arc even sees them 'doing a Musk' and flying a car into space: I kid you not!)
- It's not even the 'big stuff' that's unbelievable. Everywhere you look, there are inconsistencies and things that don't make sense.
-- Tej (played by Ludicris - an appropriate name here) takes dodging a brigade worth of machine gun bullets to nonsensical limits.
-- Generally, the cast gets blasted, dropped, crashed, burned, and otherwise put through more fatal situations than you can imagine, only to walk out without a scratch.
-- And if you can show me a single delivery lorry in Edinburgh that has an automatic gearbox, I'll be amazed!
- At one point, Roman (Tyrese Gibson) mutters some line about "Trusting in the physics and the numbers". Well, let me tell you, it's like no physics that I studied on this planet. A lot of the set pieces involve huge magnets attached to trucks and cars. Now - correct me if I'm wrong - but if you turn a massive magnet on in a truck then as well as ripping the car you are chasing through the adjacent building (as if), you will also force the truck to be pulled into that building too. OK, perhaps not as much.... but the lorry ain't going to stay in its driving lane, I know that much! And magnets attract metal - they don't repel it!
- At 145 minutes, this is well over 2 hours of my life I will never get back.
Summary Thoughts on "F9": It's just such a formulaic and contrived piece of fluff that it makes me cross that they can spend $200,000 on a movie and not make it better. Part of this involves the lazy use of CGI to create obviously nonsensical stunts that devalue true action films. Yes, the stunt team was busy, and impressive, here - but always going for "one better" has led to extensive use of CGI. That's why I liked the 2014 'knock-off' film "Need for Speed" - - at least they did all their stunts old-school, in camera, and not in the computer.
But whatever I say here, this movie will unfortunately get its audience. At the time of writing, it's already made nearly $300K at the box office on its $200K budget. Which means there will inevitably be an F10, no doubt involving a driving battle on the planet Mars. Sigh.
By the way, before you dive for the exits to relieve your bladder (it is 145 minutes after all), there is a mid-credits scene that re-introduces an old favourite.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/06/24/f9-magnetic-bullst-that-will-no-doubt-attract-fast-fans/. Thanks).
- Glossy locations, fast cars and beautiful women: the usual Fast stuff.
- When the stunts are "real", they are good and exciting. But it's often difficult to tell when there's been a 'computer-assist'.
Negatives:
- I complained in my review for "The Hitman's Wife's Bodyguard" about it having a childish and ludicrous plot. This movie makes that look like bl***y Shakespeare! There's an attempt to add a smidgen of family tension into the mix, based on Dom's childhood trauma. But aside from that element, the 'story' (I use the term in its loosest possible sense) bounces (without any rational logic most of the time) from ludicrous situation to ludicrous situation without pause. Most of these are linked by Ramsey (the very British Nathalie Emmanuel) stating a random fact such as "Well, now he's going to need to launch a satellite". And off we go again. (That particular crazy story arc even sees them 'doing a Musk' and flying a car into space: I kid you not!)
- It's not even the 'big stuff' that's unbelievable. Everywhere you look, there are inconsistencies and things that don't make sense.
-- Tej (played by Ludicris - an appropriate name here) takes dodging a brigade worth of machine gun bullets to nonsensical limits.
-- Generally, the cast gets blasted, dropped, crashed, burned, and otherwise put through more fatal situations than you can imagine, only to walk out without a scratch.
-- And if you can show me a single delivery lorry in Edinburgh that has an automatic gearbox, I'll be amazed!
- At one point, Roman (Tyrese Gibson) mutters some line about "Trusting in the physics and the numbers". Well, let me tell you, it's like no physics that I studied on this planet. A lot of the set pieces involve huge magnets attached to trucks and cars. Now - correct me if I'm wrong - but if you turn a massive magnet on in a truck then as well as ripping the car you are chasing through the adjacent building (as if), you will also force the truck to be pulled into that building too. OK, perhaps not as much.... but the lorry ain't going to stay in its driving lane, I know that much! And magnets attract metal - they don't repel it!
- At 145 minutes, this is well over 2 hours of my life I will never get back.
Summary Thoughts on "F9": It's just such a formulaic and contrived piece of fluff that it makes me cross that they can spend $200,000 on a movie and not make it better. Part of this involves the lazy use of CGI to create obviously nonsensical stunts that devalue true action films. Yes, the stunt team was busy, and impressive, here - but always going for "one better" has led to extensive use of CGI. That's why I liked the 2014 'knock-off' film "Need for Speed" - - at least they did all their stunts old-school, in camera, and not in the computer.
But whatever I say here, this movie will unfortunately get its audience. At the time of writing, it's already made nearly $300K at the box office on its $200K budget. Which means there will inevitably be an F10, no doubt involving a driving battle on the planet Mars. Sigh.
By the way, before you dive for the exits to relieve your bladder (it is 145 minutes after all), there is a mid-credits scene that re-introduces an old favourite.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the One Mann's Movies review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2021/06/24/f9-magnetic-bullst-that-will-no-doubt-attract-fast-fans/. Thanks).
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated The Boys - Season 2 in TV
Jan 22, 2021
As I have already stated in my review of season one of The Boys, it is a show that I have found compelling to watch without actually liking or thinking it is necessarily very good. The premise was intriguing, and threw up some pretty interesting dramatic conflicts in the first season. But it was obvious from very early on that this show wanted to make the most of its 18 certificate and use gore, violence and shock tactics to really make fans of those things gasp.
In season two they have taken that key point of difference and turned the volume up to ten! All I remember from it, some three months now since I finished it, is blood, exploding and crushed heads, severed limbs, gross out deaths and lots more blood. Which, you know, turns some people on, but after the first ten times I got pretty sick of it – almost literally – and was just riding it out to the finish mostly.
Performance wise, there isn’t really a stand out, and the writing doesn’t really offer the opportunity (yet) for true emotional depth. Antony Starr, as the deplorably egotistical maniac “hero” Homelander, is the one you love to hate though! Rarely have I found myself wanting a character to get his dues so much! He is utterly loathsome and repulsive, so much credit for that creation. Depending on where they take things in season 3 and beyond, he could emerge as one of the iconic characters of this era of streaming TV.
In terms of story progression, a decent job has been made by introducing Aya Cash as Stormfront, a depraved love interest for Homelander with a big secret and a great plot device. Most of the events have revolved around her introduction, development, backstory reveal and consequences of that on the show’s main man. Meanwhile the storyline around Karl Urban as Billy Butcher becomes more and more forgettable and sometimes irrelevant.
That is the problem with this show really; it has set itself up as being Superheros that are actually assholes vs renegade anti-heros that want to stop them… but, it knows that as soon as that conflict is resolved and satisfied the show is over. So, they drag the story along with very minimal contact as yet between the two. Plenty of inner turmoil within the two groups, but no action as such against one another.
And that is why the build up to this season’s climax felt mostly anti-climactic. Although it did land a half decent cliff-hanger right at the end. I don’t know… I just feel as if it’s a show to let wash over you without that much value in analysing it. And that wash always makes me feel slightly grubbier than I was before. If redemption, conflict and resolution are on the cards they need to get a dose of it into season three, or I will probably lose interest fast.
Amazon Prime has a lot of shows a lot better than this one, but probably none that appeal as much to boys and men under 30. It has its place on the vast entertainment schedule, but personally I am craving more meaning and less of the puerile dependence on gore. However, if that is what its audience talk about, then its gonna increase not decrease. They have set their own bloody bar now and my fear is this is what the future of the show holds: more and more original ways to gross us out. I’d like to be proved wrong, but I don’t feel in a huge rush about it either way.
In season two they have taken that key point of difference and turned the volume up to ten! All I remember from it, some three months now since I finished it, is blood, exploding and crushed heads, severed limbs, gross out deaths and lots more blood. Which, you know, turns some people on, but after the first ten times I got pretty sick of it – almost literally – and was just riding it out to the finish mostly.
Performance wise, there isn’t really a stand out, and the writing doesn’t really offer the opportunity (yet) for true emotional depth. Antony Starr, as the deplorably egotistical maniac “hero” Homelander, is the one you love to hate though! Rarely have I found myself wanting a character to get his dues so much! He is utterly loathsome and repulsive, so much credit for that creation. Depending on where they take things in season 3 and beyond, he could emerge as one of the iconic characters of this era of streaming TV.
In terms of story progression, a decent job has been made by introducing Aya Cash as Stormfront, a depraved love interest for Homelander with a big secret and a great plot device. Most of the events have revolved around her introduction, development, backstory reveal and consequences of that on the show’s main man. Meanwhile the storyline around Karl Urban as Billy Butcher becomes more and more forgettable and sometimes irrelevant.
That is the problem with this show really; it has set itself up as being Superheros that are actually assholes vs renegade anti-heros that want to stop them… but, it knows that as soon as that conflict is resolved and satisfied the show is over. So, they drag the story along with very minimal contact as yet between the two. Plenty of inner turmoil within the two groups, but no action as such against one another.
And that is why the build up to this season’s climax felt mostly anti-climactic. Although it did land a half decent cliff-hanger right at the end. I don’t know… I just feel as if it’s a show to let wash over you without that much value in analysing it. And that wash always makes me feel slightly grubbier than I was before. If redemption, conflict and resolution are on the cards they need to get a dose of it into season three, or I will probably lose interest fast.
Amazon Prime has a lot of shows a lot better than this one, but probably none that appeal as much to boys and men under 30. It has its place on the vast entertainment schedule, but personally I am craving more meaning and less of the puerile dependence on gore. However, if that is what its audience talk about, then its gonna increase not decrease. They have set their own bloody bar now and my fear is this is what the future of the show holds: more and more original ways to gross us out. I’d like to be proved wrong, but I don’t feel in a huge rush about it either way.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Unsolved Mysteries in TV
Jan 22, 2021 (Updated Jan 22, 2021)
It is a guilty secret of mine that when in the right mood I love to get a small fix of the unexplained or the macabre true crime documentary type thing. They tend to range from truly ridiculous to the mildly convincing, but tend not to have especially high production value. Netflix seem to know there is demand for it however, and every now and again there is a mini-series that can live in the same box as the more serious docs.
Making a Murderer was maybe the first to break through into the mainstream consciousness, some five years ago. I watched the first series of that with a morbid fascination, as did everyone else. The second season was interesting too, but lacked the cliffhanger drive of the first. Then there are three or four parters like the superlative Ted Bundy Tapes, which get to the point and don’t out stay their welcome. Unsolved Mysteries is sort of something in the middle.
The twist on this series is that these six stories are all active cases that remain unsolved by local police forces, and we are encouraged at the end of each one to call a hotline with any info that may lead to an arrest. This is a gimmick, of course, and I can’t imagine the calls and emails they have been getting! Those would make a better TV show than this actually is, for sure.
Each episode is an hour long, which in honesty is twice as long as it needs to be in half the cases. In fact, only two of the six captured my imagination enough to give me chills and want to know what happened. The other four were standard missing person stories that although “unsolved” were pretty mundane. As mundane as murder ever gets… which is a pitfall of watching this stuff… it all gets quite normalised and loses its power to disturb, as it should.
The first to interest me was the first up, the strange story of Rey Rivera, known as “the mystery on the rooftop”. The thing that got me was the hidden note taped to the back of his computer, that read like a coded message, and hinted at involvement with a secret society. That, combined with the fact that his fall to death was impossible, and that his boss put a gagging order on all his staff after the event. Whatever this guy had going on in his life it was weird! And his family knew not one thing about it…
The second was “House of Terror”, the story of a French aristocrat who secretly shot his entire family while they slept, carefully buried them under the back porch with immense care, left no other trace of evidence in the house, then disappeared forever into the mountains, seemingly creating a deliberate false trail on CCTV. What got me here was the calculation and calm of it all, combined with the mystery of not knowing his motive, other than the fact he may have been living a lie about how successful he was financially. Regardless, his actions were so cool and unpanicked, it was like watching something out of the Bourne Identity.
As I say, otherwise it is all pretty standard stuff, and nothing to write home about. But I will remember those two cases and be holding out for any new developments in them. I guess that’s all they want – enough intrigue to keep you hooked for more down the line. Of course, you are never quite sure how manipulative with the “truth” these things are? It seemed to be presented soberly and without a sensationalist angle, but you never know. Why do I watch them at all, that is the biggest mystery…
Making a Murderer was maybe the first to break through into the mainstream consciousness, some five years ago. I watched the first series of that with a morbid fascination, as did everyone else. The second season was interesting too, but lacked the cliffhanger drive of the first. Then there are three or four parters like the superlative Ted Bundy Tapes, which get to the point and don’t out stay their welcome. Unsolved Mysteries is sort of something in the middle.
The twist on this series is that these six stories are all active cases that remain unsolved by local police forces, and we are encouraged at the end of each one to call a hotline with any info that may lead to an arrest. This is a gimmick, of course, and I can’t imagine the calls and emails they have been getting! Those would make a better TV show than this actually is, for sure.
Each episode is an hour long, which in honesty is twice as long as it needs to be in half the cases. In fact, only two of the six captured my imagination enough to give me chills and want to know what happened. The other four were standard missing person stories that although “unsolved” were pretty mundane. As mundane as murder ever gets… which is a pitfall of watching this stuff… it all gets quite normalised and loses its power to disturb, as it should.
The first to interest me was the first up, the strange story of Rey Rivera, known as “the mystery on the rooftop”. The thing that got me was the hidden note taped to the back of his computer, that read like a coded message, and hinted at involvement with a secret society. That, combined with the fact that his fall to death was impossible, and that his boss put a gagging order on all his staff after the event. Whatever this guy had going on in his life it was weird! And his family knew not one thing about it…
The second was “House of Terror”, the story of a French aristocrat who secretly shot his entire family while they slept, carefully buried them under the back porch with immense care, left no other trace of evidence in the house, then disappeared forever into the mountains, seemingly creating a deliberate false trail on CCTV. What got me here was the calculation and calm of it all, combined with the mystery of not knowing his motive, other than the fact he may have been living a lie about how successful he was financially. Regardless, his actions were so cool and unpanicked, it was like watching something out of the Bourne Identity.
As I say, otherwise it is all pretty standard stuff, and nothing to write home about. But I will remember those two cases and be holding out for any new developments in them. I guess that’s all they want – enough intrigue to keep you hooked for more down the line. Of course, you are never quite sure how manipulative with the “truth” these things are? It seemed to be presented soberly and without a sensationalist angle, but you never know. Why do I watch them at all, that is the biggest mystery…
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Stan & Ollie (2018) in Movies
Jan 28, 2021
My relationship with Laurel & Hardy is a tentative one. I do enjoy their short films, full of ingenuity and genuinely funny moments. But, they’d be down the list a bit for me on the greatest black and white comedy stars – Chaplin, Keaton, Lloyd, then the Marx Brothers maybe, then the slapstick duo next, maybe. It’s not that I don’t think they are great! They are, they definitely are. I just can’t sit down and take to much of them at once. Maybe because their schtick is very stagey, vaudevillian even, rather than cinematic. And that is because they were primary stage actors and clowns. Not necessarily in that order.
So, my anticipation of a movie about them in 2018 was not huge. I was happy to wait, and it was consigned deep down the watchlist for a while. Until one Sunday evening in October, when it suddenly felt like exactly what I wanted to see that day – a nice, calm biopic that probably had a few laughs and a soppy ending. And that is pretty much what this is. Except that it also has two very very impressive performances from the eponymous leads, the consumately talented John C. Reilly and Steve Coogan.
When I say impressive I mean that at times it feels like you are magically watching the real Oliver Hardy and Stan Laurel. So detailed and well observed are their characterisations that nothing whatsoever (other than maybe the makeup on Reilly’s double chin) strikes you as false. Which helps you invest in their story entirely; told in professional if unspectacular style by Jon S. Baird, who demonstrates an understanding of the people, if not a full understanding of how to make a scene truly fly.
The story here is not a full biopic, but rather a snapshot of the end of their careers, when, amazingly, they embarked on a tour of UK theatres in an attempt to keep working once their film career had lost its shine and popularity. What we see are two older men, once treated as superstars, who are now brought down to earth by all things fading, including their youth. They are bitter and argumentative with each other, and their long suffering wives (played satisfyingly by Shirley Henderson and Nina Arianda). Long stewed resentments come to the surface and the smiles of the clowns are seen at their lowest ebb as things begin to fall apart.
What rings true are the observations of a love / hate friendship that has lasted a full lifetime, and how that affects a working relationship and a public legacy. Jeff Pope, who also worked with Coogan on Philomena, gives us a stoic but often deeply meaningful screenplay here, that isn’t bothered by showing off, in favour of colouring the relationship accurately, which is commendably, and feels quite anti-Hollywood and a bit more British.
The physical gags and set-pieces are also beautifully staged, and look gorgeous, evoking the period superbly. My face was almost permanently smiling, although I can’t remember laughing out loud once. And that is what this film feels like, ultimately – a nice, gentle, Sunday afternoon drive into the past. Your grandparents will love it! Personally, I felt it was fine and dandy, but lacked a spark or two to make it properly come to life.
Watch this if you enjoy great acting that doesn’t need to wave its arms around to get attention. Both Reilly and Coogan are extraordinary! Interestingly, the American was nominated for a Golden Globe over there, and the Brit was nominated for a Bafta over here. Neither won, but they were never going to, as this production is almost embarrassed to announce itself as being good. It is good. Just not amazing. Give it a go when a nice cosy, sleepy mood takes you one day.
So, my anticipation of a movie about them in 2018 was not huge. I was happy to wait, and it was consigned deep down the watchlist for a while. Until one Sunday evening in October, when it suddenly felt like exactly what I wanted to see that day – a nice, calm biopic that probably had a few laughs and a soppy ending. And that is pretty much what this is. Except that it also has two very very impressive performances from the eponymous leads, the consumately talented John C. Reilly and Steve Coogan.
When I say impressive I mean that at times it feels like you are magically watching the real Oliver Hardy and Stan Laurel. So detailed and well observed are their characterisations that nothing whatsoever (other than maybe the makeup on Reilly’s double chin) strikes you as false. Which helps you invest in their story entirely; told in professional if unspectacular style by Jon S. Baird, who demonstrates an understanding of the people, if not a full understanding of how to make a scene truly fly.
The story here is not a full biopic, but rather a snapshot of the end of their careers, when, amazingly, they embarked on a tour of UK theatres in an attempt to keep working once their film career had lost its shine and popularity. What we see are two older men, once treated as superstars, who are now brought down to earth by all things fading, including their youth. They are bitter and argumentative with each other, and their long suffering wives (played satisfyingly by Shirley Henderson and Nina Arianda). Long stewed resentments come to the surface and the smiles of the clowns are seen at their lowest ebb as things begin to fall apart.
What rings true are the observations of a love / hate friendship that has lasted a full lifetime, and how that affects a working relationship and a public legacy. Jeff Pope, who also worked with Coogan on Philomena, gives us a stoic but often deeply meaningful screenplay here, that isn’t bothered by showing off, in favour of colouring the relationship accurately, which is commendably, and feels quite anti-Hollywood and a bit more British.
The physical gags and set-pieces are also beautifully staged, and look gorgeous, evoking the period superbly. My face was almost permanently smiling, although I can’t remember laughing out loud once. And that is what this film feels like, ultimately – a nice, gentle, Sunday afternoon drive into the past. Your grandparents will love it! Personally, I felt it was fine and dandy, but lacked a spark or two to make it properly come to life.
Watch this if you enjoy great acting that doesn’t need to wave its arms around to get attention. Both Reilly and Coogan are extraordinary! Interestingly, the American was nominated for a Golden Globe over there, and the Brit was nominated for a Bafta over here. Neither won, but they were never going to, as this production is almost embarrassed to announce itself as being good. It is good. Just not amazing. Give it a go when a nice cosy, sleepy mood takes you one day.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Fruitvale Station (2013) in Movies
Aug 6, 2020
Here is another movie that was put up for consideration for my upcoming book 21st Century Cinema: 200 Essential Films. It didn’t quite make the final cut, but is part of the long list of honourable mentions – movies that are easy to like and recommend, but aren’t quite of the very highest quality in their respective genres.
Borderline superstar Michael B. Jordan owes his career to Ryan Coogler, which began in earnest in 2013 with the strong effort of true story Fruitvale Station, highlighting the life and final moments of Oscar Grant, who was one of a tragically long list of innocent young men murdered by the police in modern America. Since then he has gone on to star as the eponymous Creed and as the popular Erik Killmonger in Black Panther, making him more or less the most famous black actor under forty currently at work.
I mention him first because having seen the other two films first, I have to admit I wasn’t quite getting it. I mean he is fine in both movies, but nothing world beating. Then you go back to his acheivement in the earlier film and begin to see what he might be capable of given the right scripts. He pretty much embodies Oscar Grant to a degree you believe you are watching a documentary. Which is the major plus point of Ryan Coogler’s direction also.
By pulling us in to the family life of Oscar, as if we were a fly on the wall, we become connected to their story as if we were part of that inner circle, making the inevitable horror of events hit home all the harder. We watch mundane events and conversations take place with a shadow of foreboding that never crosses over into foreshadowing or signposting. The balance is very nicely done.
Melonie Diaz, as girlfriend Sophina, and especially the ever wonderful Octavia Spencer, as loving but grounded mother Wanda, offer solid support, but the camera clings to Jordan by choice, asking us to place ourselves in his shoes and feel the empathy first hand. It is a sober journey, almost totally devoid of directorial flair, which is both a strength and a weakness, ultimately.
With such an awful, heart-rending subject, it can be difficult to remove yourself into a dispassionate view of a film artistically, as the message overpowers your emotions. The best thing that can be said in this case is that the drama never crosses the line of sentimentality or overkill; it merely presents events as they were and asks you to draw your own conclusions. Having said that, I can’t over-praise it simply because the subject needs to be seen, heard, discussed and acted upon with total immediacy in the real world.
This film is already seven years old, and the issues are more pertinent than ever before, as the BLM movement rages all over the world, but especially in the USA, where the culpability and violence of police officers must be addressed and resolved before the loss of one more innocent life. The message delivered by the film is clear and unambiguous – it has to be heeded. And in that sense it is an indespensible film of great power, I would advise you to see.
And with that, it seems a moot point to criticise it, because there isn’t anything negative to say that would say anything useful. I would just say again that it doesn’t quite make the grade of the best 200 films since the Millennium. Whereas, BlacKkKlansman does. An unfair comparison in many ways, but an obvious one in others. See both. Think about them, do what you can, and help make hatred and prejudice a sad fact of history.
Decinemal Rating: 70
Borderline superstar Michael B. Jordan owes his career to Ryan Coogler, which began in earnest in 2013 with the strong effort of true story Fruitvale Station, highlighting the life and final moments of Oscar Grant, who was one of a tragically long list of innocent young men murdered by the police in modern America. Since then he has gone on to star as the eponymous Creed and as the popular Erik Killmonger in Black Panther, making him more or less the most famous black actor under forty currently at work.
I mention him first because having seen the other two films first, I have to admit I wasn’t quite getting it. I mean he is fine in both movies, but nothing world beating. Then you go back to his acheivement in the earlier film and begin to see what he might be capable of given the right scripts. He pretty much embodies Oscar Grant to a degree you believe you are watching a documentary. Which is the major plus point of Ryan Coogler’s direction also.
By pulling us in to the family life of Oscar, as if we were a fly on the wall, we become connected to their story as if we were part of that inner circle, making the inevitable horror of events hit home all the harder. We watch mundane events and conversations take place with a shadow of foreboding that never crosses over into foreshadowing or signposting. The balance is very nicely done.
Melonie Diaz, as girlfriend Sophina, and especially the ever wonderful Octavia Spencer, as loving but grounded mother Wanda, offer solid support, but the camera clings to Jordan by choice, asking us to place ourselves in his shoes and feel the empathy first hand. It is a sober journey, almost totally devoid of directorial flair, which is both a strength and a weakness, ultimately.
With such an awful, heart-rending subject, it can be difficult to remove yourself into a dispassionate view of a film artistically, as the message overpowers your emotions. The best thing that can be said in this case is that the drama never crosses the line of sentimentality or overkill; it merely presents events as they were and asks you to draw your own conclusions. Having said that, I can’t over-praise it simply because the subject needs to be seen, heard, discussed and acted upon with total immediacy in the real world.
This film is already seven years old, and the issues are more pertinent than ever before, as the BLM movement rages all over the world, but especially in the USA, where the culpability and violence of police officers must be addressed and resolved before the loss of one more innocent life. The message delivered by the film is clear and unambiguous – it has to be heeded. And in that sense it is an indespensible film of great power, I would advise you to see.
And with that, it seems a moot point to criticise it, because there isn’t anything negative to say that would say anything useful. I would just say again that it doesn’t quite make the grade of the best 200 films since the Millennium. Whereas, BlacKkKlansman does. An unfair comparison in many ways, but an obvious one in others. See both. Think about them, do what you can, and help make hatred and prejudice a sad fact of history.
Decinemal Rating: 70
Lee (2222 KP) rated The One and Only Ivan (2020) in Movies
Sep 2, 2020
Better than most CGI talking animal Disney movies
Originally scheduled for a cinematic release, but now arriving on Disney+ instead, The One and Only Ivan is the latest in a long line of stories involving CGI animals who can talk, banding together to outsmart us humans in order to escape captivity. Only this one is actually based on a true story.
There were no talking animals in the real version of events this is based on, but there was a silverback gorilla named Ivan,
Stolen as an infant from the rainforests of Congo and made to live in a tiny cage, while regularly putting on a show for visitors to a shopping centre for 27 years in total. This being a Disney movie though, the cruelty of that is glossed over somewhat, with funny animal friends with wacky voices aiming to brighten things up. Although, the message that his captivity was wrong is certainly there for all to see, and hopefully to be appreciated.
Bryan Cranston is Mack, the showman responsible for raising Ivan and making him a star, bristling when enthusiasm and “the show must go on” spirit, despite dwindling audiences and occasional animal illness. From flashbacks, it’s clear that Mack loves Ivan, his passion for raising him having cost him his marriage. But now that Ivan is the star of the show at the mini circus in the mall, complacency has set in, and Mack cannot see that all Ivan now truly wants is his freedom.
In an attempt to try and bring in the crowds, Mack brings in a baby elephant, which takes over top billing status from Ivan, much to his disappointment. Elderly elephant Stella (Angelina Jolie) takes the new baby under her wing, and during some late night storytelling sessions between the animals, we learn that Ivan had a sister back in the jungle, and was actually a budding artist, using mud to paint on rocks. When Julia, young daughter of one of the helping hands at the circus, gives Ivan some of her old crayons and finger paints, Ivan begins drawing again, and is soon moved back up to top billing in the show.
When I first saw the trailer for The One and Only Ivan, I was totally on board. That is, until the animals started talking. I thought the CGI remake of The Lion King last year was just terrible, and the Lady and the Tramp remake which landed on Disney+ earlier this year was even worse. Realistic looking animals simply cannot convey emotions like their traditionally animated counterparts, while retaining their realistic looks. But The One and Only Ivan thankfully feels so different, much better than those movies do. And a lot of that is down to the voice cast.
Sam Rockwell is Ivan. Perfectly cast, he brings a real much needed gravitas to the sombre silverback. Along with the stray dog (Danny DeVito) that visits Ivan’s cage and sleeps on his belly at night, they form a delightful double act, discussing freedom, and the fortunes of the circus. With a lot of time being spent with the animals in their cages, the movie does drag a little at times, but then maybe that’s the whole idea – portraying the solitude and boredom experienced when you do not have your freedom.
As if it wasn’t already clear enough, The One and Only Ivan nicely drives home the important message that animals really shouldn’t be kept in pokey cages for long periods of time, and certainly not for decades either. The end of the movie reminds us that Ivan’s story is actually based on truth, as we’re shown photos of the real Ivan, who stayed with a family before becoming a circus act. Seeing the photos of his eventual release to the vastly improved setting of Atlanta zoo, where he lived out the rest of his days, certainly proves to be very emotional, and a fitting end to a surprisingly enjoyable family movie.
There were no talking animals in the real version of events this is based on, but there was a silverback gorilla named Ivan,
Stolen as an infant from the rainforests of Congo and made to live in a tiny cage, while regularly putting on a show for visitors to a shopping centre for 27 years in total. This being a Disney movie though, the cruelty of that is glossed over somewhat, with funny animal friends with wacky voices aiming to brighten things up. Although, the message that his captivity was wrong is certainly there for all to see, and hopefully to be appreciated.
Bryan Cranston is Mack, the showman responsible for raising Ivan and making him a star, bristling when enthusiasm and “the show must go on” spirit, despite dwindling audiences and occasional animal illness. From flashbacks, it’s clear that Mack loves Ivan, his passion for raising him having cost him his marriage. But now that Ivan is the star of the show at the mini circus in the mall, complacency has set in, and Mack cannot see that all Ivan now truly wants is his freedom.
In an attempt to try and bring in the crowds, Mack brings in a baby elephant, which takes over top billing status from Ivan, much to his disappointment. Elderly elephant Stella (Angelina Jolie) takes the new baby under her wing, and during some late night storytelling sessions between the animals, we learn that Ivan had a sister back in the jungle, and was actually a budding artist, using mud to paint on rocks. When Julia, young daughter of one of the helping hands at the circus, gives Ivan some of her old crayons and finger paints, Ivan begins drawing again, and is soon moved back up to top billing in the show.
When I first saw the trailer for The One and Only Ivan, I was totally on board. That is, until the animals started talking. I thought the CGI remake of The Lion King last year was just terrible, and the Lady and the Tramp remake which landed on Disney+ earlier this year was even worse. Realistic looking animals simply cannot convey emotions like their traditionally animated counterparts, while retaining their realistic looks. But The One and Only Ivan thankfully feels so different, much better than those movies do. And a lot of that is down to the voice cast.
Sam Rockwell is Ivan. Perfectly cast, he brings a real much needed gravitas to the sombre silverback. Along with the stray dog (Danny DeVito) that visits Ivan’s cage and sleeps on his belly at night, they form a delightful double act, discussing freedom, and the fortunes of the circus. With a lot of time being spent with the animals in their cages, the movie does drag a little at times, but then maybe that’s the whole idea – portraying the solitude and boredom experienced when you do not have your freedom.
As if it wasn’t already clear enough, The One and Only Ivan nicely drives home the important message that animals really shouldn’t be kept in pokey cages for long periods of time, and certainly not for decades either. The end of the movie reminds us that Ivan’s story is actually based on truth, as we’re shown photos of the real Ivan, who stayed with a family before becoming a circus act. Seeing the photos of his eventual release to the vastly improved setting of Atlanta zoo, where he lived out the rest of his days, certainly proves to be very emotional, and a fitting end to a surprisingly enjoyable family movie.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated People Just Do Nothing: Big in Japan (2021) in Movies
Aug 20, 2021
Good jokes, most of which land (1 more)
Enough David Brent/Partridge moments to make you cringe
As a PJDN virgin, I still laughed a lot!
It’s brave then that such a relatively niche UK TV show should have a go at ‘jumping the shark’ onto the big screen. Would fans like it? And, just as importantly, would newcomers to the characters, like me, be able to enjoy the film as a standalone entity? The answer to the last question is a qualified “yes”.
Positives:
- It well-surpasses the “6 laugh test” for a comedy. There are some scenes that I found extremely funny, with others that rated highly for me on the David Brent / Alan Partridge scale of cringiness.
- I’ve seen comment that the story is "silly" and “unbelievable”. But having experienced the crazy clash between English and Japanese culture first hand, it strikes me as very true to form! The way in which the Japanese music execs try to stylise the ground as a ‘boy band’ (“Bang Boys”!), which Grindah greedily goes along with, is a nice satire on the music industry asserting its brand over musician’s art.
- A subplot of a love story beween the inept Steves and the cute Japanese translator Ishika (Ayumi Itô) is nicely done and strangely touching.
- The good news is that you don’t need any previous experience of the characters to get fun out of the movie: you can jump right in. That being said though, I’m sure fans of the series will get more out of this than I did.
Negatives:
- While the ending was uplifting, I was itching to know what fallout (or success?) there was from the event we witnessed. Perhaps if its a box office success (unlikely I think!) then there will be a sequel.
Summary Thoughts on “People Just Do Nothing: Big in Japan”: IMDB is littered with disastrous reviews of British TV shows that have tried and failed to make the leap from the small screen to the big screen. “On the Buses”; “Are You Being Served?”; “Steptoe and Son”; “Please Sir”; “Love Thy Neighbour” – the list is endless. They are mostly all horribly unfunny. Even the great “Morecambe and Wise”, although showing occasional moments of brilliance, struggled to fully land any of their three big-screen outings.
The ‘go-to’ of many of these efforts was to “go abroad”: take the well-loved characters and put them into a ‘bigger’ and stranger pool. So “People Just Do Nothing: Big in Japan” was following a well-trodden path here. It’s a tribute to the team and their TV-series director Jack Clough, in his feature debut, that they pretty much pull it off.
I’d like to agree with Kevin Maher of “The Times” that the movie is full of “Japanese stereotypes… drunken businessmen, passive giggling women etc”. But having travelled extensively on business in Japan, it seems pretty close to the mark with its observations to me! More importantly, the film never seems to be particularly derogatory or disrespectful of the culture. For example, they take their shoes off too much!
Key to its box office success will be whether or not it can attract an audience outside of its niche TV fan-bases. As a member of that sub-group, I really wasn’t expecting to enjoy this one, but I actually did. It was good fun, and if you want a good laugh at the cinema – a pretty rare thing – then I’d recommend this one, even if – like me – you haven’t seen the original TV show.
(For the full graphical review, please check out onemannsmovies on the web, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks!)
Positives:
- It well-surpasses the “6 laugh test” for a comedy. There are some scenes that I found extremely funny, with others that rated highly for me on the David Brent / Alan Partridge scale of cringiness.
- I’ve seen comment that the story is "silly" and “unbelievable”. But having experienced the crazy clash between English and Japanese culture first hand, it strikes me as very true to form! The way in which the Japanese music execs try to stylise the ground as a ‘boy band’ (“Bang Boys”!), which Grindah greedily goes along with, is a nice satire on the music industry asserting its brand over musician’s art.
- A subplot of a love story beween the inept Steves and the cute Japanese translator Ishika (Ayumi Itô) is nicely done and strangely touching.
- The good news is that you don’t need any previous experience of the characters to get fun out of the movie: you can jump right in. That being said though, I’m sure fans of the series will get more out of this than I did.
Negatives:
- While the ending was uplifting, I was itching to know what fallout (or success?) there was from the event we witnessed. Perhaps if its a box office success (unlikely I think!) then there will be a sequel.
Summary Thoughts on “People Just Do Nothing: Big in Japan”: IMDB is littered with disastrous reviews of British TV shows that have tried and failed to make the leap from the small screen to the big screen. “On the Buses”; “Are You Being Served?”; “Steptoe and Son”; “Please Sir”; “Love Thy Neighbour” – the list is endless. They are mostly all horribly unfunny. Even the great “Morecambe and Wise”, although showing occasional moments of brilliance, struggled to fully land any of their three big-screen outings.
The ‘go-to’ of many of these efforts was to “go abroad”: take the well-loved characters and put them into a ‘bigger’ and stranger pool. So “People Just Do Nothing: Big in Japan” was following a well-trodden path here. It’s a tribute to the team and their TV-series director Jack Clough, in his feature debut, that they pretty much pull it off.
I’d like to agree with Kevin Maher of “The Times” that the movie is full of “Japanese stereotypes… drunken businessmen, passive giggling women etc”. But having travelled extensively on business in Japan, it seems pretty close to the mark with its observations to me! More importantly, the film never seems to be particularly derogatory or disrespectful of the culture. For example, they take their shoes off too much!
Key to its box office success will be whether or not it can attract an audience outside of its niche TV fan-bases. As a member of that sub-group, I really wasn’t expecting to enjoy this one, but I actually did. It was good fun, and if you want a good laugh at the cinema – a pretty rare thing – then I’d recommend this one, even if – like me – you haven’t seen the original TV show.
(For the full graphical review, please check out onemannsmovies on the web, Facebook and Tiktok. Thanks!)
