Search
Apache Spark in 24 Hours, Sams Teach Yourself
Book
Apache Spark is a fast, scalable, and flexible open source distributed processing engine for big...
TapGlance Interior Design
Lifestyle and Productivity
App
TapGlance is a powerful and intuitive interior design app. Within minutes and without any prior...
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Ford v Ferrari (aka Le Mans '66) (2019) in Movies
Nov 20, 2019
Damon, Bale and fast cars (1 more)
Epic technical film making - cinematography, editing and sound - Oscar bait
A linear story on a circular track - but beautifully done.
Despite the love affair cinema has had with cars over the years, the sport of motor racing on film has been patchy. Too often the drama on the track has been deluged with melodrama off the track, as in John Frankenheimer's "Grand Prix" from 1966. While recent efforts such as Ron Howard's "Rush" have brought modern filming techniques to better convey the speed and excitement, it is Steve McQueen's "Le Mans" from 1971 that had previously set the bar for realism in the sport. But even there, there were a few off-track love stories to interweave into the action.
I wouldn't hesitate to suggest that "Le Mans '66" is a strong contender for the motor racing high-water mark.
The film was marketed as "Ford v Ferrari" in the US. (What... do the American distributors think their film-goers are so stupid that if "Le" is in the title they will think it sub-titled foreign language??). But it's a valid title, since the movie tells the true story of when Henry Ford... the second... (Tracy Letts) throws his toys out of the pram at Ford's faltering progress. ("James Bond does not drive a Ford". "That's because he's a degenerate!" snaps back Ford, which kind of typifies the problem"). Marketing man Lee Iacocca (Jon Bernthal) persuades retired hot-shot racer Carroll Shelby (Matt Damon) to take Ford's blank-cheque to build a car to win the Le Mans 24 hour race.
Shelby enlists maverick Brit racer Ken Miles (Christian Bale) to help design and drive the next-generation machine. But neither had banked on the interference of the hoards of Ford suits, led by VP Leo Beebe (Josh Lucas). An explosion is imminent! And its not just from the over-heated brake pads!
What's really odd about this film is how linear the story is. While we get to see the family life of Miles (to add necessary context to what follows) these are merely minor diversions. There are no sub-plots or flashback scenes. It just relates the history from beginning to end, enlivened by some of the best and most exciting motor-racing footage put to celluloid.
At a bladder-testing 152 minutes, this really shouldn't have worked. I should have got bored and restless. But I really didn't.
In many ways - bladders aside - I think this will appeal in particular to an older breed of movie-goer. It's a 100% 'sit back in your seat and enjoy' cinema treat.
This is the first film Matt Damon and Christian Bale have made together, and I understand that Damon specifically signed on since he wanted to work with Bale. And there is palpable chemistry there. The movie includes one of the best 'bad-fights' since Colin Firth and Hugh Grant locked horns in the Bridget Jones films. And Damon - never one of the most expressive actors in the world - here really shines.
Bale also appears to be having a whale of a time. Not having to adopt a US accent suits him, as he blasts and swears his way through various UK-specific expletives that probably passed the US-censors by! He often tends to play characters in movies that are difficult to warm to, but here - although suitably spiky and irascible - the family man really shines through and you feel a real warmth for the guy.
There's a strong supporting cast behind the leads, with Tracy Letts' fast-driving breakdown being a standout moment. I wonder how many takes they needed on that for Damon to keep a semi-straight face?! Also impressive as the son Peter Miles is Noah Jupe. If you're wondering where the hell you've seen him before, he was young (Marcus in "A Quiet Place").
Where the film comes alive is on the track, and a particular shout out should to to the technical teams. Cinematography is by Phedon Papamichael ("Walk the Line"), film editing is led by Andrew Buckland and Michael McCusker. And sound mixing - which to my ear was piston-valve perfect - is by Steven Morrow. Also worthy of note is a kick-ass driving soundtrack by Marco Beltrami that genuinely excited. These categories are fearsomly hard to predict in awards season, but you might like to listen out for those names.
If I was going to pick at any faults in the film, it would be that Ford exec Leo Beebe is painted a little too much as a "boo-hiss" pantomime villain in the piece. It could have been perhaps toned down 20% or so.
James Mangold ("Logan"; "Walk the Line") directs in style. From the rather po-faced trailer, you might think this is a "car movie that's not for me". But it really is a tremendously fun movie, with some genuinely laugh-out-loud moments mixed in with edge-of-your-seat action and some heart-rending moments.
Above all, this is a film that really benefits from the wide-screen and sound-system that only a big cinema can provide. As such this goes on my "get out and see it" list without any hesitation! It's going to make my movies of the year: and I'm off to see it again on Saturday!
Read the full review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/11/20/one-manns-movies-film-review-le-mans-66-2019/
I wouldn't hesitate to suggest that "Le Mans '66" is a strong contender for the motor racing high-water mark.
The film was marketed as "Ford v Ferrari" in the US. (What... do the American distributors think their film-goers are so stupid that if "Le" is in the title they will think it sub-titled foreign language??). But it's a valid title, since the movie tells the true story of when Henry Ford... the second... (Tracy Letts) throws his toys out of the pram at Ford's faltering progress. ("James Bond does not drive a Ford". "That's because he's a degenerate!" snaps back Ford, which kind of typifies the problem"). Marketing man Lee Iacocca (Jon Bernthal) persuades retired hot-shot racer Carroll Shelby (Matt Damon) to take Ford's blank-cheque to build a car to win the Le Mans 24 hour race.
Shelby enlists maverick Brit racer Ken Miles (Christian Bale) to help design and drive the next-generation machine. But neither had banked on the interference of the hoards of Ford suits, led by VP Leo Beebe (Josh Lucas). An explosion is imminent! And its not just from the over-heated brake pads!
What's really odd about this film is how linear the story is. While we get to see the family life of Miles (to add necessary context to what follows) these are merely minor diversions. There are no sub-plots or flashback scenes. It just relates the history from beginning to end, enlivened by some of the best and most exciting motor-racing footage put to celluloid.
At a bladder-testing 152 minutes, this really shouldn't have worked. I should have got bored and restless. But I really didn't.
In many ways - bladders aside - I think this will appeal in particular to an older breed of movie-goer. It's a 100% 'sit back in your seat and enjoy' cinema treat.
This is the first film Matt Damon and Christian Bale have made together, and I understand that Damon specifically signed on since he wanted to work with Bale. And there is palpable chemistry there. The movie includes one of the best 'bad-fights' since Colin Firth and Hugh Grant locked horns in the Bridget Jones films. And Damon - never one of the most expressive actors in the world - here really shines.
Bale also appears to be having a whale of a time. Not having to adopt a US accent suits him, as he blasts and swears his way through various UK-specific expletives that probably passed the US-censors by! He often tends to play characters in movies that are difficult to warm to, but here - although suitably spiky and irascible - the family man really shines through and you feel a real warmth for the guy.
There's a strong supporting cast behind the leads, with Tracy Letts' fast-driving breakdown being a standout moment. I wonder how many takes they needed on that for Damon to keep a semi-straight face?! Also impressive as the son Peter Miles is Noah Jupe. If you're wondering where the hell you've seen him before, he was young (Marcus in "A Quiet Place").
Where the film comes alive is on the track, and a particular shout out should to to the technical teams. Cinematography is by Phedon Papamichael ("Walk the Line"), film editing is led by Andrew Buckland and Michael McCusker. And sound mixing - which to my ear was piston-valve perfect - is by Steven Morrow. Also worthy of note is a kick-ass driving soundtrack by Marco Beltrami that genuinely excited. These categories are fearsomly hard to predict in awards season, but you might like to listen out for those names.
If I was going to pick at any faults in the film, it would be that Ford exec Leo Beebe is painted a little too much as a "boo-hiss" pantomime villain in the piece. It could have been perhaps toned down 20% or so.
James Mangold ("Logan"; "Walk the Line") directs in style. From the rather po-faced trailer, you might think this is a "car movie that's not for me". But it really is a tremendously fun movie, with some genuinely laugh-out-loud moments mixed in with edge-of-your-seat action and some heart-rending moments.
Above all, this is a film that really benefits from the wide-screen and sound-system that only a big cinema can provide. As such this goes on my "get out and see it" list without any hesitation! It's going to make my movies of the year: and I'm off to see it again on Saturday!
Read the full review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2019/11/20/one-manns-movies-film-review-le-mans-66-2019/
Haley Mathiot (9 KP) rated From Darkness to Light: My Journey Back from a Brain Filled with Blood in Books
Apr 27, 2018
From Darkness to Light—My journey back from a brain filled with blood
by Lynn Christopher Roby
Rating: 3.5/5
Genre: Memoir, Autobiography, Christian
Summary: Lynn tells the story of her aneurysm, her life before and after, and her walk with God. She recalls her aneurysm and tells the sad and frightening story of her trials trying to get through it. Living through an aneurysm is hard—I had no idea how hard! She went through constant pain and a lot of depression. She also talks about her alcoholism early in life, mentions her sexual abuse, and her early depression. Eventually, after the aneurysm, she was able to heal enough to start her work for the Lord, opening a clinic to help people through the things she has gone through.
Thoughts: Lynn’s story is amazing and inspiring. This books shows how the bible verse “all things work together for good” plays out in real life. Lynn never would have been able to help the people she helped, or save the lives she helped save, if it hadn’t been for her very rough life.
Writing: The writing style and prose was tough to read in that it felt very choppy, had a lot of fragments, and quite a few typos, giving it an overall casual feel. The pacing was also a bit fast through the aneurysm, and slow through the rest. I found it difficult to read during the section where she explained the “12 steps to A.A.” which she explained in detail and then related it to her experiences, and showed how she used them through her life as a recovering alcoholic and getting through the aneurysm. The layout was a bit hard to follow, too. She starts with the aneurysm, then the healing process, then backtracks to tell about her alcoholism and depression, divorce, and second marriage before she finishes the story of what happened after the aneurysm. It was a little confusing, but once I saw what she was doing, it was easier to follow.
Content: There was no language or sex. She does mention God very often, as it is a memoir of a Christian’s suffering, but does not leave you with the feeling that you’ve been “preached to.”
Recommendation: Ages 13+ because of reference to alcohol. I really enjoyed this book—it had its on-the-edge-of-your-seat moments, its sad sections, and its happy parts.
About the author:
Lynn lives in Carroll Valley Pa. with her husband Bill and their Samoyed Abigail. She is a Mother blessed with four sons and beautiful grandchildren that add to filling her life with joy and fun.
Lynn is a certified Professional Level Kripalu Yoga Teacher; she continues her studies at The Kripalu Center for Yoga & Health in Stockbridge Ma. Lynn and her husband Bill are the founders and owners of The Gettysburg Holistic Health Center where Lynn teaches in her studio which is a Kripalu affiliated studio. Lynn is a Master level addictions specialist and a Reiki Master. She feels honored to work with folks who suffer from the disease of addiction as she watches them transform their lives from turmoil to surrender.
Lynn’s journey led her into writing this book that was very cathartic hoping to inspire anyone suffering not only from a ruptured brain aneurysm, or alcoholism, or abuse but to touch anyone who can relate to such pain and suffering and find hope from reading this book
**Thank you to Bostic Communications and Lynn for providing me with my review copy!**
~Haleyknitz
by Lynn Christopher Roby
Rating: 3.5/5
Genre: Memoir, Autobiography, Christian
Summary: Lynn tells the story of her aneurysm, her life before and after, and her walk with God. She recalls her aneurysm and tells the sad and frightening story of her trials trying to get through it. Living through an aneurysm is hard—I had no idea how hard! She went through constant pain and a lot of depression. She also talks about her alcoholism early in life, mentions her sexual abuse, and her early depression. Eventually, after the aneurysm, she was able to heal enough to start her work for the Lord, opening a clinic to help people through the things she has gone through.
Thoughts: Lynn’s story is amazing and inspiring. This books shows how the bible verse “all things work together for good” plays out in real life. Lynn never would have been able to help the people she helped, or save the lives she helped save, if it hadn’t been for her very rough life.
Writing: The writing style and prose was tough to read in that it felt very choppy, had a lot of fragments, and quite a few typos, giving it an overall casual feel. The pacing was also a bit fast through the aneurysm, and slow through the rest. I found it difficult to read during the section where she explained the “12 steps to A.A.” which she explained in detail and then related it to her experiences, and showed how she used them through her life as a recovering alcoholic and getting through the aneurysm. The layout was a bit hard to follow, too. She starts with the aneurysm, then the healing process, then backtracks to tell about her alcoholism and depression, divorce, and second marriage before she finishes the story of what happened after the aneurysm. It was a little confusing, but once I saw what she was doing, it was easier to follow.
Content: There was no language or sex. She does mention God very often, as it is a memoir of a Christian’s suffering, but does not leave you with the feeling that you’ve been “preached to.”
Recommendation: Ages 13+ because of reference to alcohol. I really enjoyed this book—it had its on-the-edge-of-your-seat moments, its sad sections, and its happy parts.
About the author:
Lynn lives in Carroll Valley Pa. with her husband Bill and their Samoyed Abigail. She is a Mother blessed with four sons and beautiful grandchildren that add to filling her life with joy and fun.
Lynn is a certified Professional Level Kripalu Yoga Teacher; she continues her studies at The Kripalu Center for Yoga & Health in Stockbridge Ma. Lynn and her husband Bill are the founders and owners of The Gettysburg Holistic Health Center where Lynn teaches in her studio which is a Kripalu affiliated studio. Lynn is a Master level addictions specialist and a Reiki Master. She feels honored to work with folks who suffer from the disease of addiction as she watches them transform their lives from turmoil to surrender.
Lynn’s journey led her into writing this book that was very cathartic hoping to inspire anyone suffering not only from a ruptured brain aneurysm, or alcoholism, or abuse but to touch anyone who can relate to such pain and suffering and find hope from reading this book
**Thank you to Bostic Communications and Lynn for providing me with my review copy!**
~Haleyknitz
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Two for the Money (2005) in Movies
Aug 14, 2019
The fall often brings the changing of the leaves and cooler weather, but for many men, fall is the start of Football season. For many, this time honored tradition that has given rise to terms such as “Football Widow”, “tailgating”, and “Super Bowl Party”, is a welcome diversion from the week, and something that is looked forward to all week.
There are also those who look forward to the games for other reasons, such as gambling. In a multi-billion dollar industry, gamblers spend hours looking over the injury reports, betting lines, and handicapping reports in an effort to gain any edge they can find.
In the new film Two for the Money, viewers are shown the highs, lows, and manipulations that can come from high stakes gambling. Brandon Lang (Matthew Mc Conaughey), a star Quarterback whose dreams of playing as a professional end due to a knee injury.
Reduced, to recording messages for a 900 service to make a living, Brandon is given the chance to record his projections for the coming weekend’s games. In no time, Brandon is racking up a very impressive win/loss record which draws the attention of Walter Abrams, (Al Pacino), who whisks Brandon to New York and wants to make him the cornerstone of his advising service.
In no time, Brandon is given a new look, a new stage name, and is center stage making the predictions. The wins start to pile up as does the money which causes bitterness amongst certain staff members who resent the lavish amounts of attention that Brandon is getting from Walter.
Brandon becomes caught up in the life of money, a fast car, and lavish living, and soon finds himself losing touch with his true self. It is at this point that things start to change in Brandon’s fortunes and he must find a way to get himself back on track, before his life spins horribly out of control.
The catchy premise of the film and strong cast starts out strong but looses its way as the film unfolds. Pacino is as effective as always, but his portrayal of Walter as a man obsessed with winning at all costs and his family is often sharply contrasted. In one scene we see him in a menacing light when things are going very well for him, yet when you think he should be going over the top in a time of crisis, he is restrained and unconcerned.
While the above is a good portrayal of the duality of the character, it does not make for high drama as he never does explode. The shoe never does drop, he shows menace, you wait for the moment, where he will turn on those around him, yet it never fully arises.
Rene Russo does a good job as the loyal wife who has mixed feelings about her life. She loves Walter and their daughter but hates gambling, and urges Brandon to walk away from it all. She is good in her scenes but she is not given enough to allow her to shine.
Mc Conaughey is good in his part as his character seems to be an interesting contrast in duality. He has no problem in asking people to bet thousands of dollars on his picks, yet his is unwilling to gamble. He likes the money and fame that comes with his position yet frets over not getting calls from his mother. The part starts strong but the character ultimately comes off bland and unsympathetic.
While not a bad film, Two for the Money ultimately is hindered by the pacing of the film which tends to drag, uneven characters, and a lack of tension. This becomes very clear and towards the last half of the film as much of the interest in the characters and their situations are lost.
There are also those who look forward to the games for other reasons, such as gambling. In a multi-billion dollar industry, gamblers spend hours looking over the injury reports, betting lines, and handicapping reports in an effort to gain any edge they can find.
In the new film Two for the Money, viewers are shown the highs, lows, and manipulations that can come from high stakes gambling. Brandon Lang (Matthew Mc Conaughey), a star Quarterback whose dreams of playing as a professional end due to a knee injury.
Reduced, to recording messages for a 900 service to make a living, Brandon is given the chance to record his projections for the coming weekend’s games. In no time, Brandon is racking up a very impressive win/loss record which draws the attention of Walter Abrams, (Al Pacino), who whisks Brandon to New York and wants to make him the cornerstone of his advising service.
In no time, Brandon is given a new look, a new stage name, and is center stage making the predictions. The wins start to pile up as does the money which causes bitterness amongst certain staff members who resent the lavish amounts of attention that Brandon is getting from Walter.
Brandon becomes caught up in the life of money, a fast car, and lavish living, and soon finds himself losing touch with his true self. It is at this point that things start to change in Brandon’s fortunes and he must find a way to get himself back on track, before his life spins horribly out of control.
The catchy premise of the film and strong cast starts out strong but looses its way as the film unfolds. Pacino is as effective as always, but his portrayal of Walter as a man obsessed with winning at all costs and his family is often sharply contrasted. In one scene we see him in a menacing light when things are going very well for him, yet when you think he should be going over the top in a time of crisis, he is restrained and unconcerned.
While the above is a good portrayal of the duality of the character, it does not make for high drama as he never does explode. The shoe never does drop, he shows menace, you wait for the moment, where he will turn on those around him, yet it never fully arises.
Rene Russo does a good job as the loyal wife who has mixed feelings about her life. She loves Walter and their daughter but hates gambling, and urges Brandon to walk away from it all. She is good in her scenes but she is not given enough to allow her to shine.
Mc Conaughey is good in his part as his character seems to be an interesting contrast in duality. He has no problem in asking people to bet thousands of dollars on his picks, yet his is unwilling to gamble. He likes the money and fame that comes with his position yet frets over not getting calls from his mother. The part starts strong but the character ultimately comes off bland and unsympathetic.
While not a bad film, Two for the Money ultimately is hindered by the pacing of the film which tends to drag, uneven characters, and a lack of tension. This becomes very clear and towards the last half of the film as much of the interest in the characters and their situations are lost.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Transformers (2007) in Movies
Jun 19, 2019 (Updated Jun 22, 2019)
Transformers being made into a live action film sounds like every fan's dream come true on paper, but throw Michael Bay into the equation and you lose a good portion of that audience. Bay is a director who tends to rely solely on action sequences. He's known for creating superb and intense scenes in his films, but they always rely on heavy explosions or pure destruction. That's not to say that's a bad thing, but it's hard to name a memorable scene in a Michael Bay film that doesn't include those elements. Everything else in his films (the story, the dialogue, the initial scenes that bridge the gap between each action sequence, etc) all seem to be lacking that extra spark his action sequences have. So those doubts carried over to Transformers and Bay's version seems to be more enjoyable for people who aren't rabid fans of the franchise.
The film revolves around the Autobots fighting off the Decepticons from gaining possession of the Allspark, which has the power to save them from extinction or grant them ultimate power. Optimus Prime, the leader of the Autobots, is trying to save Cybertron (their home planet) while Megatron, the leader of the Decepticons, wants to conquer the universe and will do whatever it takes to accomplish that goal. In 1935, Megatron had found the Allspark on Earth in the Arctic Ocean, but was eventually frozen in his quest to capture it. Megatron used the last of his energy to embed the location of the Allspark in the glasses of a captain who accidentally found Megatron buried deep beneath the ice. That captain was the great, great grandfather of Sam Witwicky who is now in possession of said glasses. In the present day, Sam's father buys Sam his first car; a yellow Camaro which turns out to be Autobot, Bumblebee. As the Transformers arrive on Earth, their first objectives are to find Sam Witwicky, acquire possession of the glasses, and hopefully attain an advantage over their enemy.
The movie relies solely on giant robots fighting each other to be the selling point of the film, so if you're expecting much else story-wise then you'll probably walk away from the film disappointed. The special effects are top notch as the Transformers themselves look incredibly realistic. Scenes in other films that rely heavily on characters that are purely computer generated have a sense of being unrealistic since it's usually noticeable that the actors on screen are reacting to something that isn't really there. CGI characters don't usually look this good though. Most of the time, when the actors interact with the computer generated characters, those actors also become computer generated. Like when Doctor Octopus carries Mary Jane up a skyscraper after kidnapping her from the coffee shop in Spider-Man 2 is a great example. They're both noticeably computer generated. While in Transformers, the actors either weren't CGI or the effect was achieved to a greater degree because it looked phenomenal and believable the entire time. As believable as transforming robots can be anyway. The fight scenes between the Autobots and the Decepticons are where the movie hooks its audience though. There is so much going on that the movie requires multiple viewings just to see everything that's going on.
While Transformers is an incredibly fun ride, it does have its down side. The humor of the film is often on the cheesy side and not really funny at all ("I NEED A CREDIT CARD," the entire Glen Whitmann character, Jazz's dialogue, "This is easily 100 times cooler than Armageddon," etc). A trait that seems to carry over into Revenge of the Fallen as the same sense of humor is in the trailer footage. Another issue is the action scenes. While they are intriguing, they're also incredibly confusing most of the time. The camera is almost always too close during those sequences and telling the difference between an Autobot and a Decepticon while they're rolling around in the air is near impossible. The camera looks like it's pulled out a bit in Revenge of the Fallen, so hopefully that problem has been addressed and taken care of. Looks like we'll find out June 24th.
Despite hardcore Transformers fans being displeased (to say the least) with the film, it can't be denied that the 2007 film was one of the biggest blockbuster films at the box office that year. Transformers is exciting and action packed from beginning to end. It is basically a two and a half hour adrenaline rush. So, bottom line, see Transformers if you're looking for an action packed adventure that'll make your heart race and put you on the edge of your seat.
The film revolves around the Autobots fighting off the Decepticons from gaining possession of the Allspark, which has the power to save them from extinction or grant them ultimate power. Optimus Prime, the leader of the Autobots, is trying to save Cybertron (their home planet) while Megatron, the leader of the Decepticons, wants to conquer the universe and will do whatever it takes to accomplish that goal. In 1935, Megatron had found the Allspark on Earth in the Arctic Ocean, but was eventually frozen in his quest to capture it. Megatron used the last of his energy to embed the location of the Allspark in the glasses of a captain who accidentally found Megatron buried deep beneath the ice. That captain was the great, great grandfather of Sam Witwicky who is now in possession of said glasses. In the present day, Sam's father buys Sam his first car; a yellow Camaro which turns out to be Autobot, Bumblebee. As the Transformers arrive on Earth, their first objectives are to find Sam Witwicky, acquire possession of the glasses, and hopefully attain an advantage over their enemy.
The movie relies solely on giant robots fighting each other to be the selling point of the film, so if you're expecting much else story-wise then you'll probably walk away from the film disappointed. The special effects are top notch as the Transformers themselves look incredibly realistic. Scenes in other films that rely heavily on characters that are purely computer generated have a sense of being unrealistic since it's usually noticeable that the actors on screen are reacting to something that isn't really there. CGI characters don't usually look this good though. Most of the time, when the actors interact with the computer generated characters, those actors also become computer generated. Like when Doctor Octopus carries Mary Jane up a skyscraper after kidnapping her from the coffee shop in Spider-Man 2 is a great example. They're both noticeably computer generated. While in Transformers, the actors either weren't CGI or the effect was achieved to a greater degree because it looked phenomenal and believable the entire time. As believable as transforming robots can be anyway. The fight scenes between the Autobots and the Decepticons are where the movie hooks its audience though. There is so much going on that the movie requires multiple viewings just to see everything that's going on.
While Transformers is an incredibly fun ride, it does have its down side. The humor of the film is often on the cheesy side and not really funny at all ("I NEED A CREDIT CARD," the entire Glen Whitmann character, Jazz's dialogue, "This is easily 100 times cooler than Armageddon," etc). A trait that seems to carry over into Revenge of the Fallen as the same sense of humor is in the trailer footage. Another issue is the action scenes. While they are intriguing, they're also incredibly confusing most of the time. The camera is almost always too close during those sequences and telling the difference between an Autobot and a Decepticon while they're rolling around in the air is near impossible. The camera looks like it's pulled out a bit in Revenge of the Fallen, so hopefully that problem has been addressed and taken care of. Looks like we'll find out June 24th.
Despite hardcore Transformers fans being displeased (to say the least) with the film, it can't be denied that the 2007 film was one of the biggest blockbuster films at the box office that year. Transformers is exciting and action packed from beginning to end. It is basically a two and a half hour adrenaline rush. So, bottom line, see Transformers if you're looking for an action packed adventure that'll make your heart race and put you on the edge of your seat.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Mummy (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Crushingly Mediocre
I’d read the bad reviews, but thought “Hey, it’s Tom Cruise – how bad could it be?” The answer is, “Pretty bad”.
It’s an ominous sign when a film starts with a voice-over (even if done by the sonorous tones of Russell Crowe). Regular readers of this blog will know I generally abhor voice-overs: it invariably belies a belief by the scriptwriters that they think the audience are too damn stupid to join up the plot-dots themselves. Here we portentously walk through the ancient Egyptian backstory of princess Ahmanet (Sofia Boutella, “Kingsman: The Secret Service“; “Star Trek Beyond“) cursed to become the titular Mummy. We then skip forward to the present day and the film settles down, promisingly enough, with scavenging adventurer Nick Morton (Cruise, in Indiana Jones mode), discovering a lost Egyptian temple in war-torn modern-day Mesopotamia that for the sake of the world should have stayed lost.
But after an impressive plane crash (with zero G scenes filmed for real in a “Vomit Comet”) the plot dissolves into a completely incoherent mush. With B-movie lines forcing B-movie acting performances, the film lurches from plot crisis to plot crisis in a similar manner to the comically lurching undead Zombie-like creatures that Ahmanet has sucked the life out of. (After 110 minutes of this, I know how they feel!)
What were actors of this calibre doing in this mess? When I first saw the trailer for this, and saw that Cruise was in it, I thought this felt like an unusual career misstep for the megastar. After seeing the film, I’m even more mystified. Nick Morton is supposed to be an immoral bad guy. Immoral bad guy?? Tom Cruise?? Nope, you lost the audience on that one in the first ten minutes. Cruise, who is STILL only a year younger than I am (damn him, for real!) is still in great shape and must spend ALL his time in the gym. There must be a time soon coming though where he gets to a “Roger Moore in View to a Kill” moment where these action hero roles just no longer become credible anymore.
And what was Russell Crowe, as a famous / infamous (yes, both!) doctor from literature doing in this? His character’s involvement in the plot was almost completely inconsequential. In fact his ‘affliction’ only serves as a coincidental diversion (how convenient!) for bad Mummy-related action to happen. His character has no backstory and seems to serve only as a backbone for Universal’s “Dark Universe” franchise that this movie is supposed to launch. (Good luck with that Universal after this stinker!) Surely it would have made more sense to have the first film in the series to be the origins story for Crowe’s character and the organisation he sets up. This would have made far more sense.
Annabelle Wallis, who is sweet and “only” 22 years his junior, plays Cruise’s love interest in the film and equips herself well, given the material she has to play with. However (after “King Arthur: Legend of the Sword“) she must be kicking herself for not picking the ‘right’ summer blockbusters for her CV.
The main culprit here is the plot, which again is mystifying given that the writing team includes David Koepp (“Jurassic Park”; “Mission Impossible”); Christopher McQuarrie (“The Usual Suspects”, “Edge of Tomorrow“) and Jon Spaihts (“Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation“, “Doctor Strange“). A poor script can sometimes be salvaged by a good director, but here we have Alex Kurtzman, who has only one other directing credit to his name. And I’m afraid it shows. All round, not a good day at the office.
Brian Tyler did the music (aside from the Danny Elfman opening “Dark Universe” fanfare) but it comprises what I would term “running and jumping music”, with few discernible leitmotifs for the characters breaking through.
“Was that supposed to be funny?” My wife’s reaction after the film sums up that this really is a bit of a stinker. Best avoided.
It’s an ominous sign when a film starts with a voice-over (even if done by the sonorous tones of Russell Crowe). Regular readers of this blog will know I generally abhor voice-overs: it invariably belies a belief by the scriptwriters that they think the audience are too damn stupid to join up the plot-dots themselves. Here we portentously walk through the ancient Egyptian backstory of princess Ahmanet (Sofia Boutella, “Kingsman: The Secret Service“; “Star Trek Beyond“) cursed to become the titular Mummy. We then skip forward to the present day and the film settles down, promisingly enough, with scavenging adventurer Nick Morton (Cruise, in Indiana Jones mode), discovering a lost Egyptian temple in war-torn modern-day Mesopotamia that for the sake of the world should have stayed lost.
But after an impressive plane crash (with zero G scenes filmed for real in a “Vomit Comet”) the plot dissolves into a completely incoherent mush. With B-movie lines forcing B-movie acting performances, the film lurches from plot crisis to plot crisis in a similar manner to the comically lurching undead Zombie-like creatures that Ahmanet has sucked the life out of. (After 110 minutes of this, I know how they feel!)
What were actors of this calibre doing in this mess? When I first saw the trailer for this, and saw that Cruise was in it, I thought this felt like an unusual career misstep for the megastar. After seeing the film, I’m even more mystified. Nick Morton is supposed to be an immoral bad guy. Immoral bad guy?? Tom Cruise?? Nope, you lost the audience on that one in the first ten minutes. Cruise, who is STILL only a year younger than I am (damn him, for real!) is still in great shape and must spend ALL his time in the gym. There must be a time soon coming though where he gets to a “Roger Moore in View to a Kill” moment where these action hero roles just no longer become credible anymore.
And what was Russell Crowe, as a famous / infamous (yes, both!) doctor from literature doing in this? His character’s involvement in the plot was almost completely inconsequential. In fact his ‘affliction’ only serves as a coincidental diversion (how convenient!) for bad Mummy-related action to happen. His character has no backstory and seems to serve only as a backbone for Universal’s “Dark Universe” franchise that this movie is supposed to launch. (Good luck with that Universal after this stinker!) Surely it would have made more sense to have the first film in the series to be the origins story for Crowe’s character and the organisation he sets up. This would have made far more sense.
Annabelle Wallis, who is sweet and “only” 22 years his junior, plays Cruise’s love interest in the film and equips herself well, given the material she has to play with. However (after “King Arthur: Legend of the Sword“) she must be kicking herself for not picking the ‘right’ summer blockbusters for her CV.
The main culprit here is the plot, which again is mystifying given that the writing team includes David Koepp (“Jurassic Park”; “Mission Impossible”); Christopher McQuarrie (“The Usual Suspects”, “Edge of Tomorrow“) and Jon Spaihts (“Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation“, “Doctor Strange“). A poor script can sometimes be salvaged by a good director, but here we have Alex Kurtzman, who has only one other directing credit to his name. And I’m afraid it shows. All round, not a good day at the office.
Brian Tyler did the music (aside from the Danny Elfman opening “Dark Universe” fanfare) but it comprises what I would term “running and jumping music”, with few discernible leitmotifs for the characters breaking through.
“Was that supposed to be funny?” My wife’s reaction after the film sums up that this really is a bit of a stinker. Best avoided.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Joker (2019) in Movies
Nov 10, 2019
Joachim Phoenix - Oscar winning performance? (1 more)
Look and feel of the film - technically brilliant
A loser's tale.
“Joker” has managed to stir up a whirlwind of controversy, centring partly around the level of violence included but also on the use of “that song” on the soundtrack. But putting aside that flurry of commentary, what of the film itself?
Man, this is a dark film! It’s as much of an anti-superhero film as this year’s “Brightburn“. The Batman legacy has addressed the mental state of the protagonists before (both that of the hero and the villains). Here we have a real study of how a mentally unstable no-hoper can be pushed over the edge by bigotry, carelessness and government cut-backs.
Indeed, there is something alarmingly prescient about the movie’s plot line, watching this as we (in the UK) are in the month of possible (or as Boris Johnson would say, definite) Brexit madness! “Is it me, or is it getting crazier out there?” Arthur Fleck muses to his social worker (Sharon Washington). And a rant by Arthur late on goes “Everybody just yells and screams at each other. Nobody’s civil anymore. Nobody thinks what it’s like to be the other guy. You think men like Thomas Wayne ever think what it’s like to be someone like me? To be somebody but themselves? They don’t. They think that we’ll just sit there and take it, like good little boys! That we won’t werewolf and go wild!” Chilling words as we possibly face a very bumpy October and November in the UK.
After reviewing “Judy” I wouldn’t be the least surprised if I’d just seen the Best Actress award bagged (by Renée Zellweger). Now, with “Joker”, surely Joachim Phoenix might bag his first (and well overdue in my book) Oscar. Although nominated before (for “Gladiator”, “Walk the Line” and “The Master”) he’s never won. Here Phoenix’s physical transformation into Arthur Fleck is SIMPLY EXTRAORDINARY. And the way he captures the (medically) induced fits of helpless laughter, ending in a sort of choking fit, is brilliant and replicated to a ‘T’ on multiple occasions.
I loved “You Were Never Really Here“, primarily due to Phoenix’s pitch-perfect performance. And “Joker” reminded me very much of Lynne Ramsey‘s film: a disturbed loner, looking after his elderly mother; with violence meted out to wrong-doers. Joe is almost the yin to Arthur Fleck’s yang: Joe is an invisible man who is very much present; Arthur is a very visible man who thinks he is invisible. There’s even comment by Fleck towards the end of the film that sometimes he thinks he’s ‘not really there at all’! (A deliberate ‘in’ joke in reference to that film?)
After some pretty piss-poor “pension grabs” in recent years, culminating in the appalling career- nadir of “Dirty Grandpa” in 2016, Robert De Niro comes good with a fine performance as the idolised but thoughtless and cruel talk-show host Murray Franklin. It’s very much a supporting role, but delivered with great aplomb.
Also great again is “Deadpool 2“‘s Zazie Beetz (a great trivia answer for an actor with three ‘z’s’ in the name). This angle of the story is deviously clever, and Zazie handles the various twists and turns brilliantly.
Movie violence needs to be taken in context to both the film’s story and to the movie’s certificate. For those expecting a light and fluffy “Avengers” style of movie, they might be shocked by what they see. True that the film definitely pushes the boundaries of what I think is acceptable in a UK15-certificate film. … I suspect there were HEATED discussions at the BBFC after this screening! The violence though seems comparable to some other 15’s I’ve seen: a DIY-store drill scene in “The Equalizer” comes to mind.
A particularly brutal scene is reminiscent of a climactic scene in “Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood“, such that Quentin Tarantino might have just cause to appeal his ‘UK18’ certificate.
You might argue about the level of violence that SHOULD be shown in a 15 certificate film. But I think the violence portrayed – given this is in the known context an origin story for a psychopathic killer – is appropriate. I personally found the Heath Ledger‘s Joker’s “pencil trick” scene in “The Dark Knight” more disturbing, given it was a 12 certificate.
I have less sympathy for the inclusion of “Rock and Roll Part 2” on the soundtrack. The fact that a convicted paedophile (I refuse to say his name) is profiting from the ticket sales is galling. This is almost deliberately courting controversy. There has been some view that this is a “traditional” chant song at US football matches (as “The Hey Song”). But most (all?) teams have now recognized the connection and stopped its use. At least here the director and producers should have more of a ‘world view’ on this.
Where “Hangover” director Todd Phillips does recover some of this respect is in the quality of the script (co-written with Scott Silver) and the direction. It’s misdirection without mis-direction! Some of the twists in the plot (no spoilers here!) I did not see coming, and certain aspects of the story (again no spoilers!) are left brilliantly (and chillingly) vague.
Sure, it borrows heavily in story-line and mood from Martin Scorsese‘s “Taxi Driver”. And I was also reminded of 1993’s Joel Schumacher flick “Falling Down” where Michael Douglas is an ordinary man pushed to the edge and beyond by a series of life’s trials. But if you want to criticise a film for “not being 100% original” then let’s start at the top of the 2019 IMDB listings and keep going! I’ve also seen comment from some that criticises the somewhat clunky overlay of the Batman back-story into the script. I also understand that view but I didn’t personally share it.
Elsewhere I would not be surprised if the movie gets garlanded with technical Oscar nominations aplenty come January. The cinematography, by Phillips-regular Lawrence Sher, is exquisite in setting the grimy 70’s tone. (I loved the retro Warner Brothers logo too). And both video and sound editing is top-notch. Not forgetting a sonorous cello-heavy soundtrack that perfectly suits the mood. Want to put a bet on which film might top the “number of Oscar nominations” list? This might not be a bad choice.
Dark and brooding, with a slow-burn start, this is a proper drama that might make action superhero fans fidgety. But I simply loved it, and would love to carve out the time to give it a re-watch. The Phoenix performance is extraordinary. Will this make my Top 10 of the year? Fingers to head, and pull the trigger…. it’s a no-brainer.
Man, this is a dark film! It’s as much of an anti-superhero film as this year’s “Brightburn“. The Batman legacy has addressed the mental state of the protagonists before (both that of the hero and the villains). Here we have a real study of how a mentally unstable no-hoper can be pushed over the edge by bigotry, carelessness and government cut-backs.
Indeed, there is something alarmingly prescient about the movie’s plot line, watching this as we (in the UK) are in the month of possible (or as Boris Johnson would say, definite) Brexit madness! “Is it me, or is it getting crazier out there?” Arthur Fleck muses to his social worker (Sharon Washington). And a rant by Arthur late on goes “Everybody just yells and screams at each other. Nobody’s civil anymore. Nobody thinks what it’s like to be the other guy. You think men like Thomas Wayne ever think what it’s like to be someone like me? To be somebody but themselves? They don’t. They think that we’ll just sit there and take it, like good little boys! That we won’t werewolf and go wild!” Chilling words as we possibly face a very bumpy October and November in the UK.
After reviewing “Judy” I wouldn’t be the least surprised if I’d just seen the Best Actress award bagged (by Renée Zellweger). Now, with “Joker”, surely Joachim Phoenix might bag his first (and well overdue in my book) Oscar. Although nominated before (for “Gladiator”, “Walk the Line” and “The Master”) he’s never won. Here Phoenix’s physical transformation into Arthur Fleck is SIMPLY EXTRAORDINARY. And the way he captures the (medically) induced fits of helpless laughter, ending in a sort of choking fit, is brilliant and replicated to a ‘T’ on multiple occasions.
I loved “You Were Never Really Here“, primarily due to Phoenix’s pitch-perfect performance. And “Joker” reminded me very much of Lynne Ramsey‘s film: a disturbed loner, looking after his elderly mother; with violence meted out to wrong-doers. Joe is almost the yin to Arthur Fleck’s yang: Joe is an invisible man who is very much present; Arthur is a very visible man who thinks he is invisible. There’s even comment by Fleck towards the end of the film that sometimes he thinks he’s ‘not really there at all’! (A deliberate ‘in’ joke in reference to that film?)
After some pretty piss-poor “pension grabs” in recent years, culminating in the appalling career- nadir of “Dirty Grandpa” in 2016, Robert De Niro comes good with a fine performance as the idolised but thoughtless and cruel talk-show host Murray Franklin. It’s very much a supporting role, but delivered with great aplomb.
Also great again is “Deadpool 2“‘s Zazie Beetz (a great trivia answer for an actor with three ‘z’s’ in the name). This angle of the story is deviously clever, and Zazie handles the various twists and turns brilliantly.
Movie violence needs to be taken in context to both the film’s story and to the movie’s certificate. For those expecting a light and fluffy “Avengers” style of movie, they might be shocked by what they see. True that the film definitely pushes the boundaries of what I think is acceptable in a UK15-certificate film. … I suspect there were HEATED discussions at the BBFC after this screening! The violence though seems comparable to some other 15’s I’ve seen: a DIY-store drill scene in “The Equalizer” comes to mind.
A particularly brutal scene is reminiscent of a climactic scene in “Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood“, such that Quentin Tarantino might have just cause to appeal his ‘UK18’ certificate.
You might argue about the level of violence that SHOULD be shown in a 15 certificate film. But I think the violence portrayed – given this is in the known context an origin story for a psychopathic killer – is appropriate. I personally found the Heath Ledger‘s Joker’s “pencil trick” scene in “The Dark Knight” more disturbing, given it was a 12 certificate.
I have less sympathy for the inclusion of “Rock and Roll Part 2” on the soundtrack. The fact that a convicted paedophile (I refuse to say his name) is profiting from the ticket sales is galling. This is almost deliberately courting controversy. There has been some view that this is a “traditional” chant song at US football matches (as “The Hey Song”). But most (all?) teams have now recognized the connection and stopped its use. At least here the director and producers should have more of a ‘world view’ on this.
Where “Hangover” director Todd Phillips does recover some of this respect is in the quality of the script (co-written with Scott Silver) and the direction. It’s misdirection without mis-direction! Some of the twists in the plot (no spoilers here!) I did not see coming, and certain aspects of the story (again no spoilers!) are left brilliantly (and chillingly) vague.
Sure, it borrows heavily in story-line and mood from Martin Scorsese‘s “Taxi Driver”. And I was also reminded of 1993’s Joel Schumacher flick “Falling Down” where Michael Douglas is an ordinary man pushed to the edge and beyond by a series of life’s trials. But if you want to criticise a film for “not being 100% original” then let’s start at the top of the 2019 IMDB listings and keep going! I’ve also seen comment from some that criticises the somewhat clunky overlay of the Batman back-story into the script. I also understand that view but I didn’t personally share it.
Elsewhere I would not be surprised if the movie gets garlanded with technical Oscar nominations aplenty come January. The cinematography, by Phillips-regular Lawrence Sher, is exquisite in setting the grimy 70’s tone. (I loved the retro Warner Brothers logo too). And both video and sound editing is top-notch. Not forgetting a sonorous cello-heavy soundtrack that perfectly suits the mood. Want to put a bet on which film might top the “number of Oscar nominations” list? This might not be a bad choice.
Dark and brooding, with a slow-burn start, this is a proper drama that might make action superhero fans fidgety. But I simply loved it, and would love to carve out the time to give it a re-watch. The Phoenix performance is extraordinary. Will this make my Top 10 of the year? Fingers to head, and pull the trigger…. it’s a no-brainer.
Lee (2222 KP) rated The Aeronauts (2019) in Movies
Mar 19, 2020
As my cinema bookings started to be cancelled, and upcoming releases delayed as part of the chaos that's currently unfolding globally, I thought it was time to start tackling some of those streaming site watch-lists that have been slowly growing in size over recent years. First up, a movie that I managed to miss late last year when released in cinemas, and is now available to stream on Amazon Prime.
The Aeronauts is set in the 1860s and sees Eddie Redmayne and Felicity Jones, last seen together playing husband and wife in The Theory of Everything, reuniting for a story that is inspired by true events. Redmayne plays James Glaisher, a scientist studying and presenting theories surrounding weather prediction, in particular how a trip to the skies in a gas balloon could help us to understand more about it. It's a science very much in it's infancy, which is why Glaisher has become such a laughing stock among his peers within the science community, all of whom declare meteorology to be fortune telling rather than science. Felicity Jones plays the fictional character of Amelia Wren, an aeronaut who lost her husband in a balloon accident and has been convinced by Glaisher to return to the skies and join him as pilot onboard the balloon as they explore some of his theories.
The movie begins with a large crowd who have gathered in London to watch the departure of the Glaisher and Wren. Glaisher is making some last minute checks and adjustments to the numerous pieces of equipment that will provide all of the data and readings he needs while they ascend up into the clouds, while Wren is currently nowhere to be seen. When she does eventually arrive, she's brash and loud, making a big entrance and playing up to the crowds, entertaining them with cartwheels and her parachuting dog. “Do you take anything seriously?" Glaisher asks.
As the balloon gently sets off, we get a beautiful view of 1860s London and a simple on-screen graph begins plotting the duration of their journey against their current height, something which returns every so often to keep us nicely updated with their progress. Before this expedition, the greatest altitude ever reached by a human being was 23,000ft, a record achieved by a French team. So, in addition to gaining some valuable scientific data along the way, there is the added incentive to try and beat the French too!
The whole expedition is followed pretty much in real time, but broken up by a series of flashbacks which give us some additional insight into our main characters and what brought them together. A look at the balloon trip which resulted in the death of her husband shows us just how seriously Amelia takes her role on this particular adventure. Meanwhile, we get more of a glimpse into the ridicule Glaisher received from his scientific colleagues, and an introduction to his dementia suffering father (Tom Courtenay).
As beautiful and exhilarating as it is to see the balloon as it continues up through the clouds and storms, floating peacefully through blue skies and swarms of butterflies, it wouldn't be much of a movie without some additional drama and tension to spice things up. So, as Glaisher and Wren argue about whether to push on way beyond the 23,000ft record or begin their descent, the temperature drops down to five degrees, and snow and ice begin to form on the balloon and basket. The thinning oxygen and cold temperatures starts to affect their judgement, their equipment and their health, and would you believe it, neither of them thought to bring along their gloves either!
When the pigeons they've brought along for sending instrument readings back down to base either start to die, or drop like rocks when launched from the balloon basket, it's clear that it's time to start heading back down. But, a problem with the balloon means that Wren must venture outside the basket and up on top of the balloon itself, in some of the most vertigo inducing scenes I've seen since watching The Walk on the big screen.
The Aeronauts was a lot more enjoyable than I was expecting. It's two stars, as you'd expect, more than capably carry the story and are both hugely entertaining. The effects used for rendering the balloon and it's surroundings, particularly during adverse weather conditions, are very effective and at times had me on the edge of my seat too.
The Aeronauts is set in the 1860s and sees Eddie Redmayne and Felicity Jones, last seen together playing husband and wife in The Theory of Everything, reuniting for a story that is inspired by true events. Redmayne plays James Glaisher, a scientist studying and presenting theories surrounding weather prediction, in particular how a trip to the skies in a gas balloon could help us to understand more about it. It's a science very much in it's infancy, which is why Glaisher has become such a laughing stock among his peers within the science community, all of whom declare meteorology to be fortune telling rather than science. Felicity Jones plays the fictional character of Amelia Wren, an aeronaut who lost her husband in a balloon accident and has been convinced by Glaisher to return to the skies and join him as pilot onboard the balloon as they explore some of his theories.
The movie begins with a large crowd who have gathered in London to watch the departure of the Glaisher and Wren. Glaisher is making some last minute checks and adjustments to the numerous pieces of equipment that will provide all of the data and readings he needs while they ascend up into the clouds, while Wren is currently nowhere to be seen. When she does eventually arrive, she's brash and loud, making a big entrance and playing up to the crowds, entertaining them with cartwheels and her parachuting dog. “Do you take anything seriously?" Glaisher asks.
As the balloon gently sets off, we get a beautiful view of 1860s London and a simple on-screen graph begins plotting the duration of their journey against their current height, something which returns every so often to keep us nicely updated with their progress. Before this expedition, the greatest altitude ever reached by a human being was 23,000ft, a record achieved by a French team. So, in addition to gaining some valuable scientific data along the way, there is the added incentive to try and beat the French too!
The whole expedition is followed pretty much in real time, but broken up by a series of flashbacks which give us some additional insight into our main characters and what brought them together. A look at the balloon trip which resulted in the death of her husband shows us just how seriously Amelia takes her role on this particular adventure. Meanwhile, we get more of a glimpse into the ridicule Glaisher received from his scientific colleagues, and an introduction to his dementia suffering father (Tom Courtenay).
As beautiful and exhilarating as it is to see the balloon as it continues up through the clouds and storms, floating peacefully through blue skies and swarms of butterflies, it wouldn't be much of a movie without some additional drama and tension to spice things up. So, as Glaisher and Wren argue about whether to push on way beyond the 23,000ft record or begin their descent, the temperature drops down to five degrees, and snow and ice begin to form on the balloon and basket. The thinning oxygen and cold temperatures starts to affect their judgement, their equipment and their health, and would you believe it, neither of them thought to bring along their gloves either!
When the pigeons they've brought along for sending instrument readings back down to base either start to die, or drop like rocks when launched from the balloon basket, it's clear that it's time to start heading back down. But, a problem with the balloon means that Wren must venture outside the basket and up on top of the balloon itself, in some of the most vertigo inducing scenes I've seen since watching The Walk on the big screen.
The Aeronauts was a lot more enjoyable than I was expecting. It's two stars, as you'd expect, more than capably carry the story and are both hugely entertaining. The effects used for rendering the balloon and it's surroundings, particularly during adverse weather conditions, are very effective and at times had me on the edge of my seat too.
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated Ghost Stories (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
For years, mankind has pondered over the existence of ghosts, demons and the paranormal. Many have claimed to have experienced it firsthand, while others dedicate their lives and careers to debunking those experiences. It seems to be a question that no one has been able to answer or prove one way or the other, and this fear of the unknown has been the basis of a number of popular horror stories.
Based on the stage play of the same name, ‘Ghost Stories’ follows skeptic Professor Phillip Goodman’s (Nyman) investigation of three unsolved cases, each one detailing a different haunting. After meeting with his idol and fellow skeptic Charles Cameron, and feeling deflated when he begins to question his lifelong skepticism, Goodman meets with former night watchman Tony Matthews (Whitehouse), teenager Simon Rifkind (Lawther), and businessman Mike Priddle (Freeman) to learn about their firsthand experiences with the supernatural. The film is split into three segments, allowing each character to explain their case through the use of flashbacks where we get to see exactly what happened to the characters.
Throughout these flashbacks, Nyman and Dyson have utilised a number of popular horror techniques that will make you jump out of your seat, or hide behind your hands. There’s a serious feeling of unease throughout the entire film, and you have no idea what’s going to happen next. Even as an avid fan of the genre, I found myself genuinely terrified during a large portion of the film. ‘Ghost Stories’ knows exactly how to pace a horror film, and how to leave an audience uncomfortable yet unable to look away from the screen. Whilst the jump scare is inevitable, the film doesn’t overuse these and instead finds ways to build tension and fear, which actually heightens the experience because you find yourself trying to predict when something’s going to pop out at you. It leaves you on edge for the entire ninety minutes, which in my mind, is exactly what a horror film should do.
The stories told by each of the men are gripping, and the actors all do exceptional jobs of portraying their characters. Each of the men interviewed by Goodman are very different in their class backgrounds, beliefs and personalities, but are united in their adamancy that they did experience hauntings and that they left them completely shaken up afterwards. This reinforces the idea that the supernatural can target anyone, and leave anyone feeling helpless. Particular praise has to be given to Alex Lawther; after seeing him in season 3 of ‘Black Mirror’ I had high hopes, and he delivered. He’s certainly one to watch and I look forward to seeing what he gets up to next.
‘Ghost Stories’ is incredibly British in nature, mixing the right amount of dry humour and satire into what is an utterly terrifying experience overall. Other critics have said it’s the best British horror film in years, and I couldn’t agree more. It’s an incredibly gripping story that has a lot of twists and turns, and tugs at all of your heartstrings. Alongside the characters, I went through a number of emotions and felt fully invested in their lives. These are all characters that feel familiar, they’re your average human, which throws realism into the mix. Being able to identify with characters in a horror film makes your fear 100 times worse.
This film is best experienced with as little context as possible, if you walk into it completely blind, I believe you’ll get maximum enjoyment out of it. The trailers have done a great job at keeping it as vague as possible, which was a bonus. There’s nothing worse than trailers giving everything away in a few seconds. ‘Ghost Stories’ does have a twist ending, but I thought this was done brilliantly and I personally was unable to predict it. Nyman and Dyson have put so much effort into crafting an intense, thrilling, mysterious story and it’s seriously paid off. I’m now hoping ‘Ghost Stories’ will be returning to the stage soon, because I’ll be first in line for a ticket!
https://jumpcutonline.co.uk/ghost-stories/
Based on the stage play of the same name, ‘Ghost Stories’ follows skeptic Professor Phillip Goodman’s (Nyman) investigation of three unsolved cases, each one detailing a different haunting. After meeting with his idol and fellow skeptic Charles Cameron, and feeling deflated when he begins to question his lifelong skepticism, Goodman meets with former night watchman Tony Matthews (Whitehouse), teenager Simon Rifkind (Lawther), and businessman Mike Priddle (Freeman) to learn about their firsthand experiences with the supernatural. The film is split into three segments, allowing each character to explain their case through the use of flashbacks where we get to see exactly what happened to the characters.
Throughout these flashbacks, Nyman and Dyson have utilised a number of popular horror techniques that will make you jump out of your seat, or hide behind your hands. There’s a serious feeling of unease throughout the entire film, and you have no idea what’s going to happen next. Even as an avid fan of the genre, I found myself genuinely terrified during a large portion of the film. ‘Ghost Stories’ knows exactly how to pace a horror film, and how to leave an audience uncomfortable yet unable to look away from the screen. Whilst the jump scare is inevitable, the film doesn’t overuse these and instead finds ways to build tension and fear, which actually heightens the experience because you find yourself trying to predict when something’s going to pop out at you. It leaves you on edge for the entire ninety minutes, which in my mind, is exactly what a horror film should do.
The stories told by each of the men are gripping, and the actors all do exceptional jobs of portraying their characters. Each of the men interviewed by Goodman are very different in their class backgrounds, beliefs and personalities, but are united in their adamancy that they did experience hauntings and that they left them completely shaken up afterwards. This reinforces the idea that the supernatural can target anyone, and leave anyone feeling helpless. Particular praise has to be given to Alex Lawther; after seeing him in season 3 of ‘Black Mirror’ I had high hopes, and he delivered. He’s certainly one to watch and I look forward to seeing what he gets up to next.
‘Ghost Stories’ is incredibly British in nature, mixing the right amount of dry humour and satire into what is an utterly terrifying experience overall. Other critics have said it’s the best British horror film in years, and I couldn’t agree more. It’s an incredibly gripping story that has a lot of twists and turns, and tugs at all of your heartstrings. Alongside the characters, I went through a number of emotions and felt fully invested in their lives. These are all characters that feel familiar, they’re your average human, which throws realism into the mix. Being able to identify with characters in a horror film makes your fear 100 times worse.
This film is best experienced with as little context as possible, if you walk into it completely blind, I believe you’ll get maximum enjoyment out of it. The trailers have done a great job at keeping it as vague as possible, which was a bonus. There’s nothing worse than trailers giving everything away in a few seconds. ‘Ghost Stories’ does have a twist ending, but I thought this was done brilliantly and I personally was unable to predict it. Nyman and Dyson have put so much effort into crafting an intense, thrilling, mysterious story and it’s seriously paid off. I’m now hoping ‘Ghost Stories’ will be returning to the stage soon, because I’ll be first in line for a ticket!
https://jumpcutonline.co.uk/ghost-stories/