Search
Search results
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.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Greyhound (2020) in Movies
Aug 9, 2020
Hanks and Stephen Graham. (1 more)
Tense cat and mouse hunting
Grey but exciting.
Here's a great movie trivia question for you.... which 2020 movies link Claire Duburcq and Elizabeth Shue, and why? The answer is at the end of this review!
The battle of the Atlantic, which ran from 1939 to the end of the war, was a key battleground of World War 2. Failure to supply the European battlefront with fresh supplies and troops from the States would spell certain failure. (The wiki page addressing this is here.) But it's a field of combat that has been relatively overlooked at the movies. Of the handful of feature films, the most famous are that famously stiff-upper-lipped British offering "The Cruel Sea" from 1953 and Wolfgang Petersen's original 1981 U-boat film, "Das Boot", seeing it from the German's side.
Here, the subject gets the full Tom Hanks treatment. Not only does he star in the movie, but he also wrote it, based on the C.S. Forester novel "The Good Shepherd".
We join Captain Krause (Tom Hanks, with a strangely German-sounding name!) on dry land awaiting his beloved Evelyn (Elizabeth Shue) for a proposal. But that's the last dry land we see in the movie, since Krause is captaining the US destroyer "Greyhound" on its maiden voyage to protect a convoy of UK and US ships heading for England. But danger lurks beneath the waves as a pack of U-boats attempt to sink as many vessels as possible.
The issue with a movie about a war-time transatlantic crossing is that the ships are grey, the sky is grey and the sea is grey. It's a monochromatic and rather depressing context for a movie. To combat that, the CGI used to recreate the action needs to be good, and thankfully the film delivers in that department.
Where I had quibbles - and I'm not sure whether this was in Hank's original screenplay or the result of director Aaron Schneider's attempts at "added flair" - was in stopping the action mid-scene for a zoom up above the clouds to see the Aurora Borealis. Unnecessary and distracting.
Where the film really scores is in the tense action sequences. As a viewer, I found myself straining forwards in my seat for the "ping" of the sonar! The cat and mouse games being played out with the hidden foe are certainly well done.... albeit a colleague of mine refuses to watch it because "torpedoes don't bounce off the sides of ships" as shown in the trailer!
Perhaps what might have made the film richer still would have been the view from the German side. Another star name as the 'heard but never seen' mocking U-boat commander might have turned this into even more of a Shakespearean battle-royale.
Overall, this is an enthralling and enjoyable watch that I would recommend. Tom Hanks delivers YET another compelling captain role. It seems to be the rank that he naturally gravitates to.... having the gravitas to command, but not being too far removed from the common man. Here he is supported by the omnipresent Stephen Graham, also equally good.
It's a great shame that this never got the wide-screen cinematic release, because Greyhound deserved it. Who knows, perhaps with cinemas spasmodically opening up, there's still time for a national release. That would be good, and I'd certainly go and see it again on the big screen.
And, by the way, the answer to my trivia question is this film - Greyhound - and 1917. The reason being that in both movies the actresses named were the sole female players within the whole cast.
(For the full graphical review, please visit https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/08/01/one-manns-movies-film-review-greyhound-2020/ .)
The battle of the Atlantic, which ran from 1939 to the end of the war, was a key battleground of World War 2. Failure to supply the European battlefront with fresh supplies and troops from the States would spell certain failure. (The wiki page addressing this is here.) But it's a field of combat that has been relatively overlooked at the movies. Of the handful of feature films, the most famous are that famously stiff-upper-lipped British offering "The Cruel Sea" from 1953 and Wolfgang Petersen's original 1981 U-boat film, "Das Boot", seeing it from the German's side.
Here, the subject gets the full Tom Hanks treatment. Not only does he star in the movie, but he also wrote it, based on the C.S. Forester novel "The Good Shepherd".
We join Captain Krause (Tom Hanks, with a strangely German-sounding name!) on dry land awaiting his beloved Evelyn (Elizabeth Shue) for a proposal. But that's the last dry land we see in the movie, since Krause is captaining the US destroyer "Greyhound" on its maiden voyage to protect a convoy of UK and US ships heading for England. But danger lurks beneath the waves as a pack of U-boats attempt to sink as many vessels as possible.
The issue with a movie about a war-time transatlantic crossing is that the ships are grey, the sky is grey and the sea is grey. It's a monochromatic and rather depressing context for a movie. To combat that, the CGI used to recreate the action needs to be good, and thankfully the film delivers in that department.
Where I had quibbles - and I'm not sure whether this was in Hank's original screenplay or the result of director Aaron Schneider's attempts at "added flair" - was in stopping the action mid-scene for a zoom up above the clouds to see the Aurora Borealis. Unnecessary and distracting.
Where the film really scores is in the tense action sequences. As a viewer, I found myself straining forwards in my seat for the "ping" of the sonar! The cat and mouse games being played out with the hidden foe are certainly well done.... albeit a colleague of mine refuses to watch it because "torpedoes don't bounce off the sides of ships" as shown in the trailer!
Perhaps what might have made the film richer still would have been the view from the German side. Another star name as the 'heard but never seen' mocking U-boat commander might have turned this into even more of a Shakespearean battle-royale.
Overall, this is an enthralling and enjoyable watch that I would recommend. Tom Hanks delivers YET another compelling captain role. It seems to be the rank that he naturally gravitates to.... having the gravitas to command, but not being too far removed from the common man. Here he is supported by the omnipresent Stephen Graham, also equally good.
It's a great shame that this never got the wide-screen cinematic release, because Greyhound deserved it. Who knows, perhaps with cinemas spasmodically opening up, there's still time for a national release. That would be good, and I'd certainly go and see it again on the big screen.
And, by the way, the answer to my trivia question is this film - Greyhound - and 1917. The reason being that in both movies the actresses named were the sole female players within the whole cast.
(For the full graphical review, please visit https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/08/01/one-manns-movies-film-review-greyhound-2020/ .)
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated The New Mutants (2020) in Movies
Aug 29, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
At the time of writing this, The New Mutants has been out in the UK for about 3 days, on preview, and I have already seen a review headed 'The worst X-Men movie yet', I didn't read the review so maybe the reviewer makes some insightful points but, with a lead like that i doubt it.
You see The New Mutants isn't an X-men film, it's set in the (fox? maybe) X-men universe but it's not superheros'/mutants vs other mutants/robots/government, even thought there is a bit of mutants vs baddies.
It is a 'genesis' story, unlike the X-men films, we are seeing the creation of a new team. Like the X-Men films it starts with a new mutant meeting other Mutants.
The 'new mutant' to the New Mutants is Danielle Moonstar, a native American who's reserve and family are destroyed by a tornado leaving her as the only survivor. Danielle wakes up in a hospital to be told of her lose and that the only reason she survived was because she was mutant and she is now in a hospital where she can learn how to use her powers and then she is introduced to the patients/mutants who are at the hospital.
The mutant roster is the New Mutants of the 80's & 90's comics (minus one or two) and the film has a very 80's feel to it.
The New Mutants has a slow start and almost has a 'Breakfast club with powers' feel to it, you have a group of teens who have been placed together and are unable to leave. They sit around and talk about their past and fight and make friends and kiss and fight their worst nightmares and, suddenly your no longer watching 'The Breakfast Club with powers' but 'Nightmare on Elm street 3: the dream warriors, with powers' (Yes I know the kids in Elm Street 3 get powers for a bit but this is different). The Mutants have to team up to fight all sorts of nasties from their pasts, become one cohesive team and find out who is creating the nightmares.
The New Mutants pulls off the 80's teen movie style well but some of the CGI seems a bit off.
Even with the 80's feel we don't actually know when the film is set, the T.V's in the hospital are often showing 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' (the series) so that would imply that it's at least late 90's and the X-Men are mentioned although they are referred to as heroes which doesn't seem to fit elsewhere in the fox universe.
And this, of course is the biggest problem with the film (and it's not the
films fault), New Mutants was started as a Fox film, as part of their X-Men universe but then it got delayed and then fox got brought out by Disney and the film got delayed again (and many thought it would never to see light day.) Then it got released but, the Disney Marvel cinematic Universe doesn't (yet) have mutants (because they were owned by fox ) so it doesn't fit in with any of the Disney films or, as it was finished by Disney it doesn't fit with any X-Men film and so is floating in the strange limbo shared with Legion and the Gifted.
As a stand alone film it is ok however, as Disney had time to re edit it, it makes you wonder why it has been left open, The New Mutants are formed and ready to see what else life can throw at them, is this how mutants are going to be introduce to the Disney-verse or are we just going to be left hanging.
You see The New Mutants isn't an X-men film, it's set in the (fox? maybe) X-men universe but it's not superheros'/mutants vs other mutants/robots/government, even thought there is a bit of mutants vs baddies.
It is a 'genesis' story, unlike the X-men films, we are seeing the creation of a new team. Like the X-Men films it starts with a new mutant meeting other Mutants.
The 'new mutant' to the New Mutants is Danielle Moonstar, a native American who's reserve and family are destroyed by a tornado leaving her as the only survivor. Danielle wakes up in a hospital to be told of her lose and that the only reason she survived was because she was mutant and she is now in a hospital where she can learn how to use her powers and then she is introduced to the patients/mutants who are at the hospital.
The mutant roster is the New Mutants of the 80's & 90's comics (minus one or two) and the film has a very 80's feel to it.
The New Mutants has a slow start and almost has a 'Breakfast club with powers' feel to it, you have a group of teens who have been placed together and are unable to leave. They sit around and talk about their past and fight and make friends and kiss and fight their worst nightmares and, suddenly your no longer watching 'The Breakfast Club with powers' but 'Nightmare on Elm street 3: the dream warriors, with powers' (Yes I know the kids in Elm Street 3 get powers for a bit but this is different). The Mutants have to team up to fight all sorts of nasties from their pasts, become one cohesive team and find out who is creating the nightmares.
The New Mutants pulls off the 80's teen movie style well but some of the CGI seems a bit off.
Even with the 80's feel we don't actually know when the film is set, the T.V's in the hospital are often showing 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' (the series) so that would imply that it's at least late 90's and the X-Men are mentioned although they are referred to as heroes which doesn't seem to fit elsewhere in the fox universe.
And this, of course is the biggest problem with the film (and it's not the
films fault), New Mutants was started as a Fox film, as part of their X-Men universe but then it got delayed and then fox got brought out by Disney and the film got delayed again (and many thought it would never to see light day.) Then it got released but, the Disney Marvel cinematic Universe doesn't (yet) have mutants (because they were owned by fox ) so it doesn't fit in with any of the Disney films or, as it was finished by Disney it doesn't fit with any X-Men film and so is floating in the strange limbo shared with Legion and the Gifted.
As a stand alone film it is ok however, as Disney had time to re edit it, it makes you wonder why it has been left open, The New Mutants are formed and ready to see what else life can throw at them, is this how mutants are going to be introduce to the Disney-verse or are we just going to be left hanging.
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!)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Lady Bird (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“What if this is the best version”.
When did you grow up? I am now 57, and I’m still “working towards”! I remember distinctly though at the age of 16 thinking “I’ve got there”. And then again at 18. And then again at 21. And then again at 25…. There is something sweet about the certainty of youth that only life’s ultimate experiences can roughen the edges of.
“Lady Bird”, the directorial debut of Greta Gerwig, features one such teen who thinks she knows it all. Looking and acting for all the world like a 15 year old (something that Margot Robbie really can’t pull off in “I, Tonya”) Saoirse Ronan plays Christine McPherson who has the given name (“I gave the name to myself”) of ‘Lady Bird’. She is struggling with a lot of issues: an unreasonable and overbearing (parents: read ‘perfectly reasonably but firm’) mother (Laurie Metcalf, “Roseanne”); the issues of puberty and young love; the constrictions of a Catholic school she despises; and her inability to perform to the grades she needs to get into a college of her choice. That choice being on the East coast as far away from the backwater of Sacremento (“the mid-west of California” – LoL) as she can get.
Love comes in the form of two serial male fixations: the gorgeous and artistic Danny (Lucas Hedges, “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri”, “Manchester By The Sea”) and the aloof and enigmatic Kyle (Timothée Chalamet, “Call Me By Your Name”).
This is a near perfect coming of age film. The plot, while fairly superficial and covering ground well-trodden before, fully engages you and makes the running time just fly by. And there is just so much talent on show. The script by Gerwig is chocker-block full of great and memorable lines; Ronan is pitch-perfect as the irascible and cock-sure teen; Tracy Letts (“The Post“) is magnificent in the less showy role as the “good cop” dad, struggling invisibly with his own demons; and Metcalf gives an Oscar-nominated performance that really should give Alison Janney a run for her money… a drive away from an airport conveys just perfectly every college-age parent’s emotional low-point.
Where perhaps the film overplays its hand a bit is in the “wrong side of the tracks” line. The household while struggling is by no means trailer-park poor (compare and contrast with “I, Tonya”): perhaps this is the depths of financial desperation found in Sacremento? But I doubt it… there still seems to be money available for fancy cowgirl outfits.
Which leads me to the rating, which seems to have been a common rant in the last few weeks. I would have thought that there was nothing like this film to turn the mirror of reasonableness on a young teen, perhaps helping them to treat their parents better, work harder for college or make better choices. Yet it has a UK 15 certificate. And for what? There is a full frontal male photo-spread in “Playgirl” (I want to say “it’s a penis, get over it”, but if forced I would have frankly just snipped the 50 milliseconds out to get the lower rating). And there are a few (only a few) F- and C- words. I have the same problem here as with “Phantom Thread” – here is a high-class film that a young teen audience would absolutely love to see. I think the BBFC have got it wrong again here.
I cannot recommend this film enough: a tale of teenage life love and resolution that is hard to beat. Possibly one of the best coming of age tales I’ve ever seen. On the basis that it looks like I will never get to see “Call Me By Your Name” – the only major one I’ve missed – before this Sunday’s Oscar ceremony, what a great way to round off my Oscar-viewing season.
“Lady Bird”, the directorial debut of Greta Gerwig, features one such teen who thinks she knows it all. Looking and acting for all the world like a 15 year old (something that Margot Robbie really can’t pull off in “I, Tonya”) Saoirse Ronan plays Christine McPherson who has the given name (“I gave the name to myself”) of ‘Lady Bird’. She is struggling with a lot of issues: an unreasonable and overbearing (parents: read ‘perfectly reasonably but firm’) mother (Laurie Metcalf, “Roseanne”); the issues of puberty and young love; the constrictions of a Catholic school she despises; and her inability to perform to the grades she needs to get into a college of her choice. That choice being on the East coast as far away from the backwater of Sacremento (“the mid-west of California” – LoL) as she can get.
Love comes in the form of two serial male fixations: the gorgeous and artistic Danny (Lucas Hedges, “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri”, “Manchester By The Sea”) and the aloof and enigmatic Kyle (Timothée Chalamet, “Call Me By Your Name”).
This is a near perfect coming of age film. The plot, while fairly superficial and covering ground well-trodden before, fully engages you and makes the running time just fly by. And there is just so much talent on show. The script by Gerwig is chocker-block full of great and memorable lines; Ronan is pitch-perfect as the irascible and cock-sure teen; Tracy Letts (“The Post“) is magnificent in the less showy role as the “good cop” dad, struggling invisibly with his own demons; and Metcalf gives an Oscar-nominated performance that really should give Alison Janney a run for her money… a drive away from an airport conveys just perfectly every college-age parent’s emotional low-point.
Where perhaps the film overplays its hand a bit is in the “wrong side of the tracks” line. The household while struggling is by no means trailer-park poor (compare and contrast with “I, Tonya”): perhaps this is the depths of financial desperation found in Sacremento? But I doubt it… there still seems to be money available for fancy cowgirl outfits.
Which leads me to the rating, which seems to have been a common rant in the last few weeks. I would have thought that there was nothing like this film to turn the mirror of reasonableness on a young teen, perhaps helping them to treat their parents better, work harder for college or make better choices. Yet it has a UK 15 certificate. And for what? There is a full frontal male photo-spread in “Playgirl” (I want to say “it’s a penis, get over it”, but if forced I would have frankly just snipped the 50 milliseconds out to get the lower rating). And there are a few (only a few) F- and C- words. I have the same problem here as with “Phantom Thread” – here is a high-class film that a young teen audience would absolutely love to see. I think the BBFC have got it wrong again here.
I cannot recommend this film enough: a tale of teenage life love and resolution that is hard to beat. Possibly one of the best coming of age tales I’ve ever seen. On the basis that it looks like I will never get to see “Call Me By Your Name” – the only major one I’ve missed – before this Sunday’s Oscar ceremony, what a great way to round off my Oscar-viewing season.
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?
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Army of Thieves (2021) in Movies
Nov 4, 2021
“Did He Just Say Gulp?”
I have Covid-19, and am confined to quarters. So time to catch up on some streaming films. New on Netflix is “Army of Thieves”, a quirky prequel, of sorts, to Zac Snyder’s “Army of the Dead“.
Plot Summary:
Sebastian Schlencht-Wöhnert (Matthias Schweighöfer) is a geek obsessed with the work of legendary safe-manufacturer Hans Wagner whose magnum opus was a series of four intricate safes named after the four parts of his namesake’s Ring cycle: The Rhinegold, The Valkyrie, Siegfried and Götterdämmerung.
Seeking more the glory of cracking the legendary safes (rather than the riches within), high-class jewel-thief Gwendoline (Nathalie Emmanuel) teams with Sebastian to crack the three known safes (in Paris, Prague and St Moritz) before they are officially ‘retired’. Together with Korina (Ruby O. Fee), muscle-man Brad (Stuart Martin) and getaway driver Rolph (Guz Khan) the gang try to stay one step ahead of obsessed Interpol agent Delacroix (Jonathan Cohen).
Certification:
US: TV-MA. UK: 15.
Talent:
Starring: Matthias Schweighöfer, Nathalie Emmanuel, Ruby O. Fee, Stuart Martin, Guz Khan, Jonathan Cohen.
Directed by: Matthias Schweighöfer.
Written by: Shay Hatten (from a story by Shay Hatten and Zack Snyder).
“Army of Thieves” Review: Positives:
I really wasn’t expecting much from this offering. For me, the character of Dieter in “Army of the Dead” was an annoyingly quirky comedy character in a zombie-actioner that you just wanted to punch in the face…. repeatedly. But in contrast, this Dieter-centric film is deliberately quirky throughout and it just all worked for me. Under his own direction, Schweighöfer’s Sebastian/Dieter becomes a genuinely quirky, lovelorn and loveable loser that you want to root for.
The look and feel of the film is utterly glorious. The wonderful cinematography by Bernhard Jasper makes the introduction to the European locations feel Bond-like and the combination of Production Design and Special Effects make the safe-cracking scenes tense, dynamic and beautiful to watch. It’s all nicely rounded off by a quirky Steve Mazzaro / Hans Zimmer score.
Shay Hatten’s script delivers a nice balance of action and exposition. It actually – shock horror – takes time to flesh out some character behind the generic heist-movie stereotypes. Setting the movie in the same timeline as the emerging Nevada zombie-apocalypse as “Army of the Dead” is neat: (although those expecting extensive zombie-action will feel short-changed). And having the Las Vegas safe as the mythical Götterdämmerung is a nice touch. Above all – “SURPRISE!!!” – the script surpassed the essential six-laughs test.
The acting is above par, with Schweighöfer putting in a fabulous turn and the stunningly beautiful Nathalie Emmanuel (best known for being Ramsey in the Fast and Furious series) gets to be a lot more than mere window-dressing here. Stuart Martin is notable here for looking astonishingly like Hugh Jackman…. I mean, really, they could be twins.
Negatives:
I mean, honestly, there are more holes in this story than a St Moritz swiss-cheese. Why would all of the safes, owned by different private institutions, be being “decommissioned” due to a Zombie outbreak on the other side of the world? Can the Interpol team really be that incompetent? And however clever he is, I don’t buy that you can open safes like that!
Although I liked the balance of the script overall, the story is pretty simplistic and linear.
Summary Thoughts on “Army of Thieves”
Sometimes a little movie appears that surprises and delights you, and this was one of those for me. It’s not big and it’s not clever. But it is very nicely made, thoroughly entertained me and was – for me – way better than its source movie. A recommended watch on Netflix.
Plot Summary:
Sebastian Schlencht-Wöhnert (Matthias Schweighöfer) is a geek obsessed with the work of legendary safe-manufacturer Hans Wagner whose magnum opus was a series of four intricate safes named after the four parts of his namesake’s Ring cycle: The Rhinegold, The Valkyrie, Siegfried and Götterdämmerung.
Seeking more the glory of cracking the legendary safes (rather than the riches within), high-class jewel-thief Gwendoline (Nathalie Emmanuel) teams with Sebastian to crack the three known safes (in Paris, Prague and St Moritz) before they are officially ‘retired’. Together with Korina (Ruby O. Fee), muscle-man Brad (Stuart Martin) and getaway driver Rolph (Guz Khan) the gang try to stay one step ahead of obsessed Interpol agent Delacroix (Jonathan Cohen).
Certification:
US: TV-MA. UK: 15.
Talent:
Starring: Matthias Schweighöfer, Nathalie Emmanuel, Ruby O. Fee, Stuart Martin, Guz Khan, Jonathan Cohen.
Directed by: Matthias Schweighöfer.
Written by: Shay Hatten (from a story by Shay Hatten and Zack Snyder).
“Army of Thieves” Review: Positives:
I really wasn’t expecting much from this offering. For me, the character of Dieter in “Army of the Dead” was an annoyingly quirky comedy character in a zombie-actioner that you just wanted to punch in the face…. repeatedly. But in contrast, this Dieter-centric film is deliberately quirky throughout and it just all worked for me. Under his own direction, Schweighöfer’s Sebastian/Dieter becomes a genuinely quirky, lovelorn and loveable loser that you want to root for.
The look and feel of the film is utterly glorious. The wonderful cinematography by Bernhard Jasper makes the introduction to the European locations feel Bond-like and the combination of Production Design and Special Effects make the safe-cracking scenes tense, dynamic and beautiful to watch. It’s all nicely rounded off by a quirky Steve Mazzaro / Hans Zimmer score.
Shay Hatten’s script delivers a nice balance of action and exposition. It actually – shock horror – takes time to flesh out some character behind the generic heist-movie stereotypes. Setting the movie in the same timeline as the emerging Nevada zombie-apocalypse as “Army of the Dead” is neat: (although those expecting extensive zombie-action will feel short-changed). And having the Las Vegas safe as the mythical Götterdämmerung is a nice touch. Above all – “SURPRISE!!!” – the script surpassed the essential six-laughs test.
The acting is above par, with Schweighöfer putting in a fabulous turn and the stunningly beautiful Nathalie Emmanuel (best known for being Ramsey in the Fast and Furious series) gets to be a lot more than mere window-dressing here. Stuart Martin is notable here for looking astonishingly like Hugh Jackman…. I mean, really, they could be twins.
Negatives:
I mean, honestly, there are more holes in this story than a St Moritz swiss-cheese. Why would all of the safes, owned by different private institutions, be being “decommissioned” due to a Zombie outbreak on the other side of the world? Can the Interpol team really be that incompetent? And however clever he is, I don’t buy that you can open safes like that!
Although I liked the balance of the script overall, the story is pretty simplistic and linear.
Summary Thoughts on “Army of Thieves”
Sometimes a little movie appears that surprises and delights you, and this was one of those for me. It’s not big and it’s not clever. But it is very nicely made, thoroughly entertained me and was – for me – way better than its source movie. A recommended watch on Netflix.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Venom: Let There Be Carnage (2021) in Movies
Oct 28, 2021
Lots of hens… but turkeys would be more appropriate.
I was not a great fan of the original Venom, although I did find aspects of it to like. Unfortunately, for me, the sequel – “Venom: Let There Be Carnage” – delivered even less. And I found aspects of it positively distasteful.
Plot Summary:
Eddie Brock (Tom Hardy) is living uncomfortably in San Francisco with his symbiotic friend Venom. Anne (Michelle Williams), his ex-girlfriend, and her new fiancee Dan (Reid Scott) are keeping his secret.
With Venom’s help, Eddie gets the evidence needed to send the psychopathic mass murderer Cletus Kasady (Woody Harrelson) to the electric chair. But with a lost love, Frances (Naomie Harris), to rescue and a burning desire for revenge against Brock and Detective Mulligan (Stephen Graham) who captured him, Kasady is not going to go quietly into the night.
Certification:
US: PG-13. UK: 15.
Talent:
Starring: Tom Hardy, Michelle Williams, Woody Harrelson, Naomie Harris, Reid Scott, Stephen Graham.
Directed by: Andy Serkis.
Written by: Kelly Marcel and Tom Hardy.
“Venom: Let There Be Carnage” Review: Positives:
While most of the cast seem to be doing sequel-paint-by-numbers, I thought Naomie Harris was superb as the shrieking ‘X-woman-style’ villain. (I’m embarrassed to say that it took me until the end titles to realise she WAS Naomie Harris!)
Some of the comedy lines between Brock and Venom made me chuckle.
Negatives:
My main beef was with the script and that came down to two primary issues:
Firstly, virtually nothing happens. It’s not too much of an understatement to say that the whole plot can be summarized as a) a villain is introduced; b) the villain teams with another villain and c) Venom defeats them. It’s just all so bland and linear, without any sort of discernable story arc.
For a movie pitched more at the comedy end of the Marvel spectrum, the script is unpleasantly violent. (And, yes, before Marvel fan-boys attack me with comments, I know that this Sony/Marvel offering is NOT part of the official universe). There are numerous points at which I thought “Ugh!” and a nasty taste entered my mouth: the butchering of a ‘Family man’ prison guard, pleading for his life; the brains of a very polite young grocery store boy being senselessly smashed in; and the massacre of a priest in his own cathedral. (Actually, I have no idea what happened with the priest during the “power-up” scene – – a cut by the censors perhaps?) My issue is that, tonally speaking, there is a horrible mismatch between these unnecessarily violent scenes and the lighthearted and flippant nature of the rest. It’s like putting a vicious gang-bang rape in the middle of “Ant Man“.
Sorry. I know he has a lot of fans, but I’m not a great fan of Tom Hardy’s acting style here. “Legend” proved what class he could deliver. But this performance seems to be streets away from that. An acting colleague last week commented that he was looking forward to the interactions between Hardy and Harrelson. But I found both to be underwhelming.
I found the visual effects for the emerged Venom to be utterly unconvincing. There were times when it looked like nothing more than a puppet on strings.
I’m normally a fan of Marco Beltrami‘s scores. But I found the music in here to be intrusive and distracting. And that’s before some (to my ears) pretty awful rap-based tracks over the closing titles.
Summary Thoughts on “Venom: Let There Be Carnage”
You’ll already judge from my balance of comments that this one just didn’t work for me. Even as a “park your brain at the door” action movie, I thought it felt lazy and lacklustre.
My advice? Save your money and go and watch “The Last Duel” instead.
Plot Summary:
Eddie Brock (Tom Hardy) is living uncomfortably in San Francisco with his symbiotic friend Venom. Anne (Michelle Williams), his ex-girlfriend, and her new fiancee Dan (Reid Scott) are keeping his secret.
With Venom’s help, Eddie gets the evidence needed to send the psychopathic mass murderer Cletus Kasady (Woody Harrelson) to the electric chair. But with a lost love, Frances (Naomie Harris), to rescue and a burning desire for revenge against Brock and Detective Mulligan (Stephen Graham) who captured him, Kasady is not going to go quietly into the night.
Certification:
US: PG-13. UK: 15.
Talent:
Starring: Tom Hardy, Michelle Williams, Woody Harrelson, Naomie Harris, Reid Scott, Stephen Graham.
Directed by: Andy Serkis.
Written by: Kelly Marcel and Tom Hardy.
“Venom: Let There Be Carnage” Review: Positives:
While most of the cast seem to be doing sequel-paint-by-numbers, I thought Naomie Harris was superb as the shrieking ‘X-woman-style’ villain. (I’m embarrassed to say that it took me until the end titles to realise she WAS Naomie Harris!)
Some of the comedy lines between Brock and Venom made me chuckle.
Negatives:
My main beef was with the script and that came down to two primary issues:
Firstly, virtually nothing happens. It’s not too much of an understatement to say that the whole plot can be summarized as a) a villain is introduced; b) the villain teams with another villain and c) Venom defeats them. It’s just all so bland and linear, without any sort of discernable story arc.
For a movie pitched more at the comedy end of the Marvel spectrum, the script is unpleasantly violent. (And, yes, before Marvel fan-boys attack me with comments, I know that this Sony/Marvel offering is NOT part of the official universe). There are numerous points at which I thought “Ugh!” and a nasty taste entered my mouth: the butchering of a ‘Family man’ prison guard, pleading for his life; the brains of a very polite young grocery store boy being senselessly smashed in; and the massacre of a priest in his own cathedral. (Actually, I have no idea what happened with the priest during the “power-up” scene – – a cut by the censors perhaps?) My issue is that, tonally speaking, there is a horrible mismatch between these unnecessarily violent scenes and the lighthearted and flippant nature of the rest. It’s like putting a vicious gang-bang rape in the middle of “Ant Man“.
Sorry. I know he has a lot of fans, but I’m not a great fan of Tom Hardy’s acting style here. “Legend” proved what class he could deliver. But this performance seems to be streets away from that. An acting colleague last week commented that he was looking forward to the interactions between Hardy and Harrelson. But I found both to be underwhelming.
I found the visual effects for the emerged Venom to be utterly unconvincing. There were times when it looked like nothing more than a puppet on strings.
I’m normally a fan of Marco Beltrami‘s scores. But I found the music in here to be intrusive and distracting. And that’s before some (to my ears) pretty awful rap-based tracks over the closing titles.
Summary Thoughts on “Venom: Let There Be Carnage”
You’ll already judge from my balance of comments that this one just didn’t work for me. Even as a “park your brain at the door” action movie, I thought it felt lazy and lacklustre.
My advice? Save your money and go and watch “The Last Duel” instead.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Last Duel (2021) in Movies
Oct 28, 2021
Three nuanced perspectives on a winter’s tale.
In Ridley Scott’s new movie “The Last Duel” we are in the late 14th century in France. And – apart from in one scene – it appears to be perpetual winter!
Plot Summary:
Widowed Jean de Carrouges (Matt Damon) is a battle-hardened warrior, loyal to King Charles VI of France (Alex Lawther). He is becoming progressively estranged from his one-time friend Jacques Le Gris (Adam Driver), a personal favourite of Normandy ruler Pierre d’Alençon (Ben Affleck).
But Carrouges’ lovely new wife Marguerite (Jodie Comer) accuses Le Gris of a terrible crime. But who is telling the truth? Only God can decide, as Carrouges and Le Gris must duel to the death.
Certification:
US: R. UK: 18.
Talent:
Starring: Jodie Comer, Matt Damon, Adam Driver, Ben Affleck.
Directed by: Ridley Scott.
Written by: Matt Damon, Ben Affleck and Nicole Holofcener.
“The Last Duel” Review: Positives:
It’s an intriguing script – the first collaboration between Damon and Affleck since their Oscar-winning “Good Will Hunting” from 25 years ago. It presents 3 different versions of “the truth” from three different perspectives. (One of these – Marguerite’s version – is suggested as being the ‘actual’ truth through a clever delayed fade of the chapter title). Many of the same scenes are repeated in each variant: sometimes with obvious differences in fact; sometimes with the slightest nuance of tone or expression; and sometimes with no change to the visuals, but with the benefit of hearing the dialogue being spoken. Very clever.
“Killing Eve”‘s Jodie Comer is just brilliant here. She is the master of nuanced expression, and she genuinely deserves an Oscar nomination for this work. Combined with her great and fun role in the surprise summer hit “Free Guy“, Comer is surely on a path to movie acting greatness.
Damon, Driver and Affleck also have great fun with their roles: they are all eminently watchable and this is a study in acting greatness. But I particularly loved Alex Lawther’s turn as the king: all excitable childish power in the body of a young adult.
Battle scenes and the final duel are delivered in visceral nature reminiscent of Ridley Scott’s famous battle and arena scenes in “Gladiator”.
Excellent production design and special effects on show here. Another Oscar nomination perhaps? The movie was filmed in the Dordogne region of France and also – after a 2020 Covid lockdown – in Ireland.
Negatives:
At two and a half hours it’s another long film (is October 2021 designated long film month??). And although the nuances between the different versions of reality are fascinating, there’s a degree of tedium involved in rehashing the same scenes (in some cases) for the third time. Arguably I think a few of these re-versions could have been omitted to reduce the bladder-testing run time.
Summary Thoughts on “The Last Duel”
This is Ridley Scott back on top form again. I found this a gripping watch. As the film opens, we are teased with the start of the ‘boss level’ duel between Damon and Driver. But these final dramatic scenes are the emotional lynchpin of the movie since only then do you understand the background and the ramifications of the fight.
Evidently, 14th Century France was NOT a great time for sexual equality. Women were merely chattels, denied not only fair play and self-determination, but also the bedroom niceties of foreplay and, in most cases, orgasms. As the story was based on real events, the courage and determination of Marguerite of Carrouges were extraordinary. And Jodie Comer’s portrayal of her wonderfully demonstrates, yet again, why she is the UK’s most exciting acting export for many years.
Plot Summary:
Widowed Jean de Carrouges (Matt Damon) is a battle-hardened warrior, loyal to King Charles VI of France (Alex Lawther). He is becoming progressively estranged from his one-time friend Jacques Le Gris (Adam Driver), a personal favourite of Normandy ruler Pierre d’Alençon (Ben Affleck).
But Carrouges’ lovely new wife Marguerite (Jodie Comer) accuses Le Gris of a terrible crime. But who is telling the truth? Only God can decide, as Carrouges and Le Gris must duel to the death.
Certification:
US: R. UK: 18.
Talent:
Starring: Jodie Comer, Matt Damon, Adam Driver, Ben Affleck.
Directed by: Ridley Scott.
Written by: Matt Damon, Ben Affleck and Nicole Holofcener.
“The Last Duel” Review: Positives:
It’s an intriguing script – the first collaboration between Damon and Affleck since their Oscar-winning “Good Will Hunting” from 25 years ago. It presents 3 different versions of “the truth” from three different perspectives. (One of these – Marguerite’s version – is suggested as being the ‘actual’ truth through a clever delayed fade of the chapter title). Many of the same scenes are repeated in each variant: sometimes with obvious differences in fact; sometimes with the slightest nuance of tone or expression; and sometimes with no change to the visuals, but with the benefit of hearing the dialogue being spoken. Very clever.
“Killing Eve”‘s Jodie Comer is just brilliant here. She is the master of nuanced expression, and she genuinely deserves an Oscar nomination for this work. Combined with her great and fun role in the surprise summer hit “Free Guy“, Comer is surely on a path to movie acting greatness.
Damon, Driver and Affleck also have great fun with their roles: they are all eminently watchable and this is a study in acting greatness. But I particularly loved Alex Lawther’s turn as the king: all excitable childish power in the body of a young adult.
Battle scenes and the final duel are delivered in visceral nature reminiscent of Ridley Scott’s famous battle and arena scenes in “Gladiator”.
Excellent production design and special effects on show here. Another Oscar nomination perhaps? The movie was filmed in the Dordogne region of France and also – after a 2020 Covid lockdown – in Ireland.
Negatives:
At two and a half hours it’s another long film (is October 2021 designated long film month??). And although the nuances between the different versions of reality are fascinating, there’s a degree of tedium involved in rehashing the same scenes (in some cases) for the third time. Arguably I think a few of these re-versions could have been omitted to reduce the bladder-testing run time.
Summary Thoughts on “The Last Duel”
This is Ridley Scott back on top form again. I found this a gripping watch. As the film opens, we are teased with the start of the ‘boss level’ duel between Damon and Driver. But these final dramatic scenes are the emotional lynchpin of the movie since only then do you understand the background and the ramifications of the fight.
Evidently, 14th Century France was NOT a great time for sexual equality. Women were merely chattels, denied not only fair play and self-determination, but also the bedroom niceties of foreplay and, in most cases, orgasms. As the story was based on real events, the courage and determination of Marguerite of Carrouges were extraordinary. And Jodie Comer’s portrayal of her wonderfully demonstrates, yet again, why she is the UK’s most exciting acting export for many years.
mostlyinpyjamas (13 KP) rated It Only Happens in the Movies in Books
Nov 25, 2017
Another cracker by Holly Bourne
The blurb; Audrey is over romance. Since her parents relationship imploded her mother’s been catatonic, so she takes a cinema job to get out of the house. But there she meets wannabe film-maker Harry.
Nobody expects Audrey and Harry to fall in love as hard and fast as they do. But that doesn’t mean things are easy.
Because real love isn’t like the movies…The greatest love story ever told doesn’t feature kissing in the snow, or racing to airports. It features pain and confusion and hope and wonder, and a ban on cheesy clichés. Oh, and Zombies.
~
I’m a huge fan of Holly Bourne, and with It only happens in the movies she has written another cracker!
It only happens in the movies challenges all those cliches from romantic movies, and the message they give about what love and relationships are like.
Audrey is instantly likeable, positive feminist characters are exactly what’s needed and Holly Bourne writes them so well. Audrey is getting over being dumped after having sex for the first time, trying to cope with her mum having a breakdown, and she’s been distant from her friends since her break up, her life is messy – and then she meets Harry.
Harry, with a reputation for being a player! He doesn’t always understand Audrey’s point of view, and he says the wrong things …
‘You’re not like other girls, are you?
but I like Harry. He tries!
In chapter 25, Audrey and her friend Alice talk about first time sex in a refreshingly honest way and this is, in my opinion, such an important thing to see in young adult books. Some girls, for whatever reason, don’t have someone they can talk about these things with, and I feel that it’s such a good thing that authors such as Holly Bourne are putting it out there.
I’ve read a number of feminist YA books this week, and I’m so pleased that they are being written. Conversations about consent, sexism, misogyny and rape culture are so important and these books help to get the message out there.
Excerpt from the book ; Men in films regularly kiss women who don’t want to be kissed. And those are supposed to be the good kisses. Either the woman is taken by surprise, or storming off in a mood, or having a huge go at them, or is engaged to somebody else, or claims she’s just plain Not Interested. And,how do men in movies respond to this clear instruction of “no”? They grab the woman’s face, and kiss her anyway. Roughly. Using their masculine force. And rather than being slapped or even arrested, these movie men are rewarded for their… well… sexual violence. The women “give into” the kiss after a brief moment of fighting it. You see, according to Hollywood, these women wanted to be kissed all along. It was just the male lead’s job to break through the barriers. Barriers like WILFUL CONSENT. Outside Hollywood movies, there is a term for being kissed against your will. This term isn’t “spontaneous” or “romantic” or “passionate”. No, it’s called sexual assault. It’s a crime punishable in the UK by up to ten years in prison.
~
Holly Bourne writes about feminist issues without being patronising and without telling her readers that we should hate all men.
If I’ve made it sound at all like It only happens in the movies is all feminist messages and no story then I must add that it’s entirely not that at all.
I enjoyed the story so much that I read it over a weekend, staying up far too late because I just couldn’t put it down. There’s plenty of drama, humour, and some lovely, touching moments! The ending – although it was perfect – exactly the way this story was meant to end – broke me. I cried actual tears.
Love isn’t just a feeling. Love is a choice too. And you may not be able to help your feelings, but you are responsible for the choices you make about what to do with them. (From It only happens in the movies).
Nobody expects Audrey and Harry to fall in love as hard and fast as they do. But that doesn’t mean things are easy.
Because real love isn’t like the movies…The greatest love story ever told doesn’t feature kissing in the snow, or racing to airports. It features pain and confusion and hope and wonder, and a ban on cheesy clichés. Oh, and Zombies.
~
I’m a huge fan of Holly Bourne, and with It only happens in the movies she has written another cracker!
It only happens in the movies challenges all those cliches from romantic movies, and the message they give about what love and relationships are like.
Audrey is instantly likeable, positive feminist characters are exactly what’s needed and Holly Bourne writes them so well. Audrey is getting over being dumped after having sex for the first time, trying to cope with her mum having a breakdown, and she’s been distant from her friends since her break up, her life is messy – and then she meets Harry.
Harry, with a reputation for being a player! He doesn’t always understand Audrey’s point of view, and he says the wrong things …
‘You’re not like other girls, are you?
but I like Harry. He tries!
In chapter 25, Audrey and her friend Alice talk about first time sex in a refreshingly honest way and this is, in my opinion, such an important thing to see in young adult books. Some girls, for whatever reason, don’t have someone they can talk about these things with, and I feel that it’s such a good thing that authors such as Holly Bourne are putting it out there.
I’ve read a number of feminist YA books this week, and I’m so pleased that they are being written. Conversations about consent, sexism, misogyny and rape culture are so important and these books help to get the message out there.
Excerpt from the book ; Men in films regularly kiss women who don’t want to be kissed. And those are supposed to be the good kisses. Either the woman is taken by surprise, or storming off in a mood, or having a huge go at them, or is engaged to somebody else, or claims she’s just plain Not Interested. And,how do men in movies respond to this clear instruction of “no”? They grab the woman’s face, and kiss her anyway. Roughly. Using their masculine force. And rather than being slapped or even arrested, these movie men are rewarded for their… well… sexual violence. The women “give into” the kiss after a brief moment of fighting it. You see, according to Hollywood, these women wanted to be kissed all along. It was just the male lead’s job to break through the barriers. Barriers like WILFUL CONSENT. Outside Hollywood movies, there is a term for being kissed against your will. This term isn’t “spontaneous” or “romantic” or “passionate”. No, it’s called sexual assault. It’s a crime punishable in the UK by up to ten years in prison.
~
Holly Bourne writes about feminist issues without being patronising and without telling her readers that we should hate all men.
If I’ve made it sound at all like It only happens in the movies is all feminist messages and no story then I must add that it’s entirely not that at all.
I enjoyed the story so much that I read it over a weekend, staying up far too late because I just couldn’t put it down. There’s plenty of drama, humour, and some lovely, touching moments! The ending – although it was perfect – exactly the way this story was meant to end – broke me. I cried actual tears.
Love isn’t just a feeling. Love is a choice too. And you may not be able to help your feelings, but you are responsible for the choices you make about what to do with them. (From It only happens in the movies).