Search
Hexen 2.0: Suzanne Treister
Suzanne Treister and Lars Bang Larsen
Book
HEXEN2.0 is the sequel to HEXEN 2039 which imagined new technologies for psychological warfare...
Tourism and the Creative Industries: Theories, Policies and Practice
Philip Long and Nigel D. Morpeth
Book
This book focuses on the theoretical, policy and practice linkages and disjunctures between tourism...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Front Runner (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Candidate for a downfall.
We can all probably rattle off some of the classics movies with US politics as their backdrop. For me, “All the President’s Men”; “Primary Colors”; and “Frost/Nixon” might make that list. In the next tier down there are many great drama/thrillers – “Miss Sloane“; “The Post“; “The Ides of March”; “The American President”; “JFK” – and even some pretty funny comedies – “Dave” and “My Fellow Americans” for example. It’s actually quite difficult to think of many films on the subject that are outright dire, proving it remains a fertile ground for film-makers.
“The Front Runner” fortunately avoids this last category, but it’s certainly not good enough to make it into the ‘classics’ list either.
A true story.
The film is based on the true-story of US presidential hopeful Gary Hart (Hugh Jackman) and if you are NOT aware of the historical background then you might want to skip the rest of this review – and indeed all others – so you can see the film first and let the history come as a surprise to you.
Hart was younger than most candidates: good-looking, floppy-haired and refreshingly matter of fact in his dealings with the public and the press. Any interviews had to be about his politics: not about his family life with wife Lee (Vera Farmiga) and teenage daughter Andrea (Kaitlyn Dever).
Unfortunately, Hart has a weakness for a pretty face (or ten) and his marriage is rocky as a result: “Just don’t embarrass me” is Lee’s one requirement. His “nothing to hide” line to an intelligent Washington Post reporter – AJ Parker (a well cast Mamoudou Athie) – leads to a half-arsed stake-out by Miami Herald reporters and incriminating pictures linking Hart to a Miami pharmaceutical saleswoman Donna Rice (Sara Paxton). As the growing press tsunami rises, and his campaign manager (J.K. Simmons) gets more and more frustrated with him, can his candidacy survive and will his (now very much embarrassed) wife stick by him?
The turns.
Hugh Jackman is perfectly cast here; very believable as the self-centred, self-righteous and stubborn politician. But this central performance is surrounded by a strong team of supporting players. Vera Farmiga is superb as the wounded wife. Sara Paxton is heartbreaking as the intelligent college girl unfairly portrayed as a “slapper” by the media. The scenes between her and Hart-staffer Irene (Molly Ephraim), trying desperately to support her as best she can, are very nicely done. J.K Simmons as campaign manager Bill Dixon is as reliable as ever. And Alfred Molina turns up as the latest film incarnation of The Post’s Ben Bradlee – surely one of the most oft portrayed real-life journalists in film history.
“What did they just say”?
The biggest cause of dissatisfaction I have with the film is with the sound mixing. Was this a deliberate act by director Jason Reitman, to reflect the chaotic nature of political campaigning? Whether it was deliberate or not, much of the film’s dialogue – particularly in the first 30 minutes of the film – is drowned out by background noise. Sometimes I just longed for subtitles!
Just a little bit dull.
The screenplay, by Matt Bai (from his source book), Jay Carson (a Clinton staffer) and director Jason Reitman might align with the history, but the big problem is that the story’s just a little bit dull, particularly by today’s levels of scandal. This suffers the same fate as “House of Cards” (even before the Kevin Spacey allegations) in that the shocking realities of the Trump-era have progressively neutered the shock-factor of the fiction: to the point where it starts to become boring. Here, only once or twice does the screenplay hit a winning beat: for me, it was the scenes between Donna Rice and Irene Kelly and the dramatic press conference towards the end of the film. The rest of the time, the screenplay was perfectly serviceable but nothing spectacular.
When is a politician’s personal life private?
A core tenet of the film is Hart’s view that politics should be about the policies and not about the personality. Looking at the subject nowadays, it’s clearly a ridiculously idealistic viewpoint. Of course it matters. Politicians need to be trusted by their constituents (yeah, like that’s the case in the UK and the US at the moment!) and whether or not they slap their wives around or sleep with farm animals is clearly a material factor in that relationship. But this was clearly not as much the case in the 70’s as it is today, and the suggestion is that the Hart case was a turning point and a wake-up call to politicians around the world. (An interesting article by the Washington Post itself points out that this is also a simplistic view: that Hart should have been well aware of the dangerous game he was playing.)
Fidelity in politics.
Do you think that powerful politicos are driven to infidelity because they are powerful? Or that it is a characteristic of men who have the charisma to become political leaders in the first place? Such was the discussion my wife and I had in the car home after this film. Nature or political nurture? I’m still not sure.
It’s worth pointing out that to this day both Hart and Rice (interestingly, an alleged ex-girlfriend of Eagles front-man Don Henley) stick to their story that they never had sex.
Final thoughts.
The film’s perfectly watchable, has great acting, but is a little bit of a non-event. The end titles came and I thought “OK, that’s that then”…. nothing more. If you’re a fan of this style of historical political film then you probably won’t be disappointed by it; if not, probably best to wait and catch this on the TV.
“The Front Runner” fortunately avoids this last category, but it’s certainly not good enough to make it into the ‘classics’ list either.
A true story.
The film is based on the true-story of US presidential hopeful Gary Hart (Hugh Jackman) and if you are NOT aware of the historical background then you might want to skip the rest of this review – and indeed all others – so you can see the film first and let the history come as a surprise to you.
Hart was younger than most candidates: good-looking, floppy-haired and refreshingly matter of fact in his dealings with the public and the press. Any interviews had to be about his politics: not about his family life with wife Lee (Vera Farmiga) and teenage daughter Andrea (Kaitlyn Dever).
Unfortunately, Hart has a weakness for a pretty face (or ten) and his marriage is rocky as a result: “Just don’t embarrass me” is Lee’s one requirement. His “nothing to hide” line to an intelligent Washington Post reporter – AJ Parker (a well cast Mamoudou Athie) – leads to a half-arsed stake-out by Miami Herald reporters and incriminating pictures linking Hart to a Miami pharmaceutical saleswoman Donna Rice (Sara Paxton). As the growing press tsunami rises, and his campaign manager (J.K. Simmons) gets more and more frustrated with him, can his candidacy survive and will his (now very much embarrassed) wife stick by him?
The turns.
Hugh Jackman is perfectly cast here; very believable as the self-centred, self-righteous and stubborn politician. But this central performance is surrounded by a strong team of supporting players. Vera Farmiga is superb as the wounded wife. Sara Paxton is heartbreaking as the intelligent college girl unfairly portrayed as a “slapper” by the media. The scenes between her and Hart-staffer Irene (Molly Ephraim), trying desperately to support her as best she can, are very nicely done. J.K Simmons as campaign manager Bill Dixon is as reliable as ever. And Alfred Molina turns up as the latest film incarnation of The Post’s Ben Bradlee – surely one of the most oft portrayed real-life journalists in film history.
“What did they just say”?
The biggest cause of dissatisfaction I have with the film is with the sound mixing. Was this a deliberate act by director Jason Reitman, to reflect the chaotic nature of political campaigning? Whether it was deliberate or not, much of the film’s dialogue – particularly in the first 30 minutes of the film – is drowned out by background noise. Sometimes I just longed for subtitles!
Just a little bit dull.
The screenplay, by Matt Bai (from his source book), Jay Carson (a Clinton staffer) and director Jason Reitman might align with the history, but the big problem is that the story’s just a little bit dull, particularly by today’s levels of scandal. This suffers the same fate as “House of Cards” (even before the Kevin Spacey allegations) in that the shocking realities of the Trump-era have progressively neutered the shock-factor of the fiction: to the point where it starts to become boring. Here, only once or twice does the screenplay hit a winning beat: for me, it was the scenes between Donna Rice and Irene Kelly and the dramatic press conference towards the end of the film. The rest of the time, the screenplay was perfectly serviceable but nothing spectacular.
When is a politician’s personal life private?
A core tenet of the film is Hart’s view that politics should be about the policies and not about the personality. Looking at the subject nowadays, it’s clearly a ridiculously idealistic viewpoint. Of course it matters. Politicians need to be trusted by their constituents (yeah, like that’s the case in the UK and the US at the moment!) and whether or not they slap their wives around or sleep with farm animals is clearly a material factor in that relationship. But this was clearly not as much the case in the 70’s as it is today, and the suggestion is that the Hart case was a turning point and a wake-up call to politicians around the world. (An interesting article by the Washington Post itself points out that this is also a simplistic view: that Hart should have been well aware of the dangerous game he was playing.)
Fidelity in politics.
Do you think that powerful politicos are driven to infidelity because they are powerful? Or that it is a characteristic of men who have the charisma to become political leaders in the first place? Such was the discussion my wife and I had in the car home after this film. Nature or political nurture? I’m still not sure.
It’s worth pointing out that to this day both Hart and Rice (interestingly, an alleged ex-girlfriend of Eagles front-man Don Henley) stick to their story that they never had sex.
Final thoughts.
The film’s perfectly watchable, has great acting, but is a little bit of a non-event. The end titles came and I thought “OK, that’s that then”…. nothing more. If you’re a fan of this style of historical political film then you probably won’t be disappointed by it; if not, probably best to wait and catch this on the TV.
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Fifty Shades of Grey (2015) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
A tiresome affair
The Fifty Shades phenomenon is something very hard to calculate. Yes, we know its sold millions of copies worldwide, but its readership is likely to be much higher. I’m sure someone somewhere will know another person who didn’t go out and buy the book, but just borrowed it.
Creating a film from E.L. James’ novel was never going to be an easy task for numerous reasons. The harsh reality is that Brits have mixed views with regards to seeing sex on the big screen – nonetheless, Sam Taylor-Johnson, director of the critically acclaimed Nowhere Boy, was chosen to helm an adaptation. But is it a success?
Partially is the short answer. The film is nicely shot and well-acted, but in trying to craft a ‘classy’ movie, Taylor-Johnson has stripped it of what people read the novel for – escapism and of course sex.
For the uninitiated, Fifty Shades follows the story of young Ana Steele, a shy, timid virgin as she begins a rather, shall we say, unusual relationship with the wealthy, intimidating Christian Grey.
The lead roles are cast well with Dakota Johnson playing Ana as she appears in the novel – minus her irritating thought processes – and Jamie Dornan as Mr Grey. Other roles are scarce on the ground with glorified cameos for Rita Ora and Marcia Gay Harden.
It’s been well publicised that with only 20 minutes of sex in a 2 hour film, pleasing hardcore fans of the books was going to be a difficult task. The sex that is there is reasonably tastefully edited and nicely choreographed, though this also creates Fifty Shades’ biggest problem.
There simply is no story to speak of, with each raunchy scene being scattered alongside numerous plot fillers like helicopter rides which act as a catalyst to the next sequence of passion and when the majority of them are removed, watching is a tiresome affair.
Moreover, whilst the leads perform well on their own, the chemistry between them is sorely lacking. At no point in the film is there a whisper of sexual tension – with Dornan’s Grey coming across overly creepy and Johnson’s Ana reeking of desperation.
Despite its 18 certification here in the UK, Fifty Shades never feels like it is fully deserving of it. With a highly controversial and no doubt too lenient 12 rating being awarded to it in France, it almost feels like producers here tried as hard as they could to slip it into the 18 category – therefore maximising controversy before its release.
Unfortunately, digging beneath the surface reveals a good film trying desperately to break out of its shackles. Exploring the characters more than in James’ admittedly lacklustre novel ultimately does more harm than good.
Overall, Sam Taylor-Johnson should be commended for trying to bring a controversial novel to the big screen and the soundtrack is very good indeed. However, the lack of chemistry between the two leads and a lack of sex and story mean you’re more likely to be checking your watch than checking your heart rate.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/02/14/a-tiresome-affair-fifty-shades-of-grey-review/
Creating a film from E.L. James’ novel was never going to be an easy task for numerous reasons. The harsh reality is that Brits have mixed views with regards to seeing sex on the big screen – nonetheless, Sam Taylor-Johnson, director of the critically acclaimed Nowhere Boy, was chosen to helm an adaptation. But is it a success?
Partially is the short answer. The film is nicely shot and well-acted, but in trying to craft a ‘classy’ movie, Taylor-Johnson has stripped it of what people read the novel for – escapism and of course sex.
For the uninitiated, Fifty Shades follows the story of young Ana Steele, a shy, timid virgin as she begins a rather, shall we say, unusual relationship with the wealthy, intimidating Christian Grey.
The lead roles are cast well with Dakota Johnson playing Ana as she appears in the novel – minus her irritating thought processes – and Jamie Dornan as Mr Grey. Other roles are scarce on the ground with glorified cameos for Rita Ora and Marcia Gay Harden.
It’s been well publicised that with only 20 minutes of sex in a 2 hour film, pleasing hardcore fans of the books was going to be a difficult task. The sex that is there is reasonably tastefully edited and nicely choreographed, though this also creates Fifty Shades’ biggest problem.
There simply is no story to speak of, with each raunchy scene being scattered alongside numerous plot fillers like helicopter rides which act as a catalyst to the next sequence of passion and when the majority of them are removed, watching is a tiresome affair.
Moreover, whilst the leads perform well on their own, the chemistry between them is sorely lacking. At no point in the film is there a whisper of sexual tension – with Dornan’s Grey coming across overly creepy and Johnson’s Ana reeking of desperation.
Despite its 18 certification here in the UK, Fifty Shades never feels like it is fully deserving of it. With a highly controversial and no doubt too lenient 12 rating being awarded to it in France, it almost feels like producers here tried as hard as they could to slip it into the 18 category – therefore maximising controversy before its release.
Unfortunately, digging beneath the surface reveals a good film trying desperately to break out of its shackles. Exploring the characters more than in James’ admittedly lacklustre novel ultimately does more harm than good.
Overall, Sam Taylor-Johnson should be commended for trying to bring a controversial novel to the big screen and the soundtrack is very good indeed. However, the lack of chemistry between the two leads and a lack of sex and story mean you’re more likely to be checking your watch than checking your heart rate.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2015/02/14/a-tiresome-affair-fifty-shades-of-grey-review/
The Best of Grand Designs
Book
A complete celebration of Britain's favourite architectural show. Grand Designs is broadcast in over...
Spinderella
Julia Donaldson and Sebastian Braun
Book
A fantastic new picture book all about a football-playing spider, written by Julia Donaldson, author...
Darren Fisher (2447 KP) rated Siege (1982) in Movies
Dec 13, 2020 (Updated Dec 13, 2020)
Overlooked excellent grindhouse thriller.
I rented this out a lot back in the 80s. This film needs an official re-release desperately (remains only available on VHS and Laserdisc).
Siege motors along at a fast pace, no lulls, just scene upon scene of intense cat and mouse between a gang of murderous thugs and a group of people (in what looks like the most rundown and scuzziest building ever) who take in a survivor from the gangs previous assault. Shades of John Carpenter's Assault on Precinct 13 and a cheeky wink towards Escape From New York, the gang take on more than they bargain for when the ever resourceful victims strike back. Solid acting all round and a sucker punch of a twist at the end. This is a must see! Essential grindhouse viewing!
Trivia:
1# It contains the only existing news footage of the actual 1981 Halifax Police strike.
2# Aka Self Defense (USA), Night Warriors (Europe), New York 1991 (Various countries). Seige was the UK title.
3# The Japanese release has a further 7 minutes of extra 'day-time' footage. Although this is interesting it doesn't really add anything to the final cut. Personally I prefer the 'night-time' version as it evokes more menace and gets straight to the point.
Siege motors along at a fast pace, no lulls, just scene upon scene of intense cat and mouse between a gang of murderous thugs and a group of people (in what looks like the most rundown and scuzziest building ever) who take in a survivor from the gangs previous assault. Shades of John Carpenter's Assault on Precinct 13 and a cheeky wink towards Escape From New York, the gang take on more than they bargain for when the ever resourceful victims strike back. Solid acting all round and a sucker punch of a twist at the end. This is a must see! Essential grindhouse viewing!
Trivia:
1# It contains the only existing news footage of the actual 1981 Halifax Police strike.
2# Aka Self Defense (USA), Night Warriors (Europe), New York 1991 (Various countries). Seige was the UK title.
3# The Japanese release has a further 7 minutes of extra 'day-time' footage. Although this is interesting it doesn't really add anything to the final cut. Personally I prefer the 'night-time' version as it evokes more menace and gets straight to the point.
Daniel by Daniel O'Donnell
Album
Daniel O'Donnell's recording career has now spanned almost 35 years and he continues to delight fans...
Sleeping with a Psychopath
7.5
Rate It
Book
THE SUNDAY TIMES TOP TEN BESTSELLER A Divorced Woman. A Dangerous Man. A Devastating Affair. ...
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Avengers: Infinity War (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
An Exhausting Thrill Ride
The Marvel Cinematic Universe has been delighting fans of the comics and thrilling moviegoers since 2008 when Iron Man steamrolled itself onto the big screen in an epic fashion. From the special effects to the casting of Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark, it was the complete package.
The culmination of all those films through Phase One, Phase Two and Three has come to a head in this, Avengers: Infinity War. It promises to be the biggest, baddest and most epic Marvel movie to date, but is it actually any good? Read on to find out.
Directed by Antony and Joe Russo, the masterminds behind the fantastic Captain America sequels, Infinity War picks up just after the end of Thor: Ragnarok. This starting place seems fitting and not jumping too far ahead of the finale of that film is perfect to reintroduce our beloved heroes.
The cast form one of the best ensembles ever put to screen, though from each of their solo outings, this is really no surprise. Seeing Black Panther, Black Widow, Captain America et al come back together is frankly, a joy and the film works best when there are as many heroes on screen together as possible.
A highlight in this instance is Benedict Cumberbatch’s Dr. Strange – prepare to jump on the Steven Strange bandwagon. After a relatively lacklustre solo outing, his character pops on the screen and really benefits from the Russo brothers zingy direction.
As is the case with many films involving such a large cast, much of the 149 minute runtime is spent following a few of them at once, each going about their own mission in relation to stopping Thanos and his possession of the Infinity stones. If I count correctly, there are 3 quests going on at once, but only two are really successful.
Special effects wise, this is a $400million movie, so you know what to expect. For the most part, the CGI from Industrial Light & Magic is seamless and really rather beautiful. The motion capture work done on Josh Brolin to turn him into Thanos is exquisite and the end result is a truly menacing villain. Elsewhere however, there are a few corners cut if you look closely enough, but I’ll leave it down to you to try and spot them.
Focussing on Thanos himself, he proves to be a fitting villain for a film this gargantuan in scale. His towering presence and almost demonic sense of entitlement completely does away with the stereotypical Marvel bad-guy problem that the MCU has been suffering with. Obviously helped massively by Brolin’s incredible performance, Thanos is up there with Loki in terms of sheer entertainment value.
Nevertheless, Avengers: Infinity War is not a perfect film and it would be wrong of me to pretend it was. Despite its massive length, elements do feel rushed from time-to-time and cramming 20+ characters into a film was never going to be a slam dunk. Some moments that should have deep resonance really don’t reach the emotion they were clearly intended to do, and that’s because of the film’s need to tie up as much of the plot as possible. Thankfully, from a tonal perspective, the Russo brothers manage to keep the balance almost perfect and it’s a vast improvement over Joss Whedon’s disjointed Age of Ultron.
My biggest issue with the film however, is the ending. Avengers: Infinity War is not a film you come to the end of and applaud. In fact, the main response from the entire screening of the film I was watching was a collective groan as the end credits begin to roll. Despite the promise that Infinity War would work as a standalone movie; it just doesn’t. It’s very much a starting chapter for what comes next in Avengers 4. But we need to wait just over a year for the concluding chapter to arrive in UK cinemas, and that is incredibly infuriating.
Overall, Avengers: Infinity War is a culmination of everything Marvel has been working towards for a decade. In its favour are an incredible cast, that trademark MCU humour and some stunning action sequences but these are offset by an infuriating ending and a lack of emotional heft to the film’s inevitable darker moments.
This may definitely be the biggest movie in the MCU and it’s definitely the 2nd best Avengers movie, but it’s not quite up there with the very best.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/04/26/avengers-infinity-war-review-an-exhausting-thrill-ride/
The culmination of all those films through Phase One, Phase Two and Three has come to a head in this, Avengers: Infinity War. It promises to be the biggest, baddest and most epic Marvel movie to date, but is it actually any good? Read on to find out.
Directed by Antony and Joe Russo, the masterminds behind the fantastic Captain America sequels, Infinity War picks up just after the end of Thor: Ragnarok. This starting place seems fitting and not jumping too far ahead of the finale of that film is perfect to reintroduce our beloved heroes.
The cast form one of the best ensembles ever put to screen, though from each of their solo outings, this is really no surprise. Seeing Black Panther, Black Widow, Captain America et al come back together is frankly, a joy and the film works best when there are as many heroes on screen together as possible.
A highlight in this instance is Benedict Cumberbatch’s Dr. Strange – prepare to jump on the Steven Strange bandwagon. After a relatively lacklustre solo outing, his character pops on the screen and really benefits from the Russo brothers zingy direction.
As is the case with many films involving such a large cast, much of the 149 minute runtime is spent following a few of them at once, each going about their own mission in relation to stopping Thanos and his possession of the Infinity stones. If I count correctly, there are 3 quests going on at once, but only two are really successful.
Special effects wise, this is a $400million movie, so you know what to expect. For the most part, the CGI from Industrial Light & Magic is seamless and really rather beautiful. The motion capture work done on Josh Brolin to turn him into Thanos is exquisite and the end result is a truly menacing villain. Elsewhere however, there are a few corners cut if you look closely enough, but I’ll leave it down to you to try and spot them.
Focussing on Thanos himself, he proves to be a fitting villain for a film this gargantuan in scale. His towering presence and almost demonic sense of entitlement completely does away with the stereotypical Marvel bad-guy problem that the MCU has been suffering with. Obviously helped massively by Brolin’s incredible performance, Thanos is up there with Loki in terms of sheer entertainment value.
Nevertheless, Avengers: Infinity War is not a perfect film and it would be wrong of me to pretend it was. Despite its massive length, elements do feel rushed from time-to-time and cramming 20+ characters into a film was never going to be a slam dunk. Some moments that should have deep resonance really don’t reach the emotion they were clearly intended to do, and that’s because of the film’s need to tie up as much of the plot as possible. Thankfully, from a tonal perspective, the Russo brothers manage to keep the balance almost perfect and it’s a vast improvement over Joss Whedon’s disjointed Age of Ultron.
My biggest issue with the film however, is the ending. Avengers: Infinity War is not a film you come to the end of and applaud. In fact, the main response from the entire screening of the film I was watching was a collective groan as the end credits begin to roll. Despite the promise that Infinity War would work as a standalone movie; it just doesn’t. It’s very much a starting chapter for what comes next in Avengers 4. But we need to wait just over a year for the concluding chapter to arrive in UK cinemas, and that is incredibly infuriating.
Overall, Avengers: Infinity War is a culmination of everything Marvel has been working towards for a decade. In its favour are an incredible cast, that trademark MCU humour and some stunning action sequences but these are offset by an infuriating ending and a lack of emotional heft to the film’s inevitable darker moments.
This may definitely be the biggest movie in the MCU and it’s definitely the 2nd best Avengers movie, but it’s not quite up there with the very best.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/04/26/avengers-infinity-war-review-an-exhausting-thrill-ride/