Search
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Stan & Ollie (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
When the laughter has to end.
The problem with any comedy double act is that if illness or death get in the way (think Dustin Gee and Les Dennis; or Morecambe and Wise) the wheels can come off for the other partner. “Stan and Ollie” tells the story of the comic duo starting in 1937 when they reached their peak of global popularity, albeit when Laurel was hardly on speaking terms with their long-term producer Hal Roach (Danny Huston).
As you might guess from this, the emotional direction for the film is downwards, but not necessarily in a totally depressing way. The film depicts the duo’s tour of Laurel’s native country (he was born in Lancashire) and this has its ups as well as its downs.
Not knowing their life story, this is one where when the trailer came on I shut my eyes and plugged my ears so as to avoid spoilers: as such I will say nothing further on the details of the plot.
My wife and I were reminiscing after seeing this flick about how our parents used to crack up over the film antics of Laurel and Hardy. And they were, in their own slapstick way, very funny indeed. The film manages to recreate (impecably) some of their more famous routines and parodies others: their travel trunk gallops to the bottom of the station steps, mimicking the famous scenes with a piano from 1932’s “The Music Box”. “Do we really need that trunk” Hardy deadpans to Laurel.
The turns
There are four star turns at the heart of the film and they are John C. Reilly as Ollie; Steve Coogan as Stan; Shirley Henderson (forever to be referenced as “Moaning Myrtle”) as Ollie’s wife Lucille and Nina Arianda (so memorable as the ‘pointer outer’ in the ‘Emperor’s New Clothes’ segment of “Florence Foster Jenkins“) as Stan’s latest wife Ida.
Coogan and Reilly do an outstanding job of impersonating the comic duo. Both are simply brilliant, playing up to their public personas when visible but subtly delivering similar traits in private. Of the two, John C. Reilly’s performance is the most memorable: he IS Oliver Hardy. Not taking too much away from the other performance, but there are a few times when Coogan poked through the illusion (like a Partridge sticking its head out from a Pear Tree you might say).
Henderson and Arianda also add tremendous heart to the drama, and Arianda’s Ida in particular is hilarious. Also delivering a fabulous supporting role is Rufus Jones as the famous impressario Bernard Delfont: all smarm and Machiavellian chicanery that adds a different shape of comedy to the film.
Another Fine Mess?
Actually, no: it’s one of those pleasant and untaxing cinema experiences that older audiences in particular will really enjoy. However, the film’s far from perfect in my view: the flash-forwards/flash-backs I felt made the story bitty and disjointed; and ultimately the life story of the duo doesn’t have a huge depth of drama in it to amaze or excite, the way that 2004’s “Beyond the Sea” (the biopic of Bobby Darin) did for example. But the film never gets boring or disappoints.
I’d like to say that the script by Jeff Pope (“Philomena“) is historically accurate, but a look at the wikipedia entries for the pair show that it was far from that. Yes, the tours of the UK and Europe did happen, but over multiple years and the actual events in their lives are telescoped into a single trip for dramatic purposes. But I think the essence of the pair comes across nicely. Laurel’s wikipedia entry records a nice death-bed scene that sums up the guy:
“Minutes before his death, he told his nurse that he would not mind going skiing, and she replied that she was not aware that he was a skier. “I’m not,” said Laurel, “I’d rather be doing that than this!” A few minutes later, the nurse looked in on him again and found that he had died quietly in his armchair.”
“Stan and Ollie” has a few preview screenings before the New Year, but goes on UK general release on January 11th. Recommended.
As you might guess from this, the emotional direction for the film is downwards, but not necessarily in a totally depressing way. The film depicts the duo’s tour of Laurel’s native country (he was born in Lancashire) and this has its ups as well as its downs.
Not knowing their life story, this is one where when the trailer came on I shut my eyes and plugged my ears so as to avoid spoilers: as such I will say nothing further on the details of the plot.
My wife and I were reminiscing after seeing this flick about how our parents used to crack up over the film antics of Laurel and Hardy. And they were, in their own slapstick way, very funny indeed. The film manages to recreate (impecably) some of their more famous routines and parodies others: their travel trunk gallops to the bottom of the station steps, mimicking the famous scenes with a piano from 1932’s “The Music Box”. “Do we really need that trunk” Hardy deadpans to Laurel.
The turns
There are four star turns at the heart of the film and they are John C. Reilly as Ollie; Steve Coogan as Stan; Shirley Henderson (forever to be referenced as “Moaning Myrtle”) as Ollie’s wife Lucille and Nina Arianda (so memorable as the ‘pointer outer’ in the ‘Emperor’s New Clothes’ segment of “Florence Foster Jenkins“) as Stan’s latest wife Ida.
Coogan and Reilly do an outstanding job of impersonating the comic duo. Both are simply brilliant, playing up to their public personas when visible but subtly delivering similar traits in private. Of the two, John C. Reilly’s performance is the most memorable: he IS Oliver Hardy. Not taking too much away from the other performance, but there are a few times when Coogan poked through the illusion (like a Partridge sticking its head out from a Pear Tree you might say).
Henderson and Arianda also add tremendous heart to the drama, and Arianda’s Ida in particular is hilarious. Also delivering a fabulous supporting role is Rufus Jones as the famous impressario Bernard Delfont: all smarm and Machiavellian chicanery that adds a different shape of comedy to the film.
Another Fine Mess?
Actually, no: it’s one of those pleasant and untaxing cinema experiences that older audiences in particular will really enjoy. However, the film’s far from perfect in my view: the flash-forwards/flash-backs I felt made the story bitty and disjointed; and ultimately the life story of the duo doesn’t have a huge depth of drama in it to amaze or excite, the way that 2004’s “Beyond the Sea” (the biopic of Bobby Darin) did for example. But the film never gets boring or disappoints.
I’d like to say that the script by Jeff Pope (“Philomena“) is historically accurate, but a look at the wikipedia entries for the pair show that it was far from that. Yes, the tours of the UK and Europe did happen, but over multiple years and the actual events in their lives are telescoped into a single trip for dramatic purposes. But I think the essence of the pair comes across nicely. Laurel’s wikipedia entry records a nice death-bed scene that sums up the guy:
“Minutes before his death, he told his nurse that he would not mind going skiing, and she replied that she was not aware that he was a skier. “I’m not,” said Laurel, “I’d rather be doing that than this!” A few minutes later, the nurse looked in on him again and found that he had died quietly in his armchair.”
“Stan and Ollie” has a few preview screenings before the New Year, but goes on UK general release on January 11th. Recommended.
Peter Strickland recommended One Day (2018) in Movies (curated)
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Bloodshot (2020) in Movies
Oct 9, 2020
Brainless fun
Bloodshot is not the kind of film I’d waste my time going to watch at the cinema, however I jumped at the opportunity to watch it in the comfort of my own home where I could tune out and do other things if it got dull. And I’m rather pleasantly surprised to admit that it never did.
Bloodshot is based on a Valiant comic of the same name which tells the story of Ray Garrison, a soldier killed and brought back to life with the use of nanites, giving him superhuman powers and a thirst for revenge.
Going into this film I knew nothing about it, I hadn’t even seen a trailer. My only misgiving was regarding Vin Diesel, who like Keanu Reeves, is great to watch in action but sadly his acting skills leave a little to be desired. Surprisingly I didn’t mind Vin Diesel in this, and it probably stems from the fact that he spends most of his time in action with very little opportunity for any more meaningful or emotional scenes (thankfully).
The first half of this film had me worried. It opens with some irritating slow motion action shots and then progresses into what is rather a predictable and done to death origin film revenge plot. There are some good points though: the action scenes and CGI were very well done and choreographed, the filming locations are beautifully shot, and the dancing scene with Toby Kebbell was a riot, almost feeling like it would’ve been better placed in something made by Tarantino rather than this.
Had the film carried on in this same vein for it’s entire runtime, I would’ve switched off. However there was a reveal halfway through that provided a much needed boost to the story and a great deal of humour, and I never saw it coming. This pushed this film from being pretty poor to fairly enjoyable and entertaining.
That isn’t to say it doesn’t have it’s flaws. Guy Pearce is playing the same character he seems to have played in everything else recently and Toby Kebbell is massively underused. The remaining members of the team are rather cliched villains or just completely forgettable. And there’s a scene towards the end with a pouting and over the top KT that is so cheesy and cringeworthy it’s laughably bad. There’s also an action scene set in London that has been obviously not been filmed in London (or in the UK at all from the look of the buildings and vehicle registrations), so there are a few missteps with the production and the finale has far too much CGI as well.
Overall I was expecting this to be atrocious and was rather pleasantly surprised to find myself laughing and enjoying it to a point. It is by no means perfect and will never win any awards, however if you’re looking for some brainless action and entertainment you could do much worse than Bloodshot.
Bloodshot is based on a Valiant comic of the same name which tells the story of Ray Garrison, a soldier killed and brought back to life with the use of nanites, giving him superhuman powers and a thirst for revenge.
Going into this film I knew nothing about it, I hadn’t even seen a trailer. My only misgiving was regarding Vin Diesel, who like Keanu Reeves, is great to watch in action but sadly his acting skills leave a little to be desired. Surprisingly I didn’t mind Vin Diesel in this, and it probably stems from the fact that he spends most of his time in action with very little opportunity for any more meaningful or emotional scenes (thankfully).
The first half of this film had me worried. It opens with some irritating slow motion action shots and then progresses into what is rather a predictable and done to death origin film revenge plot. There are some good points though: the action scenes and CGI were very well done and choreographed, the filming locations are beautifully shot, and the dancing scene with Toby Kebbell was a riot, almost feeling like it would’ve been better placed in something made by Tarantino rather than this.
Had the film carried on in this same vein for it’s entire runtime, I would’ve switched off. However there was a reveal halfway through that provided a much needed boost to the story and a great deal of humour, and I never saw it coming. This pushed this film from being pretty poor to fairly enjoyable and entertaining.
That isn’t to say it doesn’t have it’s flaws. Guy Pearce is playing the same character he seems to have played in everything else recently and Toby Kebbell is massively underused. The remaining members of the team are rather cliched villains or just completely forgettable. And there’s a scene towards the end with a pouting and over the top KT that is so cheesy and cringeworthy it’s laughably bad. There’s also an action scene set in London that has been obviously not been filmed in London (or in the UK at all from the look of the buildings and vehicle registrations), so there are a few missteps with the production and the finale has far too much CGI as well.
Overall I was expecting this to be atrocious and was rather pleasantly surprised to find myself laughing and enjoying it to a point. It is by no means perfect and will never win any awards, however if you’re looking for some brainless action and entertainment you could do much worse than Bloodshot.
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 Sully (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
No, not “Monsters Inc 3”.
Chesley Sullenberger was just a very experienced US Airways pilot starting an everyday job flying from LaGuardia airport in New York to Charlotte when fate stepped in. Following an extensive bird strike and the loss of both engines, ‘Sully’ achieved worldwide fame by landing his aircraft and all 151 passengers and crew safely on the Hudson river. Sully is immediately acclaimed by the public as a hero; US Airways, and their insurers, however, are not necessarily as impressed given that their plane has got rather soggy when the flight data suggests it might have actually been able to make it to a landing at a number of nearby airports. So a National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) inquiry is called, where a decision against Sully could see him facing the fastest fall from grace since Icarus.
This film is obviously based on this real-life ‘Miracle on the Hudson’ and to a large extent the recreation of the crash…. sorry… “forced water landing” is both vivid and gripping. The film is certainly unlikely to make the regular list of in-flight movies for nervous passengers, but it does serve as a good training film for all of those regular airline passengers who don’t “put down their reading materials” to listen to the aircraft safety announcement.
Director Clint Eastwood has delivered a highly watchable action sequence showcasing the undisputed acting talents of Tom Hanks (playing Sully) and his Aaron Eckhard (“Olympus Has Fallen”, playing the co-pilot Jeff Skiles). This makes for a great 45 minute film. The problem is the other 51 minutes.
Where the film works well – aside from the actual recreation itself – is in representing the post-traumatic stress experienced by Sully, with his insomnia and regular flashbacks of ‘what might have happened’ (anyone still strongly affected by 9/11 will struggle with these scenes). The final NTSB hearing scenes are also well-done and suitably gripping: particularly for viewers outside of the UK where we wouldn’t have heard the outcome of the affair once the news cycle had moved on from the ‘gee-whizz’ headline event.
Where the film aquaplanes somewhat is in the padding achieved through multiple (MULTIPLE!) scenes of New Yorkers back-slapping Sully. Some of this is needed to establish the pedestal that Sully is set upon: the bar scene, for example, is well done. But all the rest of the references become just plain tiresome.
There is also a back-story focused on Sully’s financial problems and rather scratchy marriage (as portrayed) to Lorraine (Laura Linney). Linney is normally a highly-watchable actress, but here her character is just so irritating that the mood of the film plummets every time she reappears on screen.
The key problem that screenwriter Todd Komarnicki (“Elf”!!) had here is the obvious one: that as a real-event (based on Sullenberger’s own book “Highest Duty”) he would have had more scope to build tension if the flight had lasted more than 208 seconds! We end up with little visibility into the back-stories of the passengers. We get to see a father and two grown-up sons who – as fate would have it – just manage to catch the doomed plane: and we end up caring what happens to them. But this approach could have perhaps been usefully extended to feature more of the passenger back-stories (without getting the full “Airport” soap treatment).
Clint Eastwood is also clearly an All-American patriot, and in common with some of his other films he can’t help himself from putting up rather soupy statements about the self-sacrifice of New Yorkers (“the best of New York came together”): when actually the rescue teams did what they were paid to do and Ferry captains did what you or I would do if we stumbled on the scene! These sentiments might go down well in the States: in the cynical UK they tend to generate snorts of irritation.
What IS nice are a couple of “monkeys” (see Glossary) during the closing credits where the real Sully, Skiles, cabin-crew and passengers appear together in a celebration of continued life against all the odds. And just so you are aware, this is done as two separate segments during the titles, so if you don’t want to be one of those people standing in the aisles with your coat half on, then wait for the second one!
A curate’s egg of a film: great in places, but overall not as well executed as it could have been.
This film is obviously based on this real-life ‘Miracle on the Hudson’ and to a large extent the recreation of the crash…. sorry… “forced water landing” is both vivid and gripping. The film is certainly unlikely to make the regular list of in-flight movies for nervous passengers, but it does serve as a good training film for all of those regular airline passengers who don’t “put down their reading materials” to listen to the aircraft safety announcement.
Director Clint Eastwood has delivered a highly watchable action sequence showcasing the undisputed acting talents of Tom Hanks (playing Sully) and his Aaron Eckhard (“Olympus Has Fallen”, playing the co-pilot Jeff Skiles). This makes for a great 45 minute film. The problem is the other 51 minutes.
Where the film works well – aside from the actual recreation itself – is in representing the post-traumatic stress experienced by Sully, with his insomnia and regular flashbacks of ‘what might have happened’ (anyone still strongly affected by 9/11 will struggle with these scenes). The final NTSB hearing scenes are also well-done and suitably gripping: particularly for viewers outside of the UK where we wouldn’t have heard the outcome of the affair once the news cycle had moved on from the ‘gee-whizz’ headline event.
Where the film aquaplanes somewhat is in the padding achieved through multiple (MULTIPLE!) scenes of New Yorkers back-slapping Sully. Some of this is needed to establish the pedestal that Sully is set upon: the bar scene, for example, is well done. But all the rest of the references become just plain tiresome.
There is also a back-story focused on Sully’s financial problems and rather scratchy marriage (as portrayed) to Lorraine (Laura Linney). Linney is normally a highly-watchable actress, but here her character is just so irritating that the mood of the film plummets every time she reappears on screen.
The key problem that screenwriter Todd Komarnicki (“Elf”!!) had here is the obvious one: that as a real-event (based on Sullenberger’s own book “Highest Duty”) he would have had more scope to build tension if the flight had lasted more than 208 seconds! We end up with little visibility into the back-stories of the passengers. We get to see a father and two grown-up sons who – as fate would have it – just manage to catch the doomed plane: and we end up caring what happens to them. But this approach could have perhaps been usefully extended to feature more of the passenger back-stories (without getting the full “Airport” soap treatment).
Clint Eastwood is also clearly an All-American patriot, and in common with some of his other films he can’t help himself from putting up rather soupy statements about the self-sacrifice of New Yorkers (“the best of New York came together”): when actually the rescue teams did what they were paid to do and Ferry captains did what you or I would do if we stumbled on the scene! These sentiments might go down well in the States: in the cynical UK they tend to generate snorts of irritation.
What IS nice are a couple of “monkeys” (see Glossary) during the closing credits where the real Sully, Skiles, cabin-crew and passengers appear together in a celebration of continued life against all the odds. And just so you are aware, this is done as two separate segments during the titles, so if you don’t want to be one of those people standing in the aisles with your coat half on, then wait for the second one!
A curate’s egg of a film: great in places, but overall not as well executed as it could have been.
Sarah (7798 KP) rated Shaun of the Dead (2004) in Movies
Dec 26, 2020 (Updated Dec 26, 2020)
Zombie hilarity
Film #8 on the 100 Movies Bucket List: Shaun of the Dead
Shaun of the Dead (2004) is the first film in the Cornetto trilogy, a series of films directed by Edgar Wright and starring Simon Pegg and Nick Frost. I have to admit I’m a little biased when it comes to Shaun and 2007’s Hot Fuzz (shameful that this isn’t also on the bucket list), the first two films in the trilogy, as they’re two of my comedy favourites and films I can quote far too much from. And as zombie horror comedies go, you can’t get much better than Shaun of the Dead.
The film follows Shaun (Simon Pegg), a hopeless boyfriend who shares a house with his slacker friend Ed (Nick Frost) and stickler Pete (Peter Serafinowicz), while he tried to save his Rocky relationship with girlfriend Liz (Kate Ashfield) whilst trying to battle his way through a zombie apocalypse. The best thing about Shaun of the Dead is how it follows Shaun trudging almost zombie like through his own life, while in the background a real zombie apocalypse is breaking out. It’s so incredibly fun watching all of the zombie related acts in the background that the main characters are completely oblivious about, and not only is it funny, it’s also a rather clever commentary on the state of our culture and society – I’m sure we could all imagine this oblivious self absorbed attitude being very much present in a lot of people if a zombie apocalypse ever really happened.
Shaun also succeeds due to the incredibly clever and witty script and the gags that don’t ever seem to let up. From the subtle zombie nods in the beginning to the wisecracking and snide remarks between Shaun, Ed and virtually everyone else in Shaun’s life, this film is hilarious and infectiously quotable. The zombie apocalypse is tackled in such a typically British way, and not only is this funny but it’s incredibly refreshing too when compared to the overly stylish guns ‘n’ ammo style zombie films we’re used to from across the pond. How often do you see character trying to kill zombies with records before settling down with a cup of tea and a cornetto? It’s a work of genius.
The cast too are equally responsible for how good this film is, and do a great job with the script and pace. Not only do you have the charismatic pairing of Pegg and Frost who’s chemistry is undeniable, there’s also an excellent supporting cast with some rather big names in the UK industry: Bill Nighy, Jessica Hynes, Dylan Moran, Lucy Davis and Penelope Wilton. And some blink and you’ll miss it cameos from comedy greats Matt Lucas, Reece Shearsmith and Tamsin Greig. These names paired with Edgar Wright’s well paced directing style makes for an engaging film.
Shaun of the Dead is basically a big screen zombie version of Spaced, and this definitely isn’t a bad thing. The only negative about this, especially watching it 16 years later, is that it seems so obviously low budget which I think has only been made more obvious with age. Even in HD it does look a tad aged which is a shame, but the amount of blood and gore is still impressive for a 15 rated film.
Despite it’s age, Shaun of the Dead is one of the best zombie films out there and the fact that it’s hilarious too just makes it even better. And after watching this, you’ll never think of Queen’s Don’t Stop Me Now in the same way again.
Shaun of the Dead (2004) is the first film in the Cornetto trilogy, a series of films directed by Edgar Wright and starring Simon Pegg and Nick Frost. I have to admit I’m a little biased when it comes to Shaun and 2007’s Hot Fuzz (shameful that this isn’t also on the bucket list), the first two films in the trilogy, as they’re two of my comedy favourites and films I can quote far too much from. And as zombie horror comedies go, you can’t get much better than Shaun of the Dead.
The film follows Shaun (Simon Pegg), a hopeless boyfriend who shares a house with his slacker friend Ed (Nick Frost) and stickler Pete (Peter Serafinowicz), while he tried to save his Rocky relationship with girlfriend Liz (Kate Ashfield) whilst trying to battle his way through a zombie apocalypse. The best thing about Shaun of the Dead is how it follows Shaun trudging almost zombie like through his own life, while in the background a real zombie apocalypse is breaking out. It’s so incredibly fun watching all of the zombie related acts in the background that the main characters are completely oblivious about, and not only is it funny, it’s also a rather clever commentary on the state of our culture and society – I’m sure we could all imagine this oblivious self absorbed attitude being very much present in a lot of people if a zombie apocalypse ever really happened.
Shaun also succeeds due to the incredibly clever and witty script and the gags that don’t ever seem to let up. From the subtle zombie nods in the beginning to the wisecracking and snide remarks between Shaun, Ed and virtually everyone else in Shaun’s life, this film is hilarious and infectiously quotable. The zombie apocalypse is tackled in such a typically British way, and not only is this funny but it’s incredibly refreshing too when compared to the overly stylish guns ‘n’ ammo style zombie films we’re used to from across the pond. How often do you see character trying to kill zombies with records before settling down with a cup of tea and a cornetto? It’s a work of genius.
The cast too are equally responsible for how good this film is, and do a great job with the script and pace. Not only do you have the charismatic pairing of Pegg and Frost who’s chemistry is undeniable, there’s also an excellent supporting cast with some rather big names in the UK industry: Bill Nighy, Jessica Hynes, Dylan Moran, Lucy Davis and Penelope Wilton. And some blink and you’ll miss it cameos from comedy greats Matt Lucas, Reece Shearsmith and Tamsin Greig. These names paired with Edgar Wright’s well paced directing style makes for an engaging film.
Shaun of the Dead is basically a big screen zombie version of Spaced, and this definitely isn’t a bad thing. The only negative about this, especially watching it 16 years later, is that it seems so obviously low budget which I think has only been made more obvious with age. Even in HD it does look a tad aged which is a shame, but the amount of blood and gore is still impressive for a 15 rated film.
Despite it’s age, Shaun of the Dead is one of the best zombie films out there and the fact that it’s hilarious too just makes it even better. And after watching this, you’ll never think of Queen’s Don’t Stop Me Now in the same way again.
An interesting take on the tale
If you take for granted that the makers of this short series have taken some liberties with the classic tale, then you will enjoy this adaptation all the more. My wife, who hasn't read the book and barely remembers the Gary Oldman film, really enjoyed this series. I, who have read and loved the book and a few prequel/sequel attempts, enjoyed it a little less. However, for what it is, it's a very clever and witty interpretation of the story.
The three episodes are largely standalone and in a different setting. The first episode we are in familiar territory with Jonathan Harker in Castle Dracula. Here the makers explored Harker's passive imprisonment and gradual blood-draining far more than in other adaptations, giving the viewer a real confused, frustrated and claustrophobic feeling. The second episode takes place on the Count's journey to the UK. Again previous adaptations have skipped over this, and the crew's gradual diminution, which was a bigger factor of the book. This is when Dracula's psychological twisting and sick sense of humour start to feature more heavily, with some good head-scratching twists.
The third episode covers Dracula's time in the UK, but not as you've ever seen before. I thought this part was brilliant, but won't give any spoilers. The main features of this part of the original story are retained (Dracula's mutual obsession with Lucy Westenra), but Dracula is now revealed like never before, with some of his weaknesses explored and exposed for what they are.
Like I say, if you can accept the liberties taken, this is a great adaptation with a really sassy Dracula.
The three episodes are largely standalone and in a different setting. The first episode we are in familiar territory with Jonathan Harker in Castle Dracula. Here the makers explored Harker's passive imprisonment and gradual blood-draining far more than in other adaptations, giving the viewer a real confused, frustrated and claustrophobic feeling. The second episode takes place on the Count's journey to the UK. Again previous adaptations have skipped over this, and the crew's gradual diminution, which was a bigger factor of the book. This is when Dracula's psychological twisting and sick sense of humour start to feature more heavily, with some good head-scratching twists.
The third episode covers Dracula's time in the UK, but not as you've ever seen before. I thought this part was brilliant, but won't give any spoilers. The main features of this part of the original story are retained (Dracula's mutual obsession with Lucy Westenra), but Dracula is now revealed like never before, with some of his weaknesses explored and exposed for what they are.
Like I say, if you can accept the liberties taken, this is a great adaptation with a really sassy Dracula.
Whose Line is it Anyway
Book
This title is presented on 2CDs. It features Stephen Fry, Hugh Laurie, Lenny Henry, Griff Rhys Jones...
PE
Public Enquiries: Park Lek and the Scandinavian Social Turn
Book
Public Enquiries is the culmination of a multidisciplinary research project that operated through a...