Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Mank (2020) in Movies
Dec 10, 2020
Cinematography - glorious to look at (1 more)
A fabulous ensemble cast, with Oldham, Seyfried, Arliss and Dance excelling
"Mank" is a biopic slice of the career of Herman Jacob Mankiewicz (Gary Oldman), the Hollywood screenwriter who was the pen behind what is regularly voted by critics as being the greatest movie of all time - "Citizen Kane". "Citizen Kane" was written in 1940 (and released the following year) and much of the action in "Mank" takes place in a retreat in the Mojave desert when Mank, crippled by a full-cast on the leg, has been 'sent' by Orson Welles (Tom Burke) to complete the screenplay without alcohol and other worldly distractions. Helping administer to his writing and care needs are English typist Rita Alexander (Lily Collins) and carer Fraulein Freda (Monika Gossmann). However, although Mank produces brilliant stuff, his speed of progress exasperates his 'minder' and editor John Houseman (Sam Troughton). (Yes, THAT John Houseman, the actor.)
In developing the story, we continuously flash-back six years - - nicely indicated by typed 'script notes' - - to 1934 where Mank is working at MGM studios for Louis B. Mayer (Arliss Howard) and mixing in the circles of millionaire publisher William Randolph Hearst (Charles Dance) and his glamorous young wife, actress Marion Davies (Amanda Seyfried). Allegedly, the "Citizen Kane" script was based on Hearst. But what souring of the relationship could have led to such a stinging betrayal during those six years?
Mank has an embarrassment of acting riches. Mankiewicz is a fascinating character: charismatic, reckless, passionate and the definition of a loose cannon. Basically, a dream for a great actor to portray. And Gary Oldham IS a great actor. After doing Churchill in "Darkest Hour", he here turns in a magnificent performance as the alcoholic writer. Never more so than in a furious tirade at a dinner table late in the film, which will likely be the equivalent to the Churchill "tiger" speech come Oscar time. Surely, there's a Best Actor nomination there?
Equally impressive though are some of the supporting cast.
- Tom Burke - so good as TV's "Strike" - gives a fine impersonation of the great Orson Welles: full of confidence and swagger. It's only a cameo role, but he genuinely 'feels' like the young Welles.
- Amanda Seyfried: It took me almost half of the film to recognize her as Marion Davies, and her performance is pitch perfect - the best of her career in my view, and again Oscar-worthy.
- Arliss Howard for me almost steals the show as the megalomaniac Mayer: his introduction to Mank's brother Joe (Tom Pelphrey) has a memorable "walk with me" walkthrough of the studio with Mayer preaching on the real meaning of MGM and the movies in general. Breathtakingly good.
- But - I said "nearly steals the show".... the guy who made off with it in a swag-bag for me was our own Charles Dance as Hearst. Quietly impressive throughout, he just completely nails it with his "organ-grinder's monkey" speech towards the end of the movie. Probably my favourite monologue of 2020. Chilling. I'd really like to see Dance get a Supporting Actor nomination for this.
The screenplay was originally written by director David Fincher's late father Jack. Jack Fincher died in 2002, and this project has literally been decades in the planning. Mankiewicz has a caustic turn of phrase, and there are laugh-out lines of dialogue scattered throughout the script. "Write hard, aim low" implores Houseman at one point. And my personal favourite: Mank's puncturing of the irony that the Screen Writers Guild has been formed without an apostrophe! A huge LOL!
Aside from the witty dialogue, the script has a nuance to the storytelling that continually surprises. A revelation from Freda about Mank's philanthropic tendencies brings you up short in your face-value impression of his character. And the drivers that engineer the rift between Mankiewicz and Hearst - based around the story of the (fictional) director Shelly Metcalf (Jamie McShane) - are not slapped in your face, but elegantly slipped into your subconscious.
In addition, certain aspects are frustratingly withheld from you. Mank's long-suffering wife (a definition of the phrase) Sara (Tuppence Middleton) only occasionally comes into focus. The only reference to his kids are a crash in the background as they "remodel" the family home. Is the charismatic Mank a faithful husband or a philanderer? Is the relationship with Rita Alexander just professional and platonic (you assume so), or is there more going on? There's a tension there in the storytelling that never quite gets resolved: and that's a good thing.
Mank also has an embarrassment of technical riches. Even from the opening titles, you get the impression that this is a work of genius. All in black and white, and with the appearance of 40's titling, they scroll majestically in the sky and then - after "Charles Dance" - effortlessly scroll down to the desert highway. It's evidence of an attention to detail perhaps forced by lockdown. ("MUM - I'm bored". "Go up to your room and do some more work on that movie then".)
It's deliciously modern, yet retro. I love the fact that the cross-reel "circle" cue-marks appear so prominently... the indicators that the projectionist needs to spin up the next reel. I think they are still used in most modern films, but not as noticeably as in the old films... and this one!
A key contributor to the movie is cinematographer Erik Messerschmidt. Everything looks just BEAUTIFUL, and it is now a big regret that I didn't go to watch this on the big screen after all. Surely there will be a cinematography Oscar nomination for this one. Unbelievably, this is Messerschmidt's debut feature as director of cinematography!
Elsewhere, you can imagine multiple other technical Oscar noms. The tight and effective editing is by Kirk Baxter. And the combination of the glorious production design (Donald Graham Burt) and the costume design (Trish Summerville) make the movie emanate the same nostalgia for Hollywood as did last year's "Once Upon a Time... In Hollywood".... albeit set forty years earlier. Even the music (by the regular team of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross) might get nominated, since I had to go back and check that it actually HAD music at all: it's subtly unobtrusive and effective.
The only area I had any issue with here was the sound mixing, since I had trouble picking up some of the dialogue.
Although I can gush about this movie as a technical work of art, I'm going to hold off a 10* review on this one. For one reason only. I just didn't feel 100% engaged with the story (at least with a first watch). The illustrious Mrs Movie Man summed it up with the phrase "I just didn't care enough what happened to any of the characters". I think though that this one is sufficiently subtle and cerebral that it deserves another watch.
Will it win Oscars. Yes, for sure. Hell, I would like to put a bet on that "Mank" will top the list of the "most nominations" when they are announced. (Hollywood likes nothing more than a navel-gazing look at its history of course). And an obvious nomination here will be David Fincher for Best Director. But, for me, this falls into a similar bucket as that other black and white multi-Oscar winner of two year's ago "Roma". It's glorious to look at; brilliantly directed; but not a movie I would choose to readily reach for to repeatedly watch again.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/12/10/mank-divines-for-oscar-gold-in-a-sea-of-pyrites/. Thanks.)
In developing the story, we continuously flash-back six years - - nicely indicated by typed 'script notes' - - to 1934 where Mank is working at MGM studios for Louis B. Mayer (Arliss Howard) and mixing in the circles of millionaire publisher William Randolph Hearst (Charles Dance) and his glamorous young wife, actress Marion Davies (Amanda Seyfried). Allegedly, the "Citizen Kane" script was based on Hearst. But what souring of the relationship could have led to such a stinging betrayal during those six years?
Mank has an embarrassment of acting riches. Mankiewicz is a fascinating character: charismatic, reckless, passionate and the definition of a loose cannon. Basically, a dream for a great actor to portray. And Gary Oldham IS a great actor. After doing Churchill in "Darkest Hour", he here turns in a magnificent performance as the alcoholic writer. Never more so than in a furious tirade at a dinner table late in the film, which will likely be the equivalent to the Churchill "tiger" speech come Oscar time. Surely, there's a Best Actor nomination there?
Equally impressive though are some of the supporting cast.
- Tom Burke - so good as TV's "Strike" - gives a fine impersonation of the great Orson Welles: full of confidence and swagger. It's only a cameo role, but he genuinely 'feels' like the young Welles.
- Amanda Seyfried: It took me almost half of the film to recognize her as Marion Davies, and her performance is pitch perfect - the best of her career in my view, and again Oscar-worthy.
- Arliss Howard for me almost steals the show as the megalomaniac Mayer: his introduction to Mank's brother Joe (Tom Pelphrey) has a memorable "walk with me" walkthrough of the studio with Mayer preaching on the real meaning of MGM and the movies in general. Breathtakingly good.
- But - I said "nearly steals the show".... the guy who made off with it in a swag-bag for me was our own Charles Dance as Hearst. Quietly impressive throughout, he just completely nails it with his "organ-grinder's monkey" speech towards the end of the movie. Probably my favourite monologue of 2020. Chilling. I'd really like to see Dance get a Supporting Actor nomination for this.
The screenplay was originally written by director David Fincher's late father Jack. Jack Fincher died in 2002, and this project has literally been decades in the planning. Mankiewicz has a caustic turn of phrase, and there are laugh-out lines of dialogue scattered throughout the script. "Write hard, aim low" implores Houseman at one point. And my personal favourite: Mank's puncturing of the irony that the Screen Writers Guild has been formed without an apostrophe! A huge LOL!
Aside from the witty dialogue, the script has a nuance to the storytelling that continually surprises. A revelation from Freda about Mank's philanthropic tendencies brings you up short in your face-value impression of his character. And the drivers that engineer the rift between Mankiewicz and Hearst - based around the story of the (fictional) director Shelly Metcalf (Jamie McShane) - are not slapped in your face, but elegantly slipped into your subconscious.
In addition, certain aspects are frustratingly withheld from you. Mank's long-suffering wife (a definition of the phrase) Sara (Tuppence Middleton) only occasionally comes into focus. The only reference to his kids are a crash in the background as they "remodel" the family home. Is the charismatic Mank a faithful husband or a philanderer? Is the relationship with Rita Alexander just professional and platonic (you assume so), or is there more going on? There's a tension there in the storytelling that never quite gets resolved: and that's a good thing.
Mank also has an embarrassment of technical riches. Even from the opening titles, you get the impression that this is a work of genius. All in black and white, and with the appearance of 40's titling, they scroll majestically in the sky and then - after "Charles Dance" - effortlessly scroll down to the desert highway. It's evidence of an attention to detail perhaps forced by lockdown. ("MUM - I'm bored". "Go up to your room and do some more work on that movie then".)
It's deliciously modern, yet retro. I love the fact that the cross-reel "circle" cue-marks appear so prominently... the indicators that the projectionist needs to spin up the next reel. I think they are still used in most modern films, but not as noticeably as in the old films... and this one!
A key contributor to the movie is cinematographer Erik Messerschmidt. Everything looks just BEAUTIFUL, and it is now a big regret that I didn't go to watch this on the big screen after all. Surely there will be a cinematography Oscar nomination for this one. Unbelievably, this is Messerschmidt's debut feature as director of cinematography!
Elsewhere, you can imagine multiple other technical Oscar noms. The tight and effective editing is by Kirk Baxter. And the combination of the glorious production design (Donald Graham Burt) and the costume design (Trish Summerville) make the movie emanate the same nostalgia for Hollywood as did last year's "Once Upon a Time... In Hollywood".... albeit set forty years earlier. Even the music (by the regular team of Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross) might get nominated, since I had to go back and check that it actually HAD music at all: it's subtly unobtrusive and effective.
The only area I had any issue with here was the sound mixing, since I had trouble picking up some of the dialogue.
Although I can gush about this movie as a technical work of art, I'm going to hold off a 10* review on this one. For one reason only. I just didn't feel 100% engaged with the story (at least with a first watch). The illustrious Mrs Movie Man summed it up with the phrase "I just didn't care enough what happened to any of the characters". I think though that this one is sufficiently subtle and cerebral that it deserves another watch.
Will it win Oscars. Yes, for sure. Hell, I would like to put a bet on that "Mank" will top the list of the "most nominations" when they are announced. (Hollywood likes nothing more than a navel-gazing look at its history of course). And an obvious nomination here will be David Fincher for Best Director. But, for me, this falls into a similar bucket as that other black and white multi-Oscar winner of two year's ago "Roma". It's glorious to look at; brilliantly directed; but not a movie I would choose to readily reach for to repeatedly watch again.
(For the full graphical review, please check out the review here - https://bob-the-movie-man.com/2020/12/10/mank-divines-for-oscar-gold-in-a-sea-of-pyrites/. Thanks.)
Hadley (567 KP) rated Handbook of Paranormal Powers in Books
Jun 2, 2019
I have always believed in the paranormal, but I am careful not to take everything at face value. When I picked up this book, I unfortunately took it at its face value, thinking that it was about how people developed these paranormal abilities and the things that they achieved with them.
But this book seems to have been written by a skeptic that disguised it as a book from a believer in the paranormal, which to say is a pretty clever way to sell a book when the belief in the paranormal is at an all time high. The author spends much of the book detailing people who have exhibited paranormal abilities just to quickly tear them down. I will say that Brian Haughton did a wonderful job on researching for this book, bringing up not only the history of paranormal abilities, but also self proclaimed psychics that readers may not have even heard of, such as Florence Cook, who had her abilities tested by none other than William Crookes( the discoverer of the element thallium).
Haughton's 'Handbook of Paranormal Powers' should have been titled something else, mostly because it's a history lesson in ESP and also, obviously, from the point-of-view of a skeptic. Yet, it doesn't lack for reading by believers; one such part I found interesting was a part on dowsing- the supernatural ability to find hidden objects, substances, geographic features, or sometimes even people- which you may have seen someone doing by holding two rods to find underground water. This part was about when dowsing became popular in the seventeenth-century France, and was being considered 'evil': ". . .with the dowser Baroness de Beausoleil and her husband, a mining expert, journeying across Europe and allegedly locating ore deposits of iron, gold, and silver. The couple established a thriving mineral company, but when their methods of locating metal ores became known they were accused of practicing the 'black arts' and imprisoned for the rest of their lives. " Readers learn that it wasn't until the nineteenth century, with the rise of spiritualism, that dowsing was no longer considered 'evil.'
Another one that interested me concerned the comedian Andy Kaufman, and his pursuit to rid himself of a rare lung cancer with psychic healing: "In March 1984, US comedian Andy Kaufman traveled to the Philippines for a six- week course of psychic surgery after being diagnosed with a rare lung cancer. The surgeon, Jun Labo, performed the operation, and claimed that he had removed large cancerous tumors from Kaufman's body. On May 16, 1984, Kaufman died from renal failure as a consequence of a metastatic lung cancer. "
I hate, but also love this book, not because Haughton backs up all of the skeptic claims with scientific research and tests, but because he claimed this to be a handbook or paranormal powers. If you glance at the cover, just below the title is: 'discover the secrets of mind readers, mediums, and more' - this can be taken that it's written by someone who believes in the paranormal, as well as someone who may have had personal experiences with the unknown, but with that said, I did learn a lot about the history of paranormal powers as well as people I had never heard of.
To prove the skepticism in Haughton's writing, we can turn to page 173, where he writes about how to test whether or not a self-proclaimed psychic surgeon is real. But even before this page and throughout this book, Haughton explains someone doing an extraordinary thing only to quickly explain away why it was fake to begin with. The 'Handbook of Paranormal Powers' reads a lot like a college thesis, that I found myself getting bored with the matter-of-fact tone. Some readers may enjoy reading essay-type books, but for me, it becomes repetitive enough that I don't remember much of the information I had just read.
Also, readers may come away with the feeling that Haughton doesn't care about the slight chance that some paranormal powers may be real, but instead he'd rather read about the scientific facts. I would only recommend this book to people who want to do a light reading on paranormal history, meaning mostly what made headlines in the news. For believers, I would suggest you go elsewhere.
But this book seems to have been written by a skeptic that disguised it as a book from a believer in the paranormal, which to say is a pretty clever way to sell a book when the belief in the paranormal is at an all time high. The author spends much of the book detailing people who have exhibited paranormal abilities just to quickly tear them down. I will say that Brian Haughton did a wonderful job on researching for this book, bringing up not only the history of paranormal abilities, but also self proclaimed psychics that readers may not have even heard of, such as Florence Cook, who had her abilities tested by none other than William Crookes( the discoverer of the element thallium).
Haughton's 'Handbook of Paranormal Powers' should have been titled something else, mostly because it's a history lesson in ESP and also, obviously, from the point-of-view of a skeptic. Yet, it doesn't lack for reading by believers; one such part I found interesting was a part on dowsing- the supernatural ability to find hidden objects, substances, geographic features, or sometimes even people- which you may have seen someone doing by holding two rods to find underground water. This part was about when dowsing became popular in the seventeenth-century France, and was being considered 'evil': ". . .with the dowser Baroness de Beausoleil and her husband, a mining expert, journeying across Europe and allegedly locating ore deposits of iron, gold, and silver. The couple established a thriving mineral company, but when their methods of locating metal ores became known they were accused of practicing the 'black arts' and imprisoned for the rest of their lives. " Readers learn that it wasn't until the nineteenth century, with the rise of spiritualism, that dowsing was no longer considered 'evil.'
Another one that interested me concerned the comedian Andy Kaufman, and his pursuit to rid himself of a rare lung cancer with psychic healing: "In March 1984, US comedian Andy Kaufman traveled to the Philippines for a six- week course of psychic surgery after being diagnosed with a rare lung cancer. The surgeon, Jun Labo, performed the operation, and claimed that he had removed large cancerous tumors from Kaufman's body. On May 16, 1984, Kaufman died from renal failure as a consequence of a metastatic lung cancer. "
I hate, but also love this book, not because Haughton backs up all of the skeptic claims with scientific research and tests, but because he claimed this to be a handbook or paranormal powers. If you glance at the cover, just below the title is: 'discover the secrets of mind readers, mediums, and more' - this can be taken that it's written by someone who believes in the paranormal, as well as someone who may have had personal experiences with the unknown, but with that said, I did learn a lot about the history of paranormal powers as well as people I had never heard of.
To prove the skepticism in Haughton's writing, we can turn to page 173, where he writes about how to test whether or not a self-proclaimed psychic surgeon is real. But even before this page and throughout this book, Haughton explains someone doing an extraordinary thing only to quickly explain away why it was fake to begin with. The 'Handbook of Paranormal Powers' reads a lot like a college thesis, that I found myself getting bored with the matter-of-fact tone. Some readers may enjoy reading essay-type books, but for me, it becomes repetitive enough that I don't remember much of the information I had just read.
Also, readers may come away with the feeling that Haughton doesn't care about the slight chance that some paranormal powers may be real, but instead he'd rather read about the scientific facts. I would only recommend this book to people who want to do a light reading on paranormal history, meaning mostly what made headlines in the news. For believers, I would suggest you go elsewhere.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Venom (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
A film that leaves you in two minds.
After all the terrible reviews of this movie (“The Times” reviewer described it as “excreble” which is harsh indeed) I was steeling myself to reach for my 1* rating. I was happy to find that it wasn’t quite as bad as I was expecting it to be. Indeed parts of it were positively good fun.
The plot
Tom Hardy plays Eddie Brock, a San Franciscan investigative reporter who is engaged to hot-shot lawyer Anne Weying (Michelle WIlliams). Brock is a bit of a maverick and always tends to push things a bit far, both at work and at home. Brock targets for his latest investigation Carlton Drake (Riz Ahmed): a billionaire space pioneer (I hope the producers got WELL lawyered up!) Drake is a Bond-style megalomaniac who is intend on saving mankind by merging humans with aliens to create a symbiotic organism. Not wishing to go through all the nampy-pamby clinical trials stuff, he is doing live research on vagrants and others who “won’t be missed”… with generally negative results. Infected accidently with the symbiont called Venom Brock’s future hangs in the balance: the meld will either kill him or else a new superhero will be born. (No guessing which!)
Review
For anyone with one foot already in the Spiderverse, Eddie Brock and his alter-ego Venom have appeared before, in the convoluted and pretty poor Tobey Maguire sequel “Spider-Man 3”. In that film Eddie (played by Topher Grace) was the boyfriend of Gwen Stacey (then played by Bryce Dallas-Howard) who was similarly infected by an alien symbiote and was transformed into Venom.
This new Venom incarnation is a Sony Pictures production “with” Marvel Studios, and although featuring a Stan Lee cameo it never quite feels like a Marvel picture. Posher critics have described it as “tonally inconsistent”…. which is posh-critic language for “it’s fecking all over the place”! And they are right. It veers suddenly from high drama and sci-fi action to plodding dialogue and Deadpool-style wisecracks with clutch-smoking rapidity. As such, the film never feels like it’s decided whether it wants to be at the po-faced Captain America end of the Marvel specturn or at the wise-cracking Deadpool/GotG end.
The Turns
Tom Hardy actually gets to spend a lot of this film without a mask over his face, which is certainly a novelty! And he gives it his all acting wise which will please his army of fans. But his pairing with the Oscar-winning Michelle Williams never feels comfortable: there seems little chemistry between the pair given that they are an “item”. None of this is helped by the grindingly turgid script which gives the pair, plus Reid Scott (“Dan” from “Veep”) as the third corner in the love triangle, some truly dire dialogue to spout at each other.
An act I did like in the film was Riz Ahmed as the “really bad guy” Drake. I found Ahmed extremely annoying in “Rogue One”, but here he slides into the smarmy evil role perfectly. A better script, like a future Bond film, would have benefitted from the turn!
Woody Harrelson also turns up in a mid-credit “monkey” as the supervillain Cletus Kasady, which meant nothing to me but certainly does to comic-book fans. (By the way, there is no “monkey” at the end of the film, but there is a 6 minute clip from the upcoming “Into the Spider Verse” cartoon feature tacked onto the end – at least of this Cineworld showing – which may or may not interest you).
A technical shout-out should go to Swedish composer Ludwig Göransson (who’s previously done “Black Panther” and “Creed”): an unusual soundtrack with odd electronica, eerie electric-guitar riffs for Eddie’s theme interspersed with exciting fast-paced action beats.
Final Thoughts
I must admit that from starting with a cynical “don’t want to know” approach to the Marvel Universe, the damn thing is slowly wearing me down into being kind of intrigued with what they are going to do next. This is not a classic Marvel flick, but for me it wasn’t nearly as bad as some of the critical reviews have made it out to be. I saw this alone: and we were quite entertained.
The plot
Tom Hardy plays Eddie Brock, a San Franciscan investigative reporter who is engaged to hot-shot lawyer Anne Weying (Michelle WIlliams). Brock is a bit of a maverick and always tends to push things a bit far, both at work and at home. Brock targets for his latest investigation Carlton Drake (Riz Ahmed): a billionaire space pioneer (I hope the producers got WELL lawyered up!) Drake is a Bond-style megalomaniac who is intend on saving mankind by merging humans with aliens to create a symbiotic organism. Not wishing to go through all the nampy-pamby clinical trials stuff, he is doing live research on vagrants and others who “won’t be missed”… with generally negative results. Infected accidently with the symbiont called Venom Brock’s future hangs in the balance: the meld will either kill him or else a new superhero will be born. (No guessing which!)
Review
For anyone with one foot already in the Spiderverse, Eddie Brock and his alter-ego Venom have appeared before, in the convoluted and pretty poor Tobey Maguire sequel “Spider-Man 3”. In that film Eddie (played by Topher Grace) was the boyfriend of Gwen Stacey (then played by Bryce Dallas-Howard) who was similarly infected by an alien symbiote and was transformed into Venom.
This new Venom incarnation is a Sony Pictures production “with” Marvel Studios, and although featuring a Stan Lee cameo it never quite feels like a Marvel picture. Posher critics have described it as “tonally inconsistent”…. which is posh-critic language for “it’s fecking all over the place”! And they are right. It veers suddenly from high drama and sci-fi action to plodding dialogue and Deadpool-style wisecracks with clutch-smoking rapidity. As such, the film never feels like it’s decided whether it wants to be at the po-faced Captain America end of the Marvel specturn or at the wise-cracking Deadpool/GotG end.
The Turns
Tom Hardy actually gets to spend a lot of this film without a mask over his face, which is certainly a novelty! And he gives it his all acting wise which will please his army of fans. But his pairing with the Oscar-winning Michelle Williams never feels comfortable: there seems little chemistry between the pair given that they are an “item”. None of this is helped by the grindingly turgid script which gives the pair, plus Reid Scott (“Dan” from “Veep”) as the third corner in the love triangle, some truly dire dialogue to spout at each other.
An act I did like in the film was Riz Ahmed as the “really bad guy” Drake. I found Ahmed extremely annoying in “Rogue One”, but here he slides into the smarmy evil role perfectly. A better script, like a future Bond film, would have benefitted from the turn!
Woody Harrelson also turns up in a mid-credit “monkey” as the supervillain Cletus Kasady, which meant nothing to me but certainly does to comic-book fans. (By the way, there is no “monkey” at the end of the film, but there is a 6 minute clip from the upcoming “Into the Spider Verse” cartoon feature tacked onto the end – at least of this Cineworld showing – which may or may not interest you).
A technical shout-out should go to Swedish composer Ludwig Göransson (who’s previously done “Black Panther” and “Creed”): an unusual soundtrack with odd electronica, eerie electric-guitar riffs for Eddie’s theme interspersed with exciting fast-paced action beats.
Final Thoughts
I must admit that from starting with a cynical “don’t want to know” approach to the Marvel Universe, the damn thing is slowly wearing me down into being kind of intrigued with what they are going to do next. This is not a classic Marvel flick, but for me it wasn’t nearly as bad as some of the critical reviews have made it out to be. I saw this alone: and we were quite entertained.
Lucy Buglass (45 KP) rated The Girl in the Spider's Web (2018) in Movies
Jun 20, 2019
Disappointingly Average
I love The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo series. The Swedish films are excellent and David Fincher’s US adaptation was a decent watch too. Lisbeth Salander is such an iconic and well-written character, so her return to the big screen was met with much anticipation. With a new cast and new story I was looking forward to seeing it, catching a Limitless preview screening a few days before its general UK release. Unfortunately, it didn’t live up to my relatively high expectations.
The biggest insult to this film is its trailer. It gives away EVERYTHING so if you’ve seen the trailer, you’ve basically seen the entire film condensed down into a few minutes. All the best scenes and key moments have been awkwardly crammed into its promotion, to the point where I was able to predict exactly what was going to happen. I felt very let down by this and it seriously ruined my ability to enjoy the film properly. It deserved a much more ambiguous trailer, letting the mystery be revealed throughout the full narrative instead.
The film is redeemed somewhat by the performances. Claire Foy is a fantastic Lisbeth Salander, putting her all into this performance and fully embodying the badass, bisexual cyber-hacker that we all know and love. She is slick, smart and sexually charged, and is a worthy successor to both Noomi Rapace and Rooney Mara. If anything, Foy deserved a better film because this story really didn’t do her much justice and that’s not her fault.
It was also interesting to see British comedian Stephen Merchant in a much more serious role, proving that he is able to step out of his comfort zone. His character, Frans Balder, is a complex one despite his lack of screen time, and I was convinced by his take on the character. Despite his relatively small role, I found him more interesting than some of the main characters.
Security expert Edwin Needham is utterly forgettable, and his character wasn’t strong enough to get much interest from me. In a similar vein, Millenium journalist Mikael Blomkvist barely even made an appearance and considering he’s been a key character in the novels and in Lisbeth’s life, this was disappointing for me. I haven’t read the novel yet so I’m unsure if this is true to the original story, but it was a shame he didn’t feature more.
Because this film focuses primarily on Salander and twin sister, Camilla, I was relieved that I at least enjoyed scenes featuring the two of them. Sylvia Hoeks is a terrifying and powerful on-screen presence, from her mannerisms to her costume design. The fractured relationship between the two sisters is fascinating and runs deep, but seems to be glossed over at times. Foy and Hoeks did their best with the script they had, but I still found the narrative jumbled and rushed in places, favouring drawn-out action over scenes with any real substance.
Sure, the action sequences are well-shot and full of adrenaline but when they replace actual narrative coherence, we have a problem. There’s too much going on, there’s plot holes, and filler scenes that really didn’t need to be there. I know two hours isn’t really a lot of screen time to play with, but it could’ve been so much better than this.
The Girl In The Spider’s Web is nothing like the complex thriller I was expecting it to be, cramming far too much into its runtime and leaving me feeling dissatisfied. It’s entertaining in its own way and if you’re mainly looking looking for chase sequences, fast cars and action, then you’ll probably have a good time. There are some great scenes and lines of dialogue, but not enough to fully redeem itself. I don’t necessarily regret watching it, but I won’t be watching again. It’s a forgettable action film.
If you want to see Lisbeth Salander and co. at their best, catch the Swedish films instead.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/11/28/disappointingly-average-a-review-of-the-girl-in-the-spiders-web/
The biggest insult to this film is its trailer. It gives away EVERYTHING so if you’ve seen the trailer, you’ve basically seen the entire film condensed down into a few minutes. All the best scenes and key moments have been awkwardly crammed into its promotion, to the point where I was able to predict exactly what was going to happen. I felt very let down by this and it seriously ruined my ability to enjoy the film properly. It deserved a much more ambiguous trailer, letting the mystery be revealed throughout the full narrative instead.
The film is redeemed somewhat by the performances. Claire Foy is a fantastic Lisbeth Salander, putting her all into this performance and fully embodying the badass, bisexual cyber-hacker that we all know and love. She is slick, smart and sexually charged, and is a worthy successor to both Noomi Rapace and Rooney Mara. If anything, Foy deserved a better film because this story really didn’t do her much justice and that’s not her fault.
It was also interesting to see British comedian Stephen Merchant in a much more serious role, proving that he is able to step out of his comfort zone. His character, Frans Balder, is a complex one despite his lack of screen time, and I was convinced by his take on the character. Despite his relatively small role, I found him more interesting than some of the main characters.
Security expert Edwin Needham is utterly forgettable, and his character wasn’t strong enough to get much interest from me. In a similar vein, Millenium journalist Mikael Blomkvist barely even made an appearance and considering he’s been a key character in the novels and in Lisbeth’s life, this was disappointing for me. I haven’t read the novel yet so I’m unsure if this is true to the original story, but it was a shame he didn’t feature more.
Because this film focuses primarily on Salander and twin sister, Camilla, I was relieved that I at least enjoyed scenes featuring the two of them. Sylvia Hoeks is a terrifying and powerful on-screen presence, from her mannerisms to her costume design. The fractured relationship between the two sisters is fascinating and runs deep, but seems to be glossed over at times. Foy and Hoeks did their best with the script they had, but I still found the narrative jumbled and rushed in places, favouring drawn-out action over scenes with any real substance.
Sure, the action sequences are well-shot and full of adrenaline but when they replace actual narrative coherence, we have a problem. There’s too much going on, there’s plot holes, and filler scenes that really didn’t need to be there. I know two hours isn’t really a lot of screen time to play with, but it could’ve been so much better than this.
The Girl In The Spider’s Web is nothing like the complex thriller I was expecting it to be, cramming far too much into its runtime and leaving me feeling dissatisfied. It’s entertaining in its own way and if you’re mainly looking looking for chase sequences, fast cars and action, then you’ll probably have a good time. There are some great scenes and lines of dialogue, but not enough to fully redeem itself. I don’t necessarily regret watching it, but I won’t be watching again. It’s a forgettable action film.
If you want to see Lisbeth Salander and co. at their best, catch the Swedish films instead.
https://lucygoestohollywood.com/2018/11/28/disappointingly-average-a-review-of-the-girl-in-the-spiders-web/
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/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Black Panther (2018) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019 (Updated Jun 10, 2019)
Is the MCU all out of surprises?
The Marvel Cinematic Universe has become one of the most successful movie franchises ever made, and it’s easy to see why. Featuring incredible actors, up-and-coming directors and that trademark sense of humour, each film in the MCU has something to offer.
That doesn’t mean they’re perfect however. The MCU has a distinct lack of decent villains, strong female characters and characters from ethnic minorities. In the run-up to this year’s Infinity War, Black Panther aims to turn what we know about Marvel on its head. But has it succeeded?
After the death of his father, T’Challa (Chadwick Boseman) returns home to the African nation of Wakanda to take his rightful place as king. When a powerful enemy suddenly reappears, T’Challa’s mettle as king – and as Black Panther – gets tested when he’s drawn into a conflict that puts the fate of Wakanda and the entire world at risk. Faced with treachery and danger, the young king must rally his allies and release the full power of Black Panther to defeat his foes and secure the safety of his people.
The opening sequence of Black Panther is an absolute treat as the audience are given a brief history of Wakanda and the tribes from which it grew. It’s a great montage to kick off a film that’s packed with stunning visuals and gorgeous landscapes, even though some of the special effects are left wanting at times.
Cast wise, this is one of the strongest entries into the MCU. Chadwick Boseman absolutely embodies the young, naïve yet warm T’Challa beautifully and it’s nice to see his character given some reference points after his sudden inclusion in Captain America: Civil War. Elsewhere, Lupita Nyong’o is always a pleasure to see on screen and her love interest to Boseman keeps him grounded over the course of the runtime.
For me the standout character is Danai Gurira’s Okoye, leader of a group of female warriors ordered to protect Wakanda and its king no matter what the cost. She’s certainly not to be messed with and gets a pleasing arc throughout. The script also seems to work best when she’s on screen.
When it comes to the bad guy, director Ryan Coogler (Creed) gets it nearly spot on. After dozens of, shall we say, lacklustre villains, the MCU receives its best yet. Michael B. Jordan’s Killmonger is, despite his ridiculous name, absolutely brilliant. Menacing and oddly charming in equal measure, he does away with the tradition of bizarre villain motives in the MCU. In fact, his motives throughout feel entirely believable and the film feels more grounded because of this.
Coogler does a good job at creating a bustling and vibrant world, even if the special effects can sometimes bring you out of the illusion
Martin Freeman’s Agent Ross is a strange addition to the cast, simply because his character isn’t essential to the plot. Freeman is always a magnetic presence but he really doesn’t have all that much to do. Finally, Andy Serkis reprises his role as arms dealer Ulysses Klaue and is great fun.
Looking at Wakanda itself, Coogler does a good job at creating a bustling and vibrant world, even if the special effects can sometimes bring you out of the illusion. It certainly feels more real than the hollow golden towers of Asgard (something thankfully fixed in last year’s Thor: Ragnarok), and Wakanda is a great addition to the many locations the Marvel Cinematic Universe has created.
So, I’ve mentioned disappointing special effects twice in this review and whilst they aren’t terrible, there are a few occasions where they are a little poor – especially evident in the film’s finale. For all his exciting filming style, Coogler’s shot choices occasionally jar with the uninspiring and lifeless CGI. Some of the landscapes also feel like a brochure for Disney’s upcoming The Lion King live-action remake.
I think it’s time to talk about film politics, because as much as Black Panther is a great addition to the MCU and a fine solo movie in itself, the legacy it will leave on the industry will be absolutely huge. With a majority black cast, strong female characters and a black director, it’s progressive and incredibly brave in its choices.
Any less of a story, director or cast wouldn’t have made it work and despite some poor CGI and slight pacing issues at the start, Black Panther is one of the best solo Marvel movies in years. Bring on Infinity War.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/02/15/black-panther-review-is-the-mcu-all-out-of-surprises/
That doesn’t mean they’re perfect however. The MCU has a distinct lack of decent villains, strong female characters and characters from ethnic minorities. In the run-up to this year’s Infinity War, Black Panther aims to turn what we know about Marvel on its head. But has it succeeded?
After the death of his father, T’Challa (Chadwick Boseman) returns home to the African nation of Wakanda to take his rightful place as king. When a powerful enemy suddenly reappears, T’Challa’s mettle as king – and as Black Panther – gets tested when he’s drawn into a conflict that puts the fate of Wakanda and the entire world at risk. Faced with treachery and danger, the young king must rally his allies and release the full power of Black Panther to defeat his foes and secure the safety of his people.
The opening sequence of Black Panther is an absolute treat as the audience are given a brief history of Wakanda and the tribes from which it grew. It’s a great montage to kick off a film that’s packed with stunning visuals and gorgeous landscapes, even though some of the special effects are left wanting at times.
Cast wise, this is one of the strongest entries into the MCU. Chadwick Boseman absolutely embodies the young, naïve yet warm T’Challa beautifully and it’s nice to see his character given some reference points after his sudden inclusion in Captain America: Civil War. Elsewhere, Lupita Nyong’o is always a pleasure to see on screen and her love interest to Boseman keeps him grounded over the course of the runtime.
For me the standout character is Danai Gurira’s Okoye, leader of a group of female warriors ordered to protect Wakanda and its king no matter what the cost. She’s certainly not to be messed with and gets a pleasing arc throughout. The script also seems to work best when she’s on screen.
When it comes to the bad guy, director Ryan Coogler (Creed) gets it nearly spot on. After dozens of, shall we say, lacklustre villains, the MCU receives its best yet. Michael B. Jordan’s Killmonger is, despite his ridiculous name, absolutely brilliant. Menacing and oddly charming in equal measure, he does away with the tradition of bizarre villain motives in the MCU. In fact, his motives throughout feel entirely believable and the film feels more grounded because of this.
Coogler does a good job at creating a bustling and vibrant world, even if the special effects can sometimes bring you out of the illusion
Martin Freeman’s Agent Ross is a strange addition to the cast, simply because his character isn’t essential to the plot. Freeman is always a magnetic presence but he really doesn’t have all that much to do. Finally, Andy Serkis reprises his role as arms dealer Ulysses Klaue and is great fun.
Looking at Wakanda itself, Coogler does a good job at creating a bustling and vibrant world, even if the special effects can sometimes bring you out of the illusion. It certainly feels more real than the hollow golden towers of Asgard (something thankfully fixed in last year’s Thor: Ragnarok), and Wakanda is a great addition to the many locations the Marvel Cinematic Universe has created.
So, I’ve mentioned disappointing special effects twice in this review and whilst they aren’t terrible, there are a few occasions where they are a little poor – especially evident in the film’s finale. For all his exciting filming style, Coogler’s shot choices occasionally jar with the uninspiring and lifeless CGI. Some of the landscapes also feel like a brochure for Disney’s upcoming The Lion King live-action remake.
I think it’s time to talk about film politics, because as much as Black Panther is a great addition to the MCU and a fine solo movie in itself, the legacy it will leave on the industry will be absolutely huge. With a majority black cast, strong female characters and a black director, it’s progressive and incredibly brave in its choices.
Any less of a story, director or cast wouldn’t have made it work and despite some poor CGI and slight pacing issues at the start, Black Panther is one of the best solo Marvel movies in years. Bring on Infinity War.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2018/02/15/black-panther-review-is-the-mcu-all-out-of-surprises/
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated The Devil Wears Prada (2006) in Movies
Jun 11, 2019
I was watching The Devil Wears Prada the other day on ITV2 and forgot just how brilliant a film it is, it really did exceed expectations back then in 2006 and even now in 2011. Here’s the review I wrote all those years ago. Enjoy!
David Frankel, a rather unknown television director makes his debut on the silver screen in this stunning adaptation of Lauren Weisberger’s not so stunning novel, The Devil Wears Prada.
Anne Hathaway and Meryl Streep join a mesmerising cast in this surprisingly brilliant rom-com. The premise is simple and kept that way to ensure all detail is carried across in depth without missing any major points from the novel. Weisberger should be astounded that Frankel managed to turn her rather lacklustre book into a first-rate movie.
Anne Hathaway plays ‘Andy Sax’, an unknown journalist with no eye for fashion who wants to get her foot on the bottom ladder of the media industry. Her character simply leaps off the screen, from her dopey, lovable personality to her cheap, second rate clothing; she is truly a joy to watch. Emily Blunt plays the fashion conscious assistant who would do anything and everything to get as high as possible in the clothing industry; again, her character is played with a love/hate finesse that few actresses of 2006 can match.
However, by far the best performance is given by Meryl Streep as ‘Miranda Priestly’, editor and chief of ‘Runway’ magazine. Sly, career obsessed with a dash of emotionality added in, she is exceptional in her role and should be seriously considered for an Oscar at this years awards. Her dialogue is spoken with a heartless brilliance that no other actress could even hold a candle to, she is perfectly cast in this role.
Stanley Tucci plays a somewhat flat member of the team, possibly due to his little screen time, but he is by no means dull, with personality abound.
The soundtrack is genius, and perfectly matched to the film, from the outset right up until the closing credits, each song is flawlessly integrated into the feature. Camera-work is also on par with the best of this year and really helps the characters stand out in their roles.
Where most rom-coms use cheap gags to gain laughs from the audience, Prada expects you to think a little more about what you’re laughing at, a deep message about ones self discovery is incorporated, but well hidden in the film. Of course there are a few laughs of the cheap kind, but unusually, they are actually funny. Comedy really doesn’t get much better than right here.
Some scenes in the film have been directed so well, that the more emotional among us may be reaching for the tissues. The transition from comedy to seriousness is exceptionally watertight, you’ll be laughing one minute and on the edge of your seat the next.
The ending of the film is perhaps of a slight anti-climax, but it portrays a wonderfully deep message about inner emotion, leaving a huge smile on your face as the credits role.
To put it simply, The Devil Wears Prada is a practically faultless movie which should appeal to a huge and diverse range of people. The acting, direction and soundtrack are all absolutely perfect and I think we may have a found a future classic character in ‘Miranda Priestly.’ It’s a joy to watch. Be a devil and go see it.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2011/01/19/a-blast-from-the-past-the-devil-wears-prada-2006/
David Frankel, a rather unknown television director makes his debut on the silver screen in this stunning adaptation of Lauren Weisberger’s not so stunning novel, The Devil Wears Prada.
Anne Hathaway and Meryl Streep join a mesmerising cast in this surprisingly brilliant rom-com. The premise is simple and kept that way to ensure all detail is carried across in depth without missing any major points from the novel. Weisberger should be astounded that Frankel managed to turn her rather lacklustre book into a first-rate movie.
Anne Hathaway plays ‘Andy Sax’, an unknown journalist with no eye for fashion who wants to get her foot on the bottom ladder of the media industry. Her character simply leaps off the screen, from her dopey, lovable personality to her cheap, second rate clothing; she is truly a joy to watch. Emily Blunt plays the fashion conscious assistant who would do anything and everything to get as high as possible in the clothing industry; again, her character is played with a love/hate finesse that few actresses of 2006 can match.
However, by far the best performance is given by Meryl Streep as ‘Miranda Priestly’, editor and chief of ‘Runway’ magazine. Sly, career obsessed with a dash of emotionality added in, she is exceptional in her role and should be seriously considered for an Oscar at this years awards. Her dialogue is spoken with a heartless brilliance that no other actress could even hold a candle to, she is perfectly cast in this role.
Stanley Tucci plays a somewhat flat member of the team, possibly due to his little screen time, but he is by no means dull, with personality abound.
The soundtrack is genius, and perfectly matched to the film, from the outset right up until the closing credits, each song is flawlessly integrated into the feature. Camera-work is also on par with the best of this year and really helps the characters stand out in their roles.
Where most rom-coms use cheap gags to gain laughs from the audience, Prada expects you to think a little more about what you’re laughing at, a deep message about ones self discovery is incorporated, but well hidden in the film. Of course there are a few laughs of the cheap kind, but unusually, they are actually funny. Comedy really doesn’t get much better than right here.
Some scenes in the film have been directed so well, that the more emotional among us may be reaching for the tissues. The transition from comedy to seriousness is exceptionally watertight, you’ll be laughing one minute and on the edge of your seat the next.
The ending of the film is perhaps of a slight anti-climax, but it portrays a wonderfully deep message about inner emotion, leaving a huge smile on your face as the credits role.
To put it simply, The Devil Wears Prada is a practically faultless movie which should appeal to a huge and diverse range of people. The acting, direction and soundtrack are all absolutely perfect and I think we may have a found a future classic character in ‘Miranda Priestly.’ It’s a joy to watch. Be a devil and go see it.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2011/01/19/a-blast-from-the-past-the-devil-wears-prada-2006/
Lee (2222 KP) rated Weathering with You (2019) in Movies
Jan 31, 2020
Weathering With You is another beautifully creative romantic fantasy from director Makoto Shinkai, who was responsible for 2016 hit, Your Name. I only recently watched Your Name, and to say that it blew me away would be an understatement - it's a movie I still think about to this day. So, I headed into Weathering With You, perhaps a little unfairly, with some pretty high expectations. Consequently, I came away a little disappointed. But that's not to say that this isn't a great movie.
As with Your Name, one of the core themes behind Weathering With You is the pursuit of true love and it begins by introducing our teen protagonists before they've had a chance to meet. In rain-soaked Tokyo, Hina is attracted to a beam of sunlight that is cutting through the clouds across town, and she rushes off to try and get a closer look. Running up flights of stairs to a building rooftop, she comes across a simple shrine at the spot where the sunlight hits the Earth. Praying hard, she steps slowly through the shrine gate and the rain stops. We then see Hina falling through the sky, observing beautiful, magical weather all around her.
Hodaka is a 16 year old runaway, traveling by ferry boat to Tokyo. While standing out on deck during a powerful storm, flooding almost sends him overboard, but he is rescued by Mr Suga, a magazine publisher who ends up giving him his business card. After arriving in Tokyo and struggling to find work, Hodaka eventually calls upon Mr Suga, who gives him a job. The heavy rain that almost cost Hodaka his life has been persisting for some time now, despite being the middle of summer, and long range forecasts are predicting no real change for the foreseeable future. Storms are also leaving behind fish-like objects and a strange jelly substance, which is leaving experts baffled.
Hodaka first encounters Hina in the McDonalds where she is working, then later on Hodaka rescues Hina from what he believes to be a dangerous situation and the pair find themselves becoming friends. Through his reporting work at the magazine run by Mr Suga, Hodaka had been investigating the mythical "Weather Maidens", and he discovers that Hina is one of them, with the ability to bring about sunshine through prayer. With Hina and Hodaka both in desperate need of money, they go into business together, taking requests online from people wanting rain-free occasions, such as family picnics or weddings and earning Hina the name "Sunshine Girl". The power of a weather maiden comes at a cost though, as they eventually become a human sacrifice to the skies, with each use of their power bringing that moment one step closer.
The larger premise of Weathering With You is obviously climate change - how messing with nature always comes at a cost and how children have real power to influence change. Visually, the movie is simply stunning, and animated rainfall has never looked so beautiful. It's also peppered with a rather distracting and cheesy J-Pop score, made all the worse if you try and follow the on-screen lyrics, which obviously do not have the same impact when translated literally. Sadly, there are far too many plot threads presented throughout without any clarity or resolution and overall the whole thing just felt too long. Admittedly, it was a pretty high bar set by Your Name, but unfortunately Weathering With You doesn't have the emotional weight to meet that, with a narrative that isn't as complex or as engaging.
As with Your Name, one of the core themes behind Weathering With You is the pursuit of true love and it begins by introducing our teen protagonists before they've had a chance to meet. In rain-soaked Tokyo, Hina is attracted to a beam of sunlight that is cutting through the clouds across town, and she rushes off to try and get a closer look. Running up flights of stairs to a building rooftop, she comes across a simple shrine at the spot where the sunlight hits the Earth. Praying hard, she steps slowly through the shrine gate and the rain stops. We then see Hina falling through the sky, observing beautiful, magical weather all around her.
Hodaka is a 16 year old runaway, traveling by ferry boat to Tokyo. While standing out on deck during a powerful storm, flooding almost sends him overboard, but he is rescued by Mr Suga, a magazine publisher who ends up giving him his business card. After arriving in Tokyo and struggling to find work, Hodaka eventually calls upon Mr Suga, who gives him a job. The heavy rain that almost cost Hodaka his life has been persisting for some time now, despite being the middle of summer, and long range forecasts are predicting no real change for the foreseeable future. Storms are also leaving behind fish-like objects and a strange jelly substance, which is leaving experts baffled.
Hodaka first encounters Hina in the McDonalds where she is working, then later on Hodaka rescues Hina from what he believes to be a dangerous situation and the pair find themselves becoming friends. Through his reporting work at the magazine run by Mr Suga, Hodaka had been investigating the mythical "Weather Maidens", and he discovers that Hina is one of them, with the ability to bring about sunshine through prayer. With Hina and Hodaka both in desperate need of money, they go into business together, taking requests online from people wanting rain-free occasions, such as family picnics or weddings and earning Hina the name "Sunshine Girl". The power of a weather maiden comes at a cost though, as they eventually become a human sacrifice to the skies, with each use of their power bringing that moment one step closer.
The larger premise of Weathering With You is obviously climate change - how messing with nature always comes at a cost and how children have real power to influence change. Visually, the movie is simply stunning, and animated rainfall has never looked so beautiful. It's also peppered with a rather distracting and cheesy J-Pop score, made all the worse if you try and follow the on-screen lyrics, which obviously do not have the same impact when translated literally. Sadly, there are far too many plot threads presented throughout without any clarity or resolution and overall the whole thing just felt too long. Admittedly, it was a pretty high bar set by Your Name, but unfortunately Weathering With You doesn't have the emotional weight to meet that, with a narrative that isn't as complex or as engaging.
Chris Sawin (602 KP) rated Werewolves Within (2021) in Movies
Dec 14, 2021
An incredible ensemble cast. (2 more)
Plot stays true to the classic 'whodunit' formula.
Milana Vayntrub.
Not enough horror. (2 more)
Not enough werewolves.
The burning desire for a hard R-rating.
A Sleepover with Guns
A horror comedy film based on the 2016 Red Storm Entertainment developed, Ubisoft published multiplayer VR video game of the same name, Werewolves Within keeps the same mystery/whodunit element of the game by introducing audiences to a small town under attack from a werewolf and leaving them to wonder which of the townsfolk could be the actual lycanthrope.
Directed by Josh Ruben and written by Mishna Wolff, Werewolves Within begins as Ranger Finn Wheeler (Sam Richardson) arrives in Beaverfield for his new post. Finn hits it off with the local mail carrier Cecily (Milana Vayntrub), but the rest of the town is unusually eccentric, to say the least.
There’s Trisha (Micahela Watkins) and Pete (Michael Chernus) Aderton, a couple who makes weird miniature dolls of everyone they meet and care a little too much for their dog. Devon (Cheyenne Jackson) and Joaquim (Harvey Guillén) are a homosexual couple living off the riches of a successful technological company. The town’s resident mechanic is Gwen (Sarah Burns), a crude woman whose husband Marcus (George Basil) is largely regarded as the town idiot.
Elsewhere in town, rounding out Beaverfield’s colorful cast of characters, is the clingy owner of the local lodge, Jeanine (Catherine Curtin), canine attack expert Dr. Ellis (Rebecca Henderson), oil magnate Sam (Wayne Duvall) who hopes to install a pipeline through the town at any cost, and Emerson, a ‘scary’ hunter who hates people and lives on the outskirts of town.
One night, when the power suddenly goes out and with the town’s back-up generators in a state of disrepair, everyone in town takes refuge in Jeanine’s lodge. However, after a corpse is discovered underneath the lodge’s porch and the townsfolk barricade themselves inside the building in an attempt to protect themselves from whatever may be lurking outside, the werewolf manages to attack from within.
In the aftermath of the attack, everyone begins to turn on each other, as the monster’s strike from inside the lodge provides them with a shocking revelation: Somebody in the lodge is the werewolf.
The cast works so well together. Richardson is does an excellent job of portraying Finn, a guy so nice and soft spoken that he feels like an African American Ned Flanders attempting to take charge as the authority figure.
Similarly, Vayntrub is so charming as Cecily that it makes you wonder why she hasn’t been in much else outside of AT&T commercials and the occasional voice role as Marvel’s Squirrel Girl, while Guillén is just as funny here as he is on What We Do in the Shadows, albeit in a slightly different way.
However, the most entertaining aspect of the film’s casting is the way everyone’s eccentric chemistry bounces off each other in a way that evokes this palpable sense of quirky absurdity that you can’t really find anywhere else.
The formula of Werewolves Within is a lot like Knives Out or Murder on the Orient Express, as it’s a mystery wrapped within the confines of a horror comedy, with the ensemble cast taking center stage as they dance around the comedy genre and a mild R-rating while the horror aspect is mostly reduced to sitting in the backseat and tapping you on the shoulder from time to time.
In fact, to that same mysterious end, the eponymous werewolf isn’t actually revealed until the last ten or so minutes of the film.
As someone who hasn’t played the original video game, the film adaptation of Werewolves Within was, overall, a little disappointing from a personal standpoint.
Yes, the film is more of a whodunit than a straight horror film, and thus it’s understandable why it did not lean completely into the more gory and terrifying potential of its premise. Yet, even with this fact in mind, the film still feels particularly lacking when it comes to its actual horror elements.
It’s also one of the softest R-rated films to come along in quite some time. While some aspects, such as Finn biting his tongue or saying “Heavens to Betsy” instead of dropping an F-bomb make sense, it remains frustrating nonetheless that Werewolves Within constantly feels as if it’s purposely holding itself back.
Which is a shame, because there’s more to a film like this than silly on-screen hijinks and running attempts by the audience to figure out who the killer is – after all, some of us will pay good money to see the monster you’ve advertised your entire film.
Recently, there seems to be a rising trend among modern werewolf movies to barely feature a film’s respective monster on screen. This year’s Bloodthirsty is a great example and, as much as I love the film, The Wolf of Snow Hollow did the horror/comedy concoction to a much more satisfying degree than Werewolves Within, and yet totally massacred the idea of an actual werewolf being the culprit.
At the end of the day, Werewolves Within is a film where a bunch of weirdos in some-little-nowhere-town are forcibly crammed into a lodge during a snowstorm and proceed to irritate one another to semi-humorous results as a werewolf hides among them. The film is essentially a wolf in a person’s clothing, as while Werewolves Within is fine for what it is and features some great performances here and a couple laugh-out-loud moments, its potential seems to be far greater than what we received.
Ultimately, Werewolves Within leaves horror fans starving and salivating for more.
Directed by Josh Ruben and written by Mishna Wolff, Werewolves Within begins as Ranger Finn Wheeler (Sam Richardson) arrives in Beaverfield for his new post. Finn hits it off with the local mail carrier Cecily (Milana Vayntrub), but the rest of the town is unusually eccentric, to say the least.
There’s Trisha (Micahela Watkins) and Pete (Michael Chernus) Aderton, a couple who makes weird miniature dolls of everyone they meet and care a little too much for their dog. Devon (Cheyenne Jackson) and Joaquim (Harvey Guillén) are a homosexual couple living off the riches of a successful technological company. The town’s resident mechanic is Gwen (Sarah Burns), a crude woman whose husband Marcus (George Basil) is largely regarded as the town idiot.
Elsewhere in town, rounding out Beaverfield’s colorful cast of characters, is the clingy owner of the local lodge, Jeanine (Catherine Curtin), canine attack expert Dr. Ellis (Rebecca Henderson), oil magnate Sam (Wayne Duvall) who hopes to install a pipeline through the town at any cost, and Emerson, a ‘scary’ hunter who hates people and lives on the outskirts of town.
One night, when the power suddenly goes out and with the town’s back-up generators in a state of disrepair, everyone in town takes refuge in Jeanine’s lodge. However, after a corpse is discovered underneath the lodge’s porch and the townsfolk barricade themselves inside the building in an attempt to protect themselves from whatever may be lurking outside, the werewolf manages to attack from within.
In the aftermath of the attack, everyone begins to turn on each other, as the monster’s strike from inside the lodge provides them with a shocking revelation: Somebody in the lodge is the werewolf.
The cast works so well together. Richardson is does an excellent job of portraying Finn, a guy so nice and soft spoken that he feels like an African American Ned Flanders attempting to take charge as the authority figure.
Similarly, Vayntrub is so charming as Cecily that it makes you wonder why she hasn’t been in much else outside of AT&T commercials and the occasional voice role as Marvel’s Squirrel Girl, while Guillén is just as funny here as he is on What We Do in the Shadows, albeit in a slightly different way.
However, the most entertaining aspect of the film’s casting is the way everyone’s eccentric chemistry bounces off each other in a way that evokes this palpable sense of quirky absurdity that you can’t really find anywhere else.
The formula of Werewolves Within is a lot like Knives Out or Murder on the Orient Express, as it’s a mystery wrapped within the confines of a horror comedy, with the ensemble cast taking center stage as they dance around the comedy genre and a mild R-rating while the horror aspect is mostly reduced to sitting in the backseat and tapping you on the shoulder from time to time.
In fact, to that same mysterious end, the eponymous werewolf isn’t actually revealed until the last ten or so minutes of the film.
As someone who hasn’t played the original video game, the film adaptation of Werewolves Within was, overall, a little disappointing from a personal standpoint.
Yes, the film is more of a whodunit than a straight horror film, and thus it’s understandable why it did not lean completely into the more gory and terrifying potential of its premise. Yet, even with this fact in mind, the film still feels particularly lacking when it comes to its actual horror elements.
It’s also one of the softest R-rated films to come along in quite some time. While some aspects, such as Finn biting his tongue or saying “Heavens to Betsy” instead of dropping an F-bomb make sense, it remains frustrating nonetheless that Werewolves Within constantly feels as if it’s purposely holding itself back.
Which is a shame, because there’s more to a film like this than silly on-screen hijinks and running attempts by the audience to figure out who the killer is – after all, some of us will pay good money to see the monster you’ve advertised your entire film.
Recently, there seems to be a rising trend among modern werewolf movies to barely feature a film’s respective monster on screen. This year’s Bloodthirsty is a great example and, as much as I love the film, The Wolf of Snow Hollow did the horror/comedy concoction to a much more satisfying degree than Werewolves Within, and yet totally massacred the idea of an actual werewolf being the culprit.
At the end of the day, Werewolves Within is a film where a bunch of weirdos in some-little-nowhere-town are forcibly crammed into a lodge during a snowstorm and proceed to irritate one another to semi-humorous results as a werewolf hides among them. The film is essentially a wolf in a person’s clothing, as while Werewolves Within is fine for what it is and features some great performances here and a couple laugh-out-loud moments, its potential seems to be far greater than what we received.
Ultimately, Werewolves Within leaves horror fans starving and salivating for more.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Inception (2010) in Movies
May 20, 2018
A Modern Classic
I have a confession to make - INCEPTION is one of my favorite Christopher Nolan films - and, perhaps, it is in my list of TOP 10 ALL TIME FAVORITE films, so this might not be a fair and impartial review of the film. To be fair to me, I did make a conscience effort whilst watching this movie to scrape away my previous preconceptions and opinions of this film and just let it wash over me in this "new light" of my blog to see what my reaction is.
My reaction: I LOVE THIS FILM!!!
I was asked how far back do you have to go before you can consider a film a "classic" and, I guess, I'd have to say 2010, for this film - to me - is a classic.
In INCEPTION, Nolan, and his co-writer brother Jonathan Nolan, go into the dreamworld with the premise that we can join in "shared dreams" to extract information from people that are locked away deep in their conscious (or in some cases unconscious) minds. This film deals with the idea of "Inception", planting an idea into someone's mind. This is, in essence, a "heist" film where our team of heroes is constantly at war with the minds they are inhabiting (since they are seen as parasites). The clock is ticking and they must get in and get out before they get lost.
Speaking of time, Nolan - once again - plays with the idea of time in this film. Once you go into a dream, 1 minute is like 1 hour and when you go into a dream of a dream, then 1 minute is like 60 hours and when you go into a dream within a dream within a dream, then...well...you get the idea.
If someone loses their way in this film, it's because they are trying to make logical sense of a dream world that defies physics - and time. My suggestion to you is to let go and let the movie take you to some fantastical places - with some fantastical imagery and plot machinations - that I enjoyed the heck out of.
Helping out this film is that it is impeccably cast. Leonardo DiCaprio is Cobb the head of this group that enters the dream realm. He is perfectly cast and Nolan, and this film, relies on his likeableness, his charm and the feeling that something just isn't quite right with him. All to very good effect. Ellen Page is strong as Ariadne, the rookie of the team that is our eyes and ears into this world. Ken Watanabe brings his typically strong game to the role of Saito - the man that gives the team the job and goes along for the ride. Nolan regular Cillian Murphy is a welcome addition as the person who they are trying to "Incept" and even small parts are filled with wonderful character actors like the late great, Pete Postlethwaite, Tom Berenger and good ol' Michael Caine.
But it is the emergence of two of the co-stars that, up until this film I thought were "fair actors but not great" that really elevates this film for me. Joseph Gordon-Levitt was always the "long haired kid from 3RD ROCK FROM THE SUN", but in this - as Cobb's right-hand man Arthur - he excels and really jumps out of the film as a screen presence. Of course, it really helps him that he has one of the best action sequences - for the most part practically shot - that I have ever scene. And, of course, there's TOM HARDY. He is a movie star and really shows it in the supporting role of Eames. This guy will win an Oscar one day, probably for a film that Nolan Directs him in.
My only quibble - and it is a QUIBBLE - is that I didn't really feel any strong chemistry between Marion Cotillard's Mal and DiCaprio's Cobb. She was supposed to be the big "love of his life" and I just didn't sense that. She was very good - and imposing - as she infiltrated Cobb's mind (which is, I think, the purpose of her character), but I could have used a little more between her and DiCaprio. But...as I say...a quibble.
All in all, a terrific - different - film. One that I am calling a "classic".
Letter Grade: A+
10 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
My reaction: I LOVE THIS FILM!!!
I was asked how far back do you have to go before you can consider a film a "classic" and, I guess, I'd have to say 2010, for this film - to me - is a classic.
In INCEPTION, Nolan, and his co-writer brother Jonathan Nolan, go into the dreamworld with the premise that we can join in "shared dreams" to extract information from people that are locked away deep in their conscious (or in some cases unconscious) minds. This film deals with the idea of "Inception", planting an idea into someone's mind. This is, in essence, a "heist" film where our team of heroes is constantly at war with the minds they are inhabiting (since they are seen as parasites). The clock is ticking and they must get in and get out before they get lost.
Speaking of time, Nolan - once again - plays with the idea of time in this film. Once you go into a dream, 1 minute is like 1 hour and when you go into a dream of a dream, then 1 minute is like 60 hours and when you go into a dream within a dream within a dream, then...well...you get the idea.
If someone loses their way in this film, it's because they are trying to make logical sense of a dream world that defies physics - and time. My suggestion to you is to let go and let the movie take you to some fantastical places - with some fantastical imagery and plot machinations - that I enjoyed the heck out of.
Helping out this film is that it is impeccably cast. Leonardo DiCaprio is Cobb the head of this group that enters the dream realm. He is perfectly cast and Nolan, and this film, relies on his likeableness, his charm and the feeling that something just isn't quite right with him. All to very good effect. Ellen Page is strong as Ariadne, the rookie of the team that is our eyes and ears into this world. Ken Watanabe brings his typically strong game to the role of Saito - the man that gives the team the job and goes along for the ride. Nolan regular Cillian Murphy is a welcome addition as the person who they are trying to "Incept" and even small parts are filled with wonderful character actors like the late great, Pete Postlethwaite, Tom Berenger and good ol' Michael Caine.
But it is the emergence of two of the co-stars that, up until this film I thought were "fair actors but not great" that really elevates this film for me. Joseph Gordon-Levitt was always the "long haired kid from 3RD ROCK FROM THE SUN", but in this - as Cobb's right-hand man Arthur - he excels and really jumps out of the film as a screen presence. Of course, it really helps him that he has one of the best action sequences - for the most part practically shot - that I have ever scene. And, of course, there's TOM HARDY. He is a movie star and really shows it in the supporting role of Eames. This guy will win an Oscar one day, probably for a film that Nolan Directs him in.
My only quibble - and it is a QUIBBLE - is that I didn't really feel any strong chemistry between Marion Cotillard's Mal and DiCaprio's Cobb. She was supposed to be the big "love of his life" and I just didn't sense that. She was very good - and imposing - as she infiltrated Cobb's mind (which is, I think, the purpose of her character), but I could have used a little more between her and DiCaprio. But...as I say...a quibble.
All in all, a terrific - different - film. One that I am calling a "classic".
Letter Grade: A+
10 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)