Search
Search results
Paul McGuigan recommended Requiem for a Dream (2000) in Movies (curated)
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Wonder Woman 1984 (2020) in Movies
Dec 16, 2020
Gal Gadot: stunning (2 more)
Movie with real heart
Excellent cinematography
WW dot Well Worth Waiting for Gadot
The long delayed release of the Wonder Woman sequel has finally happened, and it is well worth waiting for.
Gal Gadot is fabulous as the Amazonian beauty (and then some) with Chris Pine reprising his role from the first thing. (Of all the WTF moments of 2020 trailers, this was top of the list.... just HOW? A McGuffin is involved, but no spoilers here!).
In brief, Patty Jenkins delivers a popcorn blockbuster than has legs (over and above Gadot's perfect specimens!): the Goblet-of-Fire-Potteresque pre-title sequence is thrilling and engaging. And the story builds cleverly through the first half of the movie. Above all, there is a heap of HEART involved here.... this is not your run of the mill supervillain showdown flick. In fact, it's a movie with TWO villain (normally a doom-laden premise for this reviewer... "Spider Man 3".... shudder), but here it really works well.
Sure, there is a requirement for a suspension of belief, but - hey - it's a DC movie. On a slight downside, the second half of the movie - for me -unfortunately doesn't quite live up to the promise of first half, blending "Bruce Almighty" with "Superman 2" and rather over-egging the pudding.
But in a morass of B-pics, this sequel is one that is gorgeous to look at (Matthew Jensen's cinematography is superb), gorgeous to listen to (an epic score by Hans Zimmer) and is genuinely engaging. There's also a nice vein of humour running through it... when Kristen Wiig is in a park, a rough sleeper on a bench is reading "Waiting for Godot".... or is it "Waiting for Gadot"??
It's such a brief scene, I wasn't sure!
Although I DEPLORE the Warner Brother's decision to release their material in parallel to streaming, here is a movie that is WELL WORTH you getting out to the cinema to see... assuming that you can find a UK cinema open (I saw this in the excellent Showcase De Luxe in Southampton).
Oh, and if you are someone who dives for the exit at the first title... resist... there is an excellent mid-title sequence featuring a wonderful cameo for us older folks!
(Please check out the full graphical review on bob-the-movie-man, which will be going live shortly. Thanks).
Gal Gadot is fabulous as the Amazonian beauty (and then some) with Chris Pine reprising his role from the first thing. (Of all the WTF moments of 2020 trailers, this was top of the list.... just HOW? A McGuffin is involved, but no spoilers here!).
In brief, Patty Jenkins delivers a popcorn blockbuster than has legs (over and above Gadot's perfect specimens!): the Goblet-of-Fire-Potteresque pre-title sequence is thrilling and engaging. And the story builds cleverly through the first half of the movie. Above all, there is a heap of HEART involved here.... this is not your run of the mill supervillain showdown flick. In fact, it's a movie with TWO villain (normally a doom-laden premise for this reviewer... "Spider Man 3".... shudder), but here it really works well.
Sure, there is a requirement for a suspension of belief, but - hey - it's a DC movie. On a slight downside, the second half of the movie - for me -unfortunately doesn't quite live up to the promise of first half, blending "Bruce Almighty" with "Superman 2" and rather over-egging the pudding.
But in a morass of B-pics, this sequel is one that is gorgeous to look at (Matthew Jensen's cinematography is superb), gorgeous to listen to (an epic score by Hans Zimmer) and is genuinely engaging. There's also a nice vein of humour running through it... when Kristen Wiig is in a park, a rough sleeper on a bench is reading "Waiting for Godot".... or is it "Waiting for Gadot"??
It's such a brief scene, I wasn't sure!
Although I DEPLORE the Warner Brother's decision to release their material in parallel to streaming, here is a movie that is WELL WORTH you getting out to the cinema to see... assuming that you can find a UK cinema open (I saw this in the excellent Showcase De Luxe in Southampton).
Oh, and if you are someone who dives for the exit at the first title... resist... there is an excellent mid-title sequence featuring a wonderful cameo for us older folks!
(Please check out the full graphical review on bob-the-movie-man, which will be going live shortly. Thanks).
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Red Sparrow (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Good Lord! How much sex and violence is acceptable for a UK-15 film?
I recognise that it’s a “thing” that I get into periodic ‘ruts’ of ranting about particular aspects of cinema. But it’s not spoilers in trailers this time! No, the most recent rut I’ve been in is concerned with the correctness or otherwise of the BBFC’s rating of UK 15-certificate films, which seems to have been the rating of every cinema film I’ve seen recently! In my view both “Phantom Thread” and “Lady Bird” should both have firmly been 12A’s to attract a broader teenage audience. But here’s a case on the other side of the balance.
“Red Sparrow”, the latest film from “Hunger Games” director Francis Lawrence, has Jennifer Lawrence (“Joy“, “mother!“) as Dominika Egorova, a Russian ballerina, who after a horrific accident (cringe) is forced to serve the State in order to keep her mother (Joely Richardson, “101 Dalmations”) in their Bolshoi-funded apartment and with the necessary medical treatment. She is sent to a spy “whore school”, ruled over by “matron” (Charlotte Rampling), to learn how to use sexual and psychological means to ‘get in the pants’ (and therefore the minds) of foreign targets.
Always elegant. Charlotte Rampling back on our screens as “Matron”.
And she turns out to be very good and – without nepotism of course, given that her creepy uncle Egorov ( Matthias Schoenaerts, “Far From The Madding Crowd“) is high up in the special services – she is sent on a mission to Budapest to try to uncover a high profile mole, who’s CIA handler is Nate Nash (Joel Edgerton, “The Great Gatsby“, “Black Mass“). Supervising Egorov’s operation are his two line managers General Korchnoi (Jeremy Irons, “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice“) and Zakharov (Ciarán Hinds, “Harry Potter”). Sucked into a web of intrigue, Dominika needs to use all her skills and charms to complete her mission… which equates to keeping herself and her mother alive.
Now on the tarmac, Joel really wans’t looking forward to his Ryanair flight.
This is an extremely uneven film. In places it is quite brilliant, particularly the twist in the ending which leaves you thinking (like “Life“) that the film is actually better than it was. In fact – subject to a couple of severe reservations discussed below – the script by Justin Haythe (“A Cure for Wellness“) and based on a book by Jason Matthews, is quite sharp. But – man – in its direction the film seriously takes its time. In my book, a film needs to have a pretty good reason to extend its stay past 2 hours, and this outstays its welcome by an extra 20 minutes. Many of the scenes are protracted – leisurely walks across streets etc. – for no particularly good reason.
Pwoaahh – look at those. (I’m referring of course to Joel Edgerton’s buns in those speedos).
And so to those major reservations: the sex and the violence.
I’m no prude when it comes to sex, but some of the scenes in the ‘whore school’ left me feeling like this was less about a “Times Up” initiative of empowering women and more about providing an array of sordid titillation on the screen that just help entrench mysoginistic views about women. (Did anyone else hear Kenneth Williams saying “Oooooh, matron” to Charlotte Rampling’s character?) There were men and women attending this training camp, but did we see – later in the film – any of the men subjecting themselves to sexual humiliation or subjugation in the field: no, we did not. I love a really good erotic film… but this just left me feeling dirty and used.
Who wants to go to the f***ing party? No one seems to have remembered to bring a bottle.
And then there’s the violence. I’m definitely not a fan of the sort of violent-porn of the “Saw” type of films, but heavens – if there was a reason to make this an 18 certificate it was the violence involved. Violent rape, a vicious revenge attack, extreme torture, skinning alive: was there nothing in here that the censors thought, “hang on a minute, perhaps I don’t want a 15 year old seeing this”. I have seldom seen and heard more flinching and whimpering from women in a cinema audience than during this film. If you are adversely affected by screen violence, this is really one best to avoid.
“The Cold War hasn’t ended – it has splintered into thousands of dangerous pieces” intones the matron. Similarly, this film has potential but splinters into many pieces, some good but far more sharp and dangerous. With similarities in tone and content to “Atomic Blonde“, there’s a good ‘post cold war’ spy film in here trying to get out. Unfortunately, it never quite gets both legs over the wall.
“Red Sparrow”, the latest film from “Hunger Games” director Francis Lawrence, has Jennifer Lawrence (“Joy“, “mother!“) as Dominika Egorova, a Russian ballerina, who after a horrific accident (cringe) is forced to serve the State in order to keep her mother (Joely Richardson, “101 Dalmations”) in their Bolshoi-funded apartment and with the necessary medical treatment. She is sent to a spy “whore school”, ruled over by “matron” (Charlotte Rampling), to learn how to use sexual and psychological means to ‘get in the pants’ (and therefore the minds) of foreign targets.
Always elegant. Charlotte Rampling back on our screens as “Matron”.
And she turns out to be very good and – without nepotism of course, given that her creepy uncle Egorov ( Matthias Schoenaerts, “Far From The Madding Crowd“) is high up in the special services – she is sent on a mission to Budapest to try to uncover a high profile mole, who’s CIA handler is Nate Nash (Joel Edgerton, “The Great Gatsby“, “Black Mass“). Supervising Egorov’s operation are his two line managers General Korchnoi (Jeremy Irons, “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice“) and Zakharov (Ciarán Hinds, “Harry Potter”). Sucked into a web of intrigue, Dominika needs to use all her skills and charms to complete her mission… which equates to keeping herself and her mother alive.
Now on the tarmac, Joel really wans’t looking forward to his Ryanair flight.
This is an extremely uneven film. In places it is quite brilliant, particularly the twist in the ending which leaves you thinking (like “Life“) that the film is actually better than it was. In fact – subject to a couple of severe reservations discussed below – the script by Justin Haythe (“A Cure for Wellness“) and based on a book by Jason Matthews, is quite sharp. But – man – in its direction the film seriously takes its time. In my book, a film needs to have a pretty good reason to extend its stay past 2 hours, and this outstays its welcome by an extra 20 minutes. Many of the scenes are protracted – leisurely walks across streets etc. – for no particularly good reason.
Pwoaahh – look at those. (I’m referring of course to Joel Edgerton’s buns in those speedos).
And so to those major reservations: the sex and the violence.
I’m no prude when it comes to sex, but some of the scenes in the ‘whore school’ left me feeling like this was less about a “Times Up” initiative of empowering women and more about providing an array of sordid titillation on the screen that just help entrench mysoginistic views about women. (Did anyone else hear Kenneth Williams saying “Oooooh, matron” to Charlotte Rampling’s character?) There were men and women attending this training camp, but did we see – later in the film – any of the men subjecting themselves to sexual humiliation or subjugation in the field: no, we did not. I love a really good erotic film… but this just left me feeling dirty and used.
Who wants to go to the f***ing party? No one seems to have remembered to bring a bottle.
And then there’s the violence. I’m definitely not a fan of the sort of violent-porn of the “Saw” type of films, but heavens – if there was a reason to make this an 18 certificate it was the violence involved. Violent rape, a vicious revenge attack, extreme torture, skinning alive: was there nothing in here that the censors thought, “hang on a minute, perhaps I don’t want a 15 year old seeing this”. I have seldom seen and heard more flinching and whimpering from women in a cinema audience than during this film. If you are adversely affected by screen violence, this is really one best to avoid.
“The Cold War hasn’t ended – it has splintered into thousands of dangerous pieces” intones the matron. Similarly, this film has potential but splinters into many pieces, some good but far more sharp and dangerous. With similarities in tone and content to “Atomic Blonde“, there’s a good ‘post cold war’ spy film in here trying to get out. Unfortunately, it never quite gets both legs over the wall.
Andy K (10821 KP) rated Parasite (2019) in Movies
Nov 25, 2019
Truly unique filmmaking!
OK I'm going to do something a little different this time since this film is not playing in the UK until January I thought I read somewhere.
-Is it good? Yes
-Is it really good? Yes
-Is it great? Yes
-Is it one of the best movies of 2019? Can't ask me that since I don't go to the cinema often.
-Is it remarkable?...Yes
-Is it phenomenal? .................Yes
-Is it maybe a tad overrated? Yes if maybe only by its IMDb rating. It currently holds an IMDb rating as of this review date of 8.5 which is quite remarkable for any film. Not saying IMDb rating is everything, but when 8.5 is equal to films like Back to the Future, Terminator 2 and Psycho, I'll stick by a tad overrated at this point. I'm sure the rating will settle back down a bit once more people have seen, but pretty impressive as of now.
-Will it receive a lot of Academy Award nominations for 2019? Right now I will predict 7 including Foreign Film (obviously), some technicals, screenplay, director and Best Picture.
-Will it win Best Picture? Early Andy prediction probably not, but would have a shot at screenplay (other than Tarantino) or maybe director (or maybe Scorsese), but very early at this point to predict since I have not seen other films yet.
-Is it what you thought it would be? Not sure since I purposely tried to avoid knowing much going in. I had heard it was a good version of Us, or what people thought Us should be, so I was thinking horror and it isn't that at all. More comedy suspense thriller but hard to categorize.
Please let me know what you think once you see for yourself. Maybe I'll write about it again in a few months with more detail. Or shoot me a message if you wish to discuss further.
-Is it good? Yes
-Is it really good? Yes
-Is it great? Yes
-Is it one of the best movies of 2019? Can't ask me that since I don't go to the cinema often.
-Is it remarkable?...Yes
-Is it phenomenal? .................Yes
-Is it maybe a tad overrated? Yes if maybe only by its IMDb rating. It currently holds an IMDb rating as of this review date of 8.5 which is quite remarkable for any film. Not saying IMDb rating is everything, but when 8.5 is equal to films like Back to the Future, Terminator 2 and Psycho, I'll stick by a tad overrated at this point. I'm sure the rating will settle back down a bit once more people have seen, but pretty impressive as of now.
-Will it receive a lot of Academy Award nominations for 2019? Right now I will predict 7 including Foreign Film (obviously), some technicals, screenplay, director and Best Picture.
-Will it win Best Picture? Early Andy prediction probably not, but would have a shot at screenplay (other than Tarantino) or maybe director (or maybe Scorsese), but very early at this point to predict since I have not seen other films yet.
-Is it what you thought it would be? Not sure since I purposely tried to avoid knowing much going in. I had heard it was a good version of Us, or what people thought Us should be, so I was thinking horror and it isn't that at all. More comedy suspense thriller but hard to categorize.
Please let me know what you think once you see for yourself. Maybe I'll write about it again in a few months with more detail. Or shoot me a message if you wish to discuss further.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Hell or High Water (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
“Sometimes a blind pig finds a truffle”.
One of the joys (and stresses) of the run up to the Oscar weekend is to try to catch all the major award films before the big event. As I bitched about in my BAFTA write-up, UK release dates do NOT make this an easy task, with some films like Paul Verhoeven’s “Elle”, featuring Best Actress nominee Isabelle Huppert, not released until mid March.
This week I have had the chance to catch up on two of the films with award potential that I missed at the cinema, and this is the write up of the first of those: “Hell or High Water”, was first released in September 2016, and what an excellent film it is.
Bank robberies have been featured in many hundreds of films since the early days of cinema: The Great Train Robbery for example dates back to 1903! More recent heist classics such as “Oceans 11”, “Die Hard”, “Run Lola Run” and “The Dark Knight Rises” tend towards the stylised end of the act. Where this film delivers interest is in aligning the protagonists’ drivers with the banking and mortgage ‘crimes’ featured in last year’s “The Big Short”. Add in to the movie Nutribullet a soupçon of the West Texan setting from Arthur Penn’s 1967 “Bonnie and Clyde”, turn it on and you have “Hell or High Water”.
Chris Pine (“Star Trek”) and Ben Foster (“Inferno“, “The Program“) play brothers Toby and Tanner Howard trying to rescue their deceased mother’s ranch from being foreclosed on by Texas Midlands bank. Rather than taking one of the “get out of debt” offers advertised on billboards – cleverly and insistently introduced in long panning highway shots – the brothers have their own financial plan: a scheme that involves early morning raids of the cash drawers of small-town Texas Midlands branches. But the meticulous planning of Toby, as the calm and intelligent one, are constantly at risk of upset by the unpredictable and violent actions of the loose-cannon Tanner.
Since the amounts of cash stolen are in the thousands rather than the millions, the FBI aren’t interested and the case is handed instead by aged and grumpy Texas Ranger Marcus Hamilton (Jeff Bridges, “True Grit”) and his partner Alberto (Gil Birmingham). The pair have a respectful relationship but one built around racial banter, with Hamilton constantly referring to Alberto’s Mexican/Comanche heritage. A cat and mouse game ensues with the lawmen staking out the most likely next hits. The sonorous cello strings of the soundtrack portend a dramatic finale, and we as viewers are not disappointed.
The performances of the main leads are all excellent, with Chris Pine given the chance to show more acting chops than he has had chance to with his previous Kirk/Jack Ryan characters. His chemistry with Ben Foster is just sublime. Similarly, Jeff Bridges and Gil Birmingham make for a formidable double act. It is Jeff Bridges though who has the standout performance and one that is Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actor. (In fact with Michael Shannon also getting nominated in the same category for “Nocturnal Animals”, we can add ‘West Texan lawman’ to ‘Holocaust movies’ (a Winslet “Extras” reference there!) as the prime bait for Oscar nomination glory!)
The real winner here though is the whip-smart screenplay by Taylor Sheridan (“Sicario“) which sizzles with great lines: lines that make you grin inanely at the screen regularly through the running time.”In your last days in the nursing home, you’ll think of me and giggle” schmoozes Tanner to the pretty hotel check-in girl: a come-on clearly worth remembering as it delivers the goods, as it were.
The trick here is in building up a degree of empathy and sympathy for the characters on both sides. The ‘bad guys’ here are successfully portrayed as the banks. At the moment you can get 25/1 odds on this winning the Best Original Screenplay Oscar – but I would personally rate it right up there with “Manchester by the Sea“.
Deftly directed by Scot David Mackenzie (“Starred Up”) this is a film (the first of two!) that might well have elbowed it’s way into my Top 10 of 2016 if I’d seen it during its cinema release. Well worth catching on the small screen.
This week I have had the chance to catch up on two of the films with award potential that I missed at the cinema, and this is the write up of the first of those: “Hell or High Water”, was first released in September 2016, and what an excellent film it is.
Bank robberies have been featured in many hundreds of films since the early days of cinema: The Great Train Robbery for example dates back to 1903! More recent heist classics such as “Oceans 11”, “Die Hard”, “Run Lola Run” and “The Dark Knight Rises” tend towards the stylised end of the act. Where this film delivers interest is in aligning the protagonists’ drivers with the banking and mortgage ‘crimes’ featured in last year’s “The Big Short”. Add in to the movie Nutribullet a soupçon of the West Texan setting from Arthur Penn’s 1967 “Bonnie and Clyde”, turn it on and you have “Hell or High Water”.
Chris Pine (“Star Trek”) and Ben Foster (“Inferno“, “The Program“) play brothers Toby and Tanner Howard trying to rescue their deceased mother’s ranch from being foreclosed on by Texas Midlands bank. Rather than taking one of the “get out of debt” offers advertised on billboards – cleverly and insistently introduced in long panning highway shots – the brothers have their own financial plan: a scheme that involves early morning raids of the cash drawers of small-town Texas Midlands branches. But the meticulous planning of Toby, as the calm and intelligent one, are constantly at risk of upset by the unpredictable and violent actions of the loose-cannon Tanner.
Since the amounts of cash stolen are in the thousands rather than the millions, the FBI aren’t interested and the case is handed instead by aged and grumpy Texas Ranger Marcus Hamilton (Jeff Bridges, “True Grit”) and his partner Alberto (Gil Birmingham). The pair have a respectful relationship but one built around racial banter, with Hamilton constantly referring to Alberto’s Mexican/Comanche heritage. A cat and mouse game ensues with the lawmen staking out the most likely next hits. The sonorous cello strings of the soundtrack portend a dramatic finale, and we as viewers are not disappointed.
The performances of the main leads are all excellent, with Chris Pine given the chance to show more acting chops than he has had chance to with his previous Kirk/Jack Ryan characters. His chemistry with Ben Foster is just sublime. Similarly, Jeff Bridges and Gil Birmingham make for a formidable double act. It is Jeff Bridges though who has the standout performance and one that is Oscar nominated for Best Supporting Actor. (In fact with Michael Shannon also getting nominated in the same category for “Nocturnal Animals”, we can add ‘West Texan lawman’ to ‘Holocaust movies’ (a Winslet “Extras” reference there!) as the prime bait for Oscar nomination glory!)
The real winner here though is the whip-smart screenplay by Taylor Sheridan (“Sicario“) which sizzles with great lines: lines that make you grin inanely at the screen regularly through the running time.”In your last days in the nursing home, you’ll think of me and giggle” schmoozes Tanner to the pretty hotel check-in girl: a come-on clearly worth remembering as it delivers the goods, as it were.
The trick here is in building up a degree of empathy and sympathy for the characters on both sides. The ‘bad guys’ here are successfully portrayed as the banks. At the moment you can get 25/1 odds on this winning the Best Original Screenplay Oscar – but I would personally rate it right up there with “Manchester by the Sea“.
Deftly directed by Scot David Mackenzie (“Starred Up”) this is a film (the first of two!) that might well have elbowed it’s way into my Top 10 of 2016 if I’d seen it during its cinema release. Well worth catching on the small screen.
Lee (2222 KP) rated Parasite (2019) in Movies
Jan 27, 2020 (Updated Jan 27, 2020)
About twenty or so years ago, before the age of social media and all the FOMO and spoilers that comes from having such easy access to the entire movie loving world, a delayed UK release for a movie that had already been out in the US for some months wasn't such a big deal. I can remember buying an imported region 1 DVD of The Blair Witch Project and watching it on Halloween night in the UK, in the comfort of my living room and on the day it was released in the cinema. I was pretty disappointed with what I saw, but that's not my point here. Recently, we seem to be regressing to that period in time once more - not with big releases such as Marvel movies, which we are usually lucky enough to sometimes get a day or so before the US, but with films that could be described as being a little less mainstream. The Lighthouse, Jojo Rabbit, A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood and the subject of this review, Parasite, have all been subject to such treatment and, along with the delayed release of Disney+, the UK currently seems to be getting a serious shafting. Parasite though is a movie for which I've heard nothing but praise for what seems like forever now. It has received six Oscar nominations and is now receiving a US disc release before it's even released in UK cinemas! Anyway, ranting aside, I did manage to avoid any spoilers for Parasite and was able to go in fairly unclear as to what to expect, and I would urge everyone else to do the same. Consequently, I will try to review it by giving away as little as possible.
Parasite tells the story of the Kim family, living in poverty in a cluttered South Korean basement. When we join them they are all desperately trying to find a spot in their home where they can pick up on a nearby public WiFi hot spot in order to connect their phones to Whatsapp (turns out, it's in the corner of the toilet!). Times are clearly tough and when the mother manages to get a small job putting together pizza boxes at home, the whole family chips in to help. They even have the pleasure of being able to view drunk men staggering down their street and urinating right outside the basement window while they try to eat at their dining room table.
A friend of the son comes to visit him one evening and tells him that he has to go away for a while. He currently has a job teaching English to the daughter of the wealthy Park family and wonders if Ki-woo would like to temporarily take over for him. Despite Ki-woo having no experience in tutoring, Ki-woo is assured by his friend that it will be easy money and, providing he can win over the confidence of the "simple" mother of the house, he'll have no problem. Sure enough, the confident Ki-woo, backed up by a certificate created for him in Photoshop by his sister, manages to land himself a regular tutoring job. Then, with the use of charm, lies and deception, Ki-woo soon manages to secure cushy jobs within the Park household for the rest of his family - art tutor, housekeeper and chauffeur - all being introduced as either old acquaintances or referrals from colleagues rather than family members. And so, the family find themselves having to lead double lives, juggling their own poverty stricken home-life together, along with the separate lives they lead while working for the Park family as work colleagues.
And that is really the basis of the movie. It's an elaborate scheme which, despite being deceptive and dishonest, is a lot of fun to see play out, and at times you really can get behind the Kim family and root for them. Things go comically wrong, in the kind of way that reminded me of a sitcom where a situation involves our stars getting themselves deeper and deeper into something, no matter how hard they try to go along with it and come up with a solution. And then things start to go horribly, even horrifically wrong, courtesy of a number of little twists and shocks.
Don't let the fact that Parasite is a subtitled movie put you off and believe all the hype you come across, as this is a must see movie and I was gripped, on the edge of my seat and thoroughly entertained for the most part. There is a very clear message played out concerning the rich/poor divide - obvious at times, when you see the contrasting effect that a serious storm has on each family - and much subtler at other times. There are some elements though, surrounding the ending of the movie, which I didn't quite buy into and that stopped this from being a full 10 out of 10 from me. I felt there was a clear point where this could and should have ended earlier, but still an incredible movie all the same.
Parasite tells the story of the Kim family, living in poverty in a cluttered South Korean basement. When we join them they are all desperately trying to find a spot in their home where they can pick up on a nearby public WiFi hot spot in order to connect their phones to Whatsapp (turns out, it's in the corner of the toilet!). Times are clearly tough and when the mother manages to get a small job putting together pizza boxes at home, the whole family chips in to help. They even have the pleasure of being able to view drunk men staggering down their street and urinating right outside the basement window while they try to eat at their dining room table.
A friend of the son comes to visit him one evening and tells him that he has to go away for a while. He currently has a job teaching English to the daughter of the wealthy Park family and wonders if Ki-woo would like to temporarily take over for him. Despite Ki-woo having no experience in tutoring, Ki-woo is assured by his friend that it will be easy money and, providing he can win over the confidence of the "simple" mother of the house, he'll have no problem. Sure enough, the confident Ki-woo, backed up by a certificate created for him in Photoshop by his sister, manages to land himself a regular tutoring job. Then, with the use of charm, lies and deception, Ki-woo soon manages to secure cushy jobs within the Park household for the rest of his family - art tutor, housekeeper and chauffeur - all being introduced as either old acquaintances or referrals from colleagues rather than family members. And so, the family find themselves having to lead double lives, juggling their own poverty stricken home-life together, along with the separate lives they lead while working for the Park family as work colleagues.
And that is really the basis of the movie. It's an elaborate scheme which, despite being deceptive and dishonest, is a lot of fun to see play out, and at times you really can get behind the Kim family and root for them. Things go comically wrong, in the kind of way that reminded me of a sitcom where a situation involves our stars getting themselves deeper and deeper into something, no matter how hard they try to go along with it and come up with a solution. And then things start to go horribly, even horrifically wrong, courtesy of a number of little twists and shocks.
Don't let the fact that Parasite is a subtitled movie put you off and believe all the hype you come across, as this is a must see movie and I was gripped, on the edge of my seat and thoroughly entertained for the most part. There is a very clear message played out concerning the rich/poor divide - obvious at times, when you see the contrasting effect that a serious storm has on each family - and much subtler at other times. There are some elements though, surrounding the ending of the movie, which I didn't quite buy into and that stopped this from being a full 10 out of 10 from me. I felt there was a clear point where this could and should have ended earlier, but still an incredible movie all the same.
ClareR (5589 KP) rated My Name is Why in Books
Oct 29, 2019
If you can read this book and NOT get angry whilst doing so, then you’re a better person than me. My Name is Why is Lemn Sissay’s true story of his life in the English Care system. His Ethiopian mother handed her son into the care of Social Services whilst she finished her nursing course, only to have him permanently taken away and put in to long term foster care. She wrote letters begging for his return from after his birth, all to no avail. This was the start of a catalogue of failures for Lemn. The way his foster parents treated him after they basically abandoned him at the age of 12, putting him in to the care system and a series of unsuitable group homes, frustrated me to the point of tears. What was most upsetting was the complete lack of emotional support. He wasn’t treated as a child, a child who needed affection and emotional support, but as a problem to be solved. It seemed to me that his childhood was just a countdown until social services could get rid of him from off their books.
I’m so glad that Lemn wrote this book, because I’m sure that it speaks for all those children and adults who experienced life in care. And I hope that the right people read this: those who take care of all of those children. I’m full of admiration for Lemn Sissay and all of the work that he does: his poetry, his broadcasting, and the work that he does for care leavers at his Christmas dinners. I will have been to watch Lemn three times: heard him read his poetry, his one man play, and the third time will be when I see him talk about this book at my local library/ theatre/ cinema (Storyhouse in Chester, UK). And to be quite honest, he always inspires me whenever I see him. This is an inspirational book too - against the odds, Lemn has made something (quite a big something actually) of his life.
This is a wonderful book that I’d recommend all human beings to read.
I’m so glad that Lemn wrote this book, because I’m sure that it speaks for all those children and adults who experienced life in care. And I hope that the right people read this: those who take care of all of those children. I’m full of admiration for Lemn Sissay and all of the work that he does: his poetry, his broadcasting, and the work that he does for care leavers at his Christmas dinners. I will have been to watch Lemn three times: heard him read his poetry, his one man play, and the third time will be when I see him talk about this book at my local library/ theatre/ cinema (Storyhouse in Chester, UK). And to be quite honest, he always inspires me whenever I see him. This is an inspirational book too - against the odds, Lemn has made something (quite a big something actually) of his life.
This is a wonderful book that I’d recommend all human beings to read.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated King of Thieves (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
No f-ing honour among f-ing thieves.
What a cast! Micheal Caine; Jim Broadbent; Tom Courtenay; Michael Gambon; Ray Winstone; Paul Whitehouse…. Just one look at the poster and you think yes, Yes, YES! But would this be a case where my expectations would be dashed?
Having seen the film at a preview showing last night, I’m pleased to say no, it’s not. I was very much entertained.
The film tells the ridiculous true story of the “over the hill gang” – the bunch of largely pensioner-age criminals who successfully extracted what was definitely £14 million – and could have been up to £200 million – of goodies from a vault in London’s Hatton Gardens jewellery district over the Easter Bank Holiday weekend in 2015. The gang is led by the “king of thieves” – Brian (Michael Caine) – highly regarded as an ‘elder statesman’ among the London criminal scene.
Did you see Mark Kermode‘s excellent “Secrets of Cinema” series on the BBC? (If not, seek it out on a catch-up service!) The first of the series deconstructs the “Heist” movie, showing how such movies track the preparation, the execution and the progressive unravelling of the wicked scheme, typically through internal strife among the gang itself. (Pretty much as you would assume happens most of the time in real life!) Kermode points out that such movies play with our emotion in secretly wishing the bad ‘uns to succeed in doing something we would never have the bottle to ‘step out of line’ to do. “King of Thieves” nicely follows this well trodden story-arc, but – for me – does it with significantly greater style than the norm.
Yes, it’s very much a “Brit-flick”, and I’m not sure how it will play outside of the UK. But the film’s script, penned by Joe Penhall (“The Road”, “Enduring Love”), plays beautifully to the extreme age of its cast – the average age of the actors playing the gang is over 67… and that includes the 35-year old Charlie “Stardust” Cox (who is actually very good as the young foil for the older blades)! There is lots of laugh-out-loud dialogue relating to bodily deficiencies and ailments and the tendencies of old-folk to nod off at inconvenient times! However, its not very deep stuff, giving little background to the characters. And if you are of a sensitive disposition, the language used in the film is pretty extreme: F-bombs and C-bombs are dropped in every other sentence.
The film is delivered with visual style by “The Theory of Everything” director James Marsh. He cleverly reflects that all of the older leads have past records: the film nicely interweaving tiny snippets of past British crime movies to illustrate the career exploits of the now-creaky old folks. (If in the epilepsy-inducing opening titles you thought you caught a subliminal shot of the gold from “The Italian Job” – the superior 1969 version – then you were right!) As well as “The Italian Job”, the snippets also includes “The Lavender Hill Mob” and (if I’m not mistaken) the late George Sewell in “Robbery”.
It’s all delivered to a deafeningly intrusive – but in a good way – jazz-style soundtrack by the continually up-and-coming Benjamin Wallfisch.
As in the recent “The Children Act”, it is the acting of the senior leads that makes the film fly for me. Caine is just MAGNIFICENT, at the age of 85 with the same screen presence he had (as featured) stepping out of that prison in “The Italian Job”; Winstone is as good as ever in playing a menacing thug, and even gets to do a Michael Caine impression!; Gambon is hilarious as the weak-bladdered “Billy the Fish”. But it is Broadbent that really impresses: he generally appears in films as a genial but slightly ditzy old gent in films like the “Potter” series; “Paddington” and “Bridget Jones“. While he has played borderline darker roles (“The Lady in the Van” for example), he rarely goes full “Sexy Beast” evil…. but here he is borderline psycho and displays blistering form. A head-to-head unblinking confrontation between Broadbent and Caine is a high-point in the whole film… just electrifying. I’d love to see BAFTA nominations for them both in Acting/Supporting Acting categories.
In summary, it’s a sweary but stylishly-executed heist movie that has enough humour to thoroughly entertain this cinema-goer. The film is on general release in the UK from September 14th and comes with my recommendation.
Having seen the film at a preview showing last night, I’m pleased to say no, it’s not. I was very much entertained.
The film tells the ridiculous true story of the “over the hill gang” – the bunch of largely pensioner-age criminals who successfully extracted what was definitely £14 million – and could have been up to £200 million – of goodies from a vault in London’s Hatton Gardens jewellery district over the Easter Bank Holiday weekend in 2015. The gang is led by the “king of thieves” – Brian (Michael Caine) – highly regarded as an ‘elder statesman’ among the London criminal scene.
Did you see Mark Kermode‘s excellent “Secrets of Cinema” series on the BBC? (If not, seek it out on a catch-up service!) The first of the series deconstructs the “Heist” movie, showing how such movies track the preparation, the execution and the progressive unravelling of the wicked scheme, typically through internal strife among the gang itself. (Pretty much as you would assume happens most of the time in real life!) Kermode points out that such movies play with our emotion in secretly wishing the bad ‘uns to succeed in doing something we would never have the bottle to ‘step out of line’ to do. “King of Thieves” nicely follows this well trodden story-arc, but – for me – does it with significantly greater style than the norm.
Yes, it’s very much a “Brit-flick”, and I’m not sure how it will play outside of the UK. But the film’s script, penned by Joe Penhall (“The Road”, “Enduring Love”), plays beautifully to the extreme age of its cast – the average age of the actors playing the gang is over 67… and that includes the 35-year old Charlie “Stardust” Cox (who is actually very good as the young foil for the older blades)! There is lots of laugh-out-loud dialogue relating to bodily deficiencies and ailments and the tendencies of old-folk to nod off at inconvenient times! However, its not very deep stuff, giving little background to the characters. And if you are of a sensitive disposition, the language used in the film is pretty extreme: F-bombs and C-bombs are dropped in every other sentence.
The film is delivered with visual style by “The Theory of Everything” director James Marsh. He cleverly reflects that all of the older leads have past records: the film nicely interweaving tiny snippets of past British crime movies to illustrate the career exploits of the now-creaky old folks. (If in the epilepsy-inducing opening titles you thought you caught a subliminal shot of the gold from “The Italian Job” – the superior 1969 version – then you were right!) As well as “The Italian Job”, the snippets also includes “The Lavender Hill Mob” and (if I’m not mistaken) the late George Sewell in “Robbery”.
It’s all delivered to a deafeningly intrusive – but in a good way – jazz-style soundtrack by the continually up-and-coming Benjamin Wallfisch.
As in the recent “The Children Act”, it is the acting of the senior leads that makes the film fly for me. Caine is just MAGNIFICENT, at the age of 85 with the same screen presence he had (as featured) stepping out of that prison in “The Italian Job”; Winstone is as good as ever in playing a menacing thug, and even gets to do a Michael Caine impression!; Gambon is hilarious as the weak-bladdered “Billy the Fish”. But it is Broadbent that really impresses: he generally appears in films as a genial but slightly ditzy old gent in films like the “Potter” series; “Paddington” and “Bridget Jones“. While he has played borderline darker roles (“The Lady in the Van” for example), he rarely goes full “Sexy Beast” evil…. but here he is borderline psycho and displays blistering form. A head-to-head unblinking confrontation between Broadbent and Caine is a high-point in the whole film… just electrifying. I’d love to see BAFTA nominations for them both in Acting/Supporting Acting categories.
In summary, it’s a sweary but stylishly-executed heist movie that has enough humour to thoroughly entertain this cinema-goer. The film is on general release in the UK from September 14th and comes with my recommendation.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Life Itself (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Love Actually with all the saccharine squeezed out.
Not the documentary of the same name from 2014 about the critic Rogert Ebert. This is an Amazon Studios/Sky Cinema Original Film (trying to follow where Netflix is boldly going), and as such it only had a very limited release in UK cinemas which I managed to miss.
The plot.
This is an anthology film in the style of “Crash” or – actually, “Love Actually” – featuring a series of inter-linked stories. We start with a depressed Will (Oscar Isaac) flashing back to his apparently idyllic life with pregnant wife Abby (Olivia Wilde). Apparantly? Well, perhaps the narrator is unreliable. So what actually happened? Where is Abby now? Where is his child?
Mid-film we switch into a Spanish-language section, set in Spain, featuring an ambitious olive-picker Javier González (Sergio Peris-Mencheta), his sweetheart Isabel (Laia Costa) and his employer Mr. Saccione (Antonio Banderas).
(“What the F!”, you are saying to yourself at this point, “How is this all related?”).
To say any more would provide spoilers: but, confused as you may be, it’s a journey worth sticking with.
Messing with time and your mind.
The film plays fast and loose with chronology and we zap backwards and forwards through the story which can be unsettling. It’s a film that keeps you on your toes, and you need to listen to director/writer Dan Fogelman‘s dialogue as there are clues as to where you are going next. It’s certainly not the ‘sit-back-and-relax’ “rom-com” that I mistakenly sold it to my wife as for our evening viewing!
A star of the film is the editor Julie Monroe (“Midnight Special“). There are some significant twists in the film, some of which are well signposted; others very much not so!
The turns
Has Oscar Isaac done a bad film? (I’m sure some haters of the latest Star Wars episodes might have an answer!). Here he has to execute an enormous range and he just about pulls it off. Olivia Wilde is also convincing as Abby.
In the Spanish section, Antonio Banderas is as impressive as you expect, and Laia Costa – an actress not previously known to me – is initially good as the young love interest, but I thought she was rather over-extended in the later scenes in her story.
Elsewhere, the rising star Olivia Cooke again impresses as a troubled teen; Annette Bening is a psychologist; “Homeland”‘s Mandy Patinkin plays Will’s father; and an f-ing and blinding Samuel L Jackson even appears at the start of the film (a blink and you’d miss it line of dialogue explains the context).
Good?
I wasn’t expecting to, but I really enjoyed this one. I’ve read some completely eviscerating reviews of the movie, but I’ve not sure where those were coming from. I found it a non-standard journey requiring a level of intelligence to appreciate the nuances of the script. My guess would be that many of the naysayers on IMDB never made it past the Spanish interlude. Others will not have liked the coincidence in the final reel (no spoilers). I do appreciate that it needs a suspension of belief. But this is a movie about the random coincidences of life. I remember running into a work colleague on the backstreets of Lone Pine in California, 5,271 miles away from where we both worked. Coincidences DO happen.
I’m not a fan of this whole new “almost straight to streaming” approach: I wish I could have seen this one on the big screen. But my view would be that it’s well worth catching if you have access to Amazon or Sky services (Sky or Now TV in the UK).
The plot.
This is an anthology film in the style of “Crash” or – actually, “Love Actually” – featuring a series of inter-linked stories. We start with a depressed Will (Oscar Isaac) flashing back to his apparently idyllic life with pregnant wife Abby (Olivia Wilde). Apparantly? Well, perhaps the narrator is unreliable. So what actually happened? Where is Abby now? Where is his child?
Mid-film we switch into a Spanish-language section, set in Spain, featuring an ambitious olive-picker Javier González (Sergio Peris-Mencheta), his sweetheart Isabel (Laia Costa) and his employer Mr. Saccione (Antonio Banderas).
(“What the F!”, you are saying to yourself at this point, “How is this all related?”).
To say any more would provide spoilers: but, confused as you may be, it’s a journey worth sticking with.
Messing with time and your mind.
The film plays fast and loose with chronology and we zap backwards and forwards through the story which can be unsettling. It’s a film that keeps you on your toes, and you need to listen to director/writer Dan Fogelman‘s dialogue as there are clues as to where you are going next. It’s certainly not the ‘sit-back-and-relax’ “rom-com” that I mistakenly sold it to my wife as for our evening viewing!
A star of the film is the editor Julie Monroe (“Midnight Special“). There are some significant twists in the film, some of which are well signposted; others very much not so!
The turns
Has Oscar Isaac done a bad film? (I’m sure some haters of the latest Star Wars episodes might have an answer!). Here he has to execute an enormous range and he just about pulls it off. Olivia Wilde is also convincing as Abby.
In the Spanish section, Antonio Banderas is as impressive as you expect, and Laia Costa – an actress not previously known to me – is initially good as the young love interest, but I thought she was rather over-extended in the later scenes in her story.
Elsewhere, the rising star Olivia Cooke again impresses as a troubled teen; Annette Bening is a psychologist; “Homeland”‘s Mandy Patinkin plays Will’s father; and an f-ing and blinding Samuel L Jackson even appears at the start of the film (a blink and you’d miss it line of dialogue explains the context).
Good?
I wasn’t expecting to, but I really enjoyed this one. I’ve read some completely eviscerating reviews of the movie, but I’ve not sure where those were coming from. I found it a non-standard journey requiring a level of intelligence to appreciate the nuances of the script. My guess would be that many of the naysayers on IMDB never made it past the Spanish interlude. Others will not have liked the coincidence in the final reel (no spoilers). I do appreciate that it needs a suspension of belief. But this is a movie about the random coincidences of life. I remember running into a work colleague on the backstreets of Lone Pine in California, 5,271 miles away from where we both worked. Coincidences DO happen.
I’m not a fan of this whole new “almost straight to streaming” approach: I wish I could have seen this one on the big screen. But my view would be that it’s well worth catching if you have access to Amazon or Sky services (Sky or Now TV in the UK).
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The King (2019) in Movies
Oct 29, 2019
There has been a lot of talk about The King, it's not one that I would necessarily have picked but I do enjoy historical films and who doesn't like a good battle scene? With Timothée Chalamet in the lead and Robert Pattinson in a supporting role I had my doubts, I'm not a fan of either one particularly but in the end it changed my opinion... partly. What surprised me was that this was a Netflix film, from all the hype I had been expecting a general release and I think it would have done incredibly well at the cinema, but we shall see how it fairs online.
My historical knowledge is terrible, luckily the evening I saw this I was meeting a friend for dinner who would be my phone a friend for all things historical so I picked his brain. We compared notes and it seems like they haven't messed with the actual history of it too much, though he did admit to not being an expert on this period. Do let me know in the comments how it stands up against documented history if you're up to speed on the topic.
The film does a good job of keeping the timeline clear, it doesn't jump around unnecessarily and despite the obvious long time frame of real life the scenes capture and condense everything quite nicely.
I'm going to start covering the acting by talking about Robert Pattinson. I have never heard such a unanimous reaction to a performance in my life. From the sheer volume in the Odean Luxe I believe that as soon as he spoke everyone broke out laughing. It wasn't just the one time either, it was every time. I don't know anything about The Dauphin of France but perhaps he did have the stereotypical accent... I don't know if I want to give RPat the benefit of the doubt. Almost every scene he was in had a rather tragic comedy element, mostly that was the accent but later there's a scene that would have sat well in a silent black and white comedy skit, I did laugh, but it really didn't fit the tone of any part of the film that he wasn't in.
Timothée Chalamet hasn't made much of an impression on me so far in his acting career. Beautiful Boy wasn't my cup of tea and his parts in Lady Bird and Hostiles clearly didn't either as I only remembered them when skimming IMDb. In The King though I found him to be excellent, I didn't make a single negative note about his performance. Every scene, every emotion, every moment in battle landed perfectly. This really did turn my opinion of him around and I'll be looking forward to his next role a lot more.
Joel Edgerton as Sir John Falstaff is the comic relief this film needed, his moments were light and broke the tension in the perfect way. He's a very consistent actor whose a pleasure to watch on screen and he's a multi-talented fella to boot... writer, producer and actor in this, well played sir, well played.
Sean Harris will also be a familiar face to most of us, and I suspect the main go to for people would be the MI franchise though he's got over 50 acting credits including the UK actors' traditional stint on The Bill. Yet another great actor in the mix and he managed to bring the characteristics of William out with great effect in his performance.
Overall the cast was excellent, though a couple of performances may have been a little on the irritating side for me, that did feel more intentional than anything else when you took the scenes into consideration.
It's difficult to know whether I'm spoiling something or not, but this is based on historical fact so I'm going to say not... The build up to the battle seemed fitting and yet somehow understated for what was to follow. The sound and the visuals are stunning, I'm getting goosebumps just remembering it. The rumble of the horses, the arrows... the sound in the cinema was so powerful and it makes me a little sad that this is going straight to Netflix where that part won't meet its full potential for most of its streams.
The other worry is that the battle won't get the same impact on a smaller screen. The camera work in The King is amazing, you got the sense of claustrophobia and the crush of the fight as we were brought into the mob of actors. I was in awe watching it. I genuinely don't know how they successfully managed to film that whole sequence in what was essentially a pool of mud. It makes my mind boggle.
While I can't really get on board with Robert Pattinson in this film everyone else was a joy to watch. It's a shame it's a Netflix film, I commend them for making something this impressive but it really deserves a cinema experience, I'm thankful to LFF for giving me that honour.
Full review originally posted on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-king-movie-review.html
My historical knowledge is terrible, luckily the evening I saw this I was meeting a friend for dinner who would be my phone a friend for all things historical so I picked his brain. We compared notes and it seems like they haven't messed with the actual history of it too much, though he did admit to not being an expert on this period. Do let me know in the comments how it stands up against documented history if you're up to speed on the topic.
The film does a good job of keeping the timeline clear, it doesn't jump around unnecessarily and despite the obvious long time frame of real life the scenes capture and condense everything quite nicely.
I'm going to start covering the acting by talking about Robert Pattinson. I have never heard such a unanimous reaction to a performance in my life. From the sheer volume in the Odean Luxe I believe that as soon as he spoke everyone broke out laughing. It wasn't just the one time either, it was every time. I don't know anything about The Dauphin of France but perhaps he did have the stereotypical accent... I don't know if I want to give RPat the benefit of the doubt. Almost every scene he was in had a rather tragic comedy element, mostly that was the accent but later there's a scene that would have sat well in a silent black and white comedy skit, I did laugh, but it really didn't fit the tone of any part of the film that he wasn't in.
Timothée Chalamet hasn't made much of an impression on me so far in his acting career. Beautiful Boy wasn't my cup of tea and his parts in Lady Bird and Hostiles clearly didn't either as I only remembered them when skimming IMDb. In The King though I found him to be excellent, I didn't make a single negative note about his performance. Every scene, every emotion, every moment in battle landed perfectly. This really did turn my opinion of him around and I'll be looking forward to his next role a lot more.
Joel Edgerton as Sir John Falstaff is the comic relief this film needed, his moments were light and broke the tension in the perfect way. He's a very consistent actor whose a pleasure to watch on screen and he's a multi-talented fella to boot... writer, producer and actor in this, well played sir, well played.
Sean Harris will also be a familiar face to most of us, and I suspect the main go to for people would be the MI franchise though he's got over 50 acting credits including the UK actors' traditional stint on The Bill. Yet another great actor in the mix and he managed to bring the characteristics of William out with great effect in his performance.
Overall the cast was excellent, though a couple of performances may have been a little on the irritating side for me, that did feel more intentional than anything else when you took the scenes into consideration.
It's difficult to know whether I'm spoiling something or not, but this is based on historical fact so I'm going to say not... The build up to the battle seemed fitting and yet somehow understated for what was to follow. The sound and the visuals are stunning, I'm getting goosebumps just remembering it. The rumble of the horses, the arrows... the sound in the cinema was so powerful and it makes me a little sad that this is going straight to Netflix where that part won't meet its full potential for most of its streams.
The other worry is that the battle won't get the same impact on a smaller screen. The camera work in The King is amazing, you got the sense of claustrophobia and the crush of the fight as we were brought into the mob of actors. I was in awe watching it. I genuinely don't know how they successfully managed to film that whole sequence in what was essentially a pool of mud. It makes my mind boggle.
While I can't really get on board with Robert Pattinson in this film everyone else was a joy to watch. It's a shame it's a Netflix film, I commend them for making something this impressive but it really deserves a cinema experience, I'm thankful to LFF for giving me that honour.
Full review originally posted on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-king-movie-review.html