Search
Search results
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated A Star Is Born (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Dullsville Arizona.
It’s unusual for the illustrious Mrs. Movie-Man and I to disagree over our opinion of a movie. Sure, she doesn’t like some genres like horror and sci-fi that I do, and I will often go to them alone. But in the main if we sit there together then we tend to have the same general view as to whether we liked it or not. (I guess that’s why we’ve been such a good match for nearly 40 years!). Not so though with this film.
The story has been filmed three times before: in 1937 (with Janet Gaynor and Fredric March); 1954 (with Judy Garland and James Mason) and 1976 (with Barbra Streisand and Kris Kristofferson). In all of these films the story has been the same: an alcoholic and over-the-hill actor (or with Kris Kristofferson, rock star) finds a young talented ingenue to love and develop into a superstar.
The modern day remake is a little different in that Jackson Maine, our older star (now played by Bradley Cooper), is a stadium-filling mega-rock-star, recognised and idolised in every bar he goes into…. and he frequents a LOT of bars. Maine mixes the cocktail with drugs in this version meaning that as one star is ascending, his seems destined to be heading into a black hole.
At its heart, this is a good story of having self-confidence in your own abilities, no matter how people around you try to put you down. Gaga’s Ally is one such person; a waitress who is constantly being told, especially by her blue-collar dad and his boozy friends, that although she has a great voice she’s “never going to make it” because of the way she looks. In chilled fashion she meets Jackson Maine, who hears her sing and thinks she might be on the edge of glory. Not worried about her big nose, he appreciates she was born that way: in fact he likes her so much he wants to poke her face. (Sorry… couldn’t resist it).
I appreciate from the IMDB rating that I am probably in a minority here. (At the time of writing this – pre-general release – it is a ridiculously high – and I suspect artificially pumped up – 8.8). But for me, I found the whole thing a dull affair. I can’t remember the last time I went to a film when I actively looked at my watch… but 1 hour 45 into this, I did (it had another 30 minutes to run).
For one thing, I just didn’t believe Bradley Cooper as the rock star character. He just came across as totally false and unbelievable to me. I had more resonance with Gaga’s Ally. Even though she is a novice actor (and it showed at times) in general I thought she did a creditable job. But given these two factors together, there are long and indulgent exchanges between the pair that seemed to me to go on in–ter–min–ably. Best actor in the film for me was Sam Elliott as Jackson’s brother Bobby. The mellowing of the brothers is a scene that I found genuinely touching.
I’d also like a glance at the original script, since there are some passages (the “boyfriend/husband” lines is a case in point) where it felt like one of them made an script mistake and, instead of Cooper (as director) shouting “cut”, they kept it going as some sort of half-arsed improv.
What is impressive is that they got to film at live concerts (including at Glastonbury), although most of this footage is of the hand-held nausea-inducing variety. There is zero doubt that Gaga can belt out a song better than anyone. But I didn’t get that same feeling about Bradley Cooper’s singing: like a lot of this film (with Cooper as co-producer, co-screenwriter AND director) it felt to me like a self-indulgent piece of casting.
I know music is extremely subjective, and “country” isnt really my think anyway. But the songs by Gaga and Lukas Nelson were – “Shallow” aside – for me rather forgetable.
Overall, in a couple of years that have brought us some great musicals – “La La Land“; “Sing Street“; “The Greatest Showman” – here’s a film about the music industry that did nothing for me I’m afraid.
But with my new user-rating system (this is the first post on the new web site) you have a chance to have YOUR say, so vote away!
The story has been filmed three times before: in 1937 (with Janet Gaynor and Fredric March); 1954 (with Judy Garland and James Mason) and 1976 (with Barbra Streisand and Kris Kristofferson). In all of these films the story has been the same: an alcoholic and over-the-hill actor (or with Kris Kristofferson, rock star) finds a young talented ingenue to love and develop into a superstar.
The modern day remake is a little different in that Jackson Maine, our older star (now played by Bradley Cooper), is a stadium-filling mega-rock-star, recognised and idolised in every bar he goes into…. and he frequents a LOT of bars. Maine mixes the cocktail with drugs in this version meaning that as one star is ascending, his seems destined to be heading into a black hole.
At its heart, this is a good story of having self-confidence in your own abilities, no matter how people around you try to put you down. Gaga’s Ally is one such person; a waitress who is constantly being told, especially by her blue-collar dad and his boozy friends, that although she has a great voice she’s “never going to make it” because of the way she looks. In chilled fashion she meets Jackson Maine, who hears her sing and thinks she might be on the edge of glory. Not worried about her big nose, he appreciates she was born that way: in fact he likes her so much he wants to poke her face. (Sorry… couldn’t resist it).
I appreciate from the IMDB rating that I am probably in a minority here. (At the time of writing this – pre-general release – it is a ridiculously high – and I suspect artificially pumped up – 8.8). But for me, I found the whole thing a dull affair. I can’t remember the last time I went to a film when I actively looked at my watch… but 1 hour 45 into this, I did (it had another 30 minutes to run).
For one thing, I just didn’t believe Bradley Cooper as the rock star character. He just came across as totally false and unbelievable to me. I had more resonance with Gaga’s Ally. Even though she is a novice actor (and it showed at times) in general I thought she did a creditable job. But given these two factors together, there are long and indulgent exchanges between the pair that seemed to me to go on in–ter–min–ably. Best actor in the film for me was Sam Elliott as Jackson’s brother Bobby. The mellowing of the brothers is a scene that I found genuinely touching.
I’d also like a glance at the original script, since there are some passages (the “boyfriend/husband” lines is a case in point) where it felt like one of them made an script mistake and, instead of Cooper (as director) shouting “cut”, they kept it going as some sort of half-arsed improv.
What is impressive is that they got to film at live concerts (including at Glastonbury), although most of this footage is of the hand-held nausea-inducing variety. There is zero doubt that Gaga can belt out a song better than anyone. But I didn’t get that same feeling about Bradley Cooper’s singing: like a lot of this film (with Cooper as co-producer, co-screenwriter AND director) it felt to me like a self-indulgent piece of casting.
I know music is extremely subjective, and “country” isnt really my think anyway. But the songs by Gaga and Lukas Nelson were – “Shallow” aside – for me rather forgetable.
Overall, in a couple of years that have brought us some great musicals – “La La Land“; “Sing Street“; “The Greatest Showman” – here’s a film about the music industry that did nothing for me I’m afraid.
But with my new user-rating system (this is the first post on the new web site) you have a chance to have YOUR say, so vote away!
Daniel Boyd (1066 KP) rated Spectre (2015) in Movies
Jul 20, 2017
Well written (1 more)
Good direction
Mr Hinx (1 more)
Not enough Cristoph Waltz
As good as the last?
Contains spoilers, click to show
When Casino Royale released in 2006, it was to be a soft reboot of the franchise that showed viewers the events of Bond’s first mission and it strived to rectify some of the silly gadgets etc that were being over-used with Brosnan’s Bond. In my opinion, Casino Royale was a great film, it just wasn’t a Bond film. It done away with all of the silly gimmicks and cheesy one liners and was an introduction to a more grounded version of the iconic character, which made for a great spy thriller but not a great Bond movie. Then Quantum of Solace came out and literally nobody cared, not many people went to see it, it didn’t make much money at the box office and to this day I’ve still not seen that whole movie from start to finish and to be honest, I’m perfectly okay with that. Skyfall was the third Craig Bond movie to be released and it was a triumph. Finally Craig felt like he was actually playing Bond and not just some random hard ass military spy. It even flirted with the idea of gadgets, had a flamboyant supervillain and introduced a young, fresh faced Q, which was a nice touch. The movie ended with Silva killing Judi Dench’s M and Bond killing Silva, Ralph Fiennes was then appointed with the title of M and Naomi Harris was revealed to be the new Moneypenny. So with the last movie pleasing both long time Bond fans and newcomers alike, SPECTRE had a lot to live up to.
The movie opens with Bond in Mexico City, during the Day Of The Dead festival, Bond listens in on a meeting of two Mafioso and learns about a mysterious organisation hoping to achieve world domination and their illusive leader known as ‘The Pale King.’ He then blows up the building they are in and ends up in a chopper fight with one of the gangsters, whom he eventually kills. This leads into a stunning opening credits sequence, that really is one of the best I’ve seen, (even though the song is still crap.) This is an awesome intro and probably tops Skyfall’s intro which was also very cool.
The rest of the movie is a joy to a long time Bond fan like me. It checks off all of the boxes that make up a classic Bond movie. An awesome Aston Martin car chase – check, a big bad henchman who doesn’t say much but is very hard to kill – check, an effective use of gadgets and cheesy one liners – check, a supervillain that has an epic secret layer that he invites Bond to – check, Bond being strapped to an elaborate device in that secret layer and tortured – check. Now all of this is really well executed, but the problem with it is that it throws any of the gritty realism shown in the last three movies right out of the window, which like I say is perfectly okay, but it causes this movie to feel as if it is taking place in a separate universe from the last three. This is not a problem to me, I am more than happy to have a good old fashioned Bond movie back on our screens that isn’t afraid to shy away from the use of gadgets and witty quips and it’s a movie that actually handles it well unlike some of the naff late Brosnan movies. On the other hand though, I can totally see why some people would have a problem with this movie, especially if you aren’t a long time Bond fan and prefer Craig’s more realistic turn as Bond. If that is the case then this movie really won’t be for you and the chances are that you will leave the cinema leaving pretty disappointed.
Now, let’s forget for a minute that this is a 007 movie and just analyse it as a traditional piece of cinema. First off, I’m really glad that they brought Sam Mendes back to direct this one, he is very obviously a passionate Bond fan and I think he has done a great job with both Bond movies that he has made and I also really hope they can keep him on to do at least one more movie in the series. This is also a well written movie, its script is witty and fast paced, while keeping making sure that although the audience is kept intrigued, they are never lost in whatever is going on. The cinematography in this movie is also great, besides a shaky cam chase sequence during the opening of the movie, I’d actually say that this is a masterfully shot movie. Hoyte Van Hoytema was the principle of photography for this movie and that guy really likes his eye pleasing shots and his use of the rule of thirds, which is especially evident in the funeral scene where Monica Belluci is introduced. There were two Bond girls in this movie and they were both serviceable, Belluci was really only there for exposition, but Lea Seadoux did a good job with her more fleshed out role.
Now, I want to talk about the main villain in the movie, played by the incredible Christophe Waltz. When he is in the movie, he steals every scene, however that leads me on to a problem I have with the movie. He is introduced near the beginning of the movie, within the first half hour, then a good hour passes before he is reintroduced, and although what is going on during that hour is entertaining, when you have already introduced a villain played by the master of playing villains that is Mr Waltz, it’s hard not to wonder when he is going to be back in the movie. Also I feel that this movie is quite long, possibly due to the large number of different locales and although it is actually only a few more minutes longer than Skyfall, Skyfall didn’t feel that long and this movie feels a lot longer. Also Mr Hinx is a pretty rubbish henchman, he is as forgetful as Jaws and Oddjob were memorable and doesn’t have a line until the last fight with Bond, I felt he was just very underused.
Now I’m going to go into spoiler territory, so if you haven’t seen the film yet, you may want to jump to the end of the review. Okay, we all good? Well turns out Christophe Waltz is actually the new Blofeld, which really isn’t surprising since he is the head of SPECTRE. What did annoy me a little, is the fact that he was Bond’s step-brother, kind of? But whatever, I can live with it. Also, although the villains lair was kind of a trope and wasn’t really used all too much before it was blown up, once Blofeld got his scar, he did look the part. So that is another classic Bond thing to introduce, Blofeld is to Bond what The Joker is to Batman and it is nice to have the arch nemesis introduced. One of the downsides to introducing Blofeld though is that it was obvious they weren’t going to kill him off, at least not in this movie, also Mr Hinx’s death was also rather anticlimactic. Andrew Scott’s character C was revealed to be a spy for SPECTRE and again had a fairly anticlimactic death, but he was perfectly serviceable in the role.
Overall I did enjoy the movie a great deal and although this is a review based on my opinion, I do somewhat have to take into consideration the bigger picture and how other fans will feel upon seeing this film. Like I have said, I think fans of old fashioned traditional Bond will love this movie as it finally fulfils the criteria for it to be labelled a ‘Bond’ movie, I can definitely see a lot of people being disappointed in the film if they go in expected another realistic spy thriller.
The movie opens with Bond in Mexico City, during the Day Of The Dead festival, Bond listens in on a meeting of two Mafioso and learns about a mysterious organisation hoping to achieve world domination and their illusive leader known as ‘The Pale King.’ He then blows up the building they are in and ends up in a chopper fight with one of the gangsters, whom he eventually kills. This leads into a stunning opening credits sequence, that really is one of the best I’ve seen, (even though the song is still crap.) This is an awesome intro and probably tops Skyfall’s intro which was also very cool.
The rest of the movie is a joy to a long time Bond fan like me. It checks off all of the boxes that make up a classic Bond movie. An awesome Aston Martin car chase – check, a big bad henchman who doesn’t say much but is very hard to kill – check, an effective use of gadgets and cheesy one liners – check, a supervillain that has an epic secret layer that he invites Bond to – check, Bond being strapped to an elaborate device in that secret layer and tortured – check. Now all of this is really well executed, but the problem with it is that it throws any of the gritty realism shown in the last three movies right out of the window, which like I say is perfectly okay, but it causes this movie to feel as if it is taking place in a separate universe from the last three. This is not a problem to me, I am more than happy to have a good old fashioned Bond movie back on our screens that isn’t afraid to shy away from the use of gadgets and witty quips and it’s a movie that actually handles it well unlike some of the naff late Brosnan movies. On the other hand though, I can totally see why some people would have a problem with this movie, especially if you aren’t a long time Bond fan and prefer Craig’s more realistic turn as Bond. If that is the case then this movie really won’t be for you and the chances are that you will leave the cinema leaving pretty disappointed.
Now, let’s forget for a minute that this is a 007 movie and just analyse it as a traditional piece of cinema. First off, I’m really glad that they brought Sam Mendes back to direct this one, he is very obviously a passionate Bond fan and I think he has done a great job with both Bond movies that he has made and I also really hope they can keep him on to do at least one more movie in the series. This is also a well written movie, its script is witty and fast paced, while keeping making sure that although the audience is kept intrigued, they are never lost in whatever is going on. The cinematography in this movie is also great, besides a shaky cam chase sequence during the opening of the movie, I’d actually say that this is a masterfully shot movie. Hoyte Van Hoytema was the principle of photography for this movie and that guy really likes his eye pleasing shots and his use of the rule of thirds, which is especially evident in the funeral scene where Monica Belluci is introduced. There were two Bond girls in this movie and they were both serviceable, Belluci was really only there for exposition, but Lea Seadoux did a good job with her more fleshed out role.
Now, I want to talk about the main villain in the movie, played by the incredible Christophe Waltz. When he is in the movie, he steals every scene, however that leads me on to a problem I have with the movie. He is introduced near the beginning of the movie, within the first half hour, then a good hour passes before he is reintroduced, and although what is going on during that hour is entertaining, when you have already introduced a villain played by the master of playing villains that is Mr Waltz, it’s hard not to wonder when he is going to be back in the movie. Also I feel that this movie is quite long, possibly due to the large number of different locales and although it is actually only a few more minutes longer than Skyfall, Skyfall didn’t feel that long and this movie feels a lot longer. Also Mr Hinx is a pretty rubbish henchman, he is as forgetful as Jaws and Oddjob were memorable and doesn’t have a line until the last fight with Bond, I felt he was just very underused.
Now I’m going to go into spoiler territory, so if you haven’t seen the film yet, you may want to jump to the end of the review. Okay, we all good? Well turns out Christophe Waltz is actually the new Blofeld, which really isn’t surprising since he is the head of SPECTRE. What did annoy me a little, is the fact that he was Bond’s step-brother, kind of? But whatever, I can live with it. Also, although the villains lair was kind of a trope and wasn’t really used all too much before it was blown up, once Blofeld got his scar, he did look the part. So that is another classic Bond thing to introduce, Blofeld is to Bond what The Joker is to Batman and it is nice to have the arch nemesis introduced. One of the downsides to introducing Blofeld though is that it was obvious they weren’t going to kill him off, at least not in this movie, also Mr Hinx’s death was also rather anticlimactic. Andrew Scott’s character C was revealed to be a spy for SPECTRE and again had a fairly anticlimactic death, but he was perfectly serviceable in the role.
Overall I did enjoy the movie a great deal and although this is a review based on my opinion, I do somewhat have to take into consideration the bigger picture and how other fans will feel upon seeing this film. Like I have said, I think fans of old fashioned traditional Bond will love this movie as it finally fulfils the criteria for it to be labelled a ‘Bond’ movie, I can definitely see a lot of people being disappointed in the film if they go in expected another realistic spy thriller.
Goddess in the Stacks (553 KP) rated An Astronaut's Guide to Life on Earth in Books
Sep 7, 2017
Amazing, easy-to-read memoir
Wow. Just wow. I woke up far earlier than I wanted to this morning, so I picked up one of the nonfiction books I had from the library, expecting it to put me back to sleep. Three hours later I was still awake, nearly done with the book, and absolutely enthralled. I’m not sure why I thought it would be otherwise – I’d been one of the millions fascinated with Hadfield’s videos and tweets when he was Commander of the ISS. His particular voice is very clear throughout this book. In 284 pages he takes us from his childhood, through his career path to becoming an astronaut, to his 5 months in the International Space Station, and back home. Nothing felt rushed, nothing felt like it didn’t get the attention it deserved. I’m pretty sure this is going to be one of my favorite books of 2017 – I have several months to read more things, but this book just absolutely blew me away.
It does appeal to how I like to read about science, though. I love reading about scientists. How they worked, how they made their discoveries, the paths they took. Who they were. I’m less interested in the actual science. This is part of why I loved A Short History of Nearly Everything, by Bill Bryson, so much. I borrowed that book from the library and read it cover to cover, fascinated. Finally had to buy my own copy.
Hadfield took space exploration and made it accessible to everyone. According to the book, he didn’t even quite realize how big of an impact he was making at first. But between tweeting pictures from the ISS, making videos of how different life was in space, and making music videos, he really did become the most well-known astronaut of our generation. I remember putting his video of I.S.S. (Is Somebody Singing) on repeat when it came out – and it STILL gives me chills today.
He only briefly talked about Is Somebody Singing in the book, which I found surprising, given it was the one that hit me the hardest. He spent more time talking about filming and recording Space Oddity – which does have 36 million views, to I.S.S.’s 2 million. So I suppose that makes sense! (I'm going to attach both videos to the book page.)
One thing he keeps coming back to in his book is his philosophy of trying to be a zero. That doesn’t sound very ambitious on the surface – but what he means is you can be one of three things in a group. You can be a negative impact (a -1) a neutral impact (a zero) or a positive impact (a +1). If you try to be a +1, it’s far likelier that you’ll try too hard, fuck up, and instead become a negative impact. So aim to be a zero. And most of the time you’ll wind up as a positive impact. I thought that was a very unique philosophy.
You can find all my reviews at http://goddessinthestacks.wordpress.com
It does appeal to how I like to read about science, though. I love reading about scientists. How they worked, how they made their discoveries, the paths they took. Who they were. I’m less interested in the actual science. This is part of why I loved A Short History of Nearly Everything, by Bill Bryson, so much. I borrowed that book from the library and read it cover to cover, fascinated. Finally had to buy my own copy.
Hadfield took space exploration and made it accessible to everyone. According to the book, he didn’t even quite realize how big of an impact he was making at first. But between tweeting pictures from the ISS, making videos of how different life was in space, and making music videos, he really did become the most well-known astronaut of our generation. I remember putting his video of I.S.S. (Is Somebody Singing) on repeat when it came out – and it STILL gives me chills today.
He only briefly talked about Is Somebody Singing in the book, which I found surprising, given it was the one that hit me the hardest. He spent more time talking about filming and recording Space Oddity – which does have 36 million views, to I.S.S.’s 2 million. So I suppose that makes sense! (I'm going to attach both videos to the book page.)
One thing he keeps coming back to in his book is his philosophy of trying to be a zero. That doesn’t sound very ambitious on the surface – but what he means is you can be one of three things in a group. You can be a negative impact (a -1) a neutral impact (a zero) or a positive impact (a +1). If you try to be a +1, it’s far likelier that you’ll try too hard, fuck up, and instead become a negative impact. So aim to be a zero. And most of the time you’ll wind up as a positive impact. I thought that was a very unique philosophy.
You can find all my reviews at http://goddessinthestacks.wordpress.com
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated You Must Not Miss in Books
Jun 21, 2019
Magpie Lewis has been abandoned. Her father left. Then her sister, Eryn, too. Now it's just Magpie and her mom. Who truly isn't really present, as she drowns herself in booze and a haze of alcoholism. Magpie's sister left the same night as Brandon Phipps's party--after which Magpie's longtime friendship with Allison ended, and Magpie was branded a slut and left to be an outcast at school. So she starts writing in a yellow notebook, creating a world called Near. It's Magpie's magical place, where everything is perfect: no cheating father, no drunk mom, no missing sister, and no horrific school experiences. She thinks up Near so clearly, so fully, that she wills it into existence, and Magpie realizes that in Near, she can have it all: even revenge on those who have hurt her.
"There was one month left of her sophomore year of high school, and she had decided, after a mountain of evidence to support it, that the entire world was a joke."
I just love Katrina Leno, and her beautiful writing. You Must Not Miss is no exception: it's a poetic, stark take on high school friendship, rape culture, and the ties that bind us. The story is a clever variation of "One for Sorrow." Magpie is our main character and takes center stage: it's hard not to feel sympathetic for this poor abandoned girl--with no family who cares for her and, for a while, no friends.
"If you give a name to an impossible thing, does it make the impossible thing any less impossible?
But then the story takes a dramatic, dark twist--as Magpie creates Near both in her mind and in reality--and as Magpie's portal to another world takes true shape, we see our character find strength before our very eyes. I won't lie, I'm not sure this book is for everyone. It reminded me in some ways of a Maggie Stiefvater novel. It's true magical realism, and there's a suspension of disbelief to be had, to be sure. But it's a book that I feel like Leno was meant to be write. Her way of eviscerating rape culture, misogyny, and more is so adept, so searing. It is a call to arms to those who are not believed, who are ignored and mocked, who are the ones who see their lives ruined when the attackers run free.
In this way, You Must Not Miss is a strong, complex book tackling a tough topic. It may be difficult for some that this topic is underneath the magical world of Near, but I liked how that was what Magpie needed to deal with all that happened to her. Beware, this book is brutal at times (and yes, there's a trigger warning for rape/sexual assault). But it's beautifully written, too. It's complicated, much like its subject matter and its protagonist, who is still trying to figure herself out, as well. It's a different read, but if you're willing to give it a try, I think you'll be glad you did. 4 stars.
"There was one month left of her sophomore year of high school, and she had decided, after a mountain of evidence to support it, that the entire world was a joke."
I just love Katrina Leno, and her beautiful writing. You Must Not Miss is no exception: it's a poetic, stark take on high school friendship, rape culture, and the ties that bind us. The story is a clever variation of "One for Sorrow." Magpie is our main character and takes center stage: it's hard not to feel sympathetic for this poor abandoned girl--with no family who cares for her and, for a while, no friends.
"If you give a name to an impossible thing, does it make the impossible thing any less impossible?
But then the story takes a dramatic, dark twist--as Magpie creates Near both in her mind and in reality--and as Magpie's portal to another world takes true shape, we see our character find strength before our very eyes. I won't lie, I'm not sure this book is for everyone. It reminded me in some ways of a Maggie Stiefvater novel. It's true magical realism, and there's a suspension of disbelief to be had, to be sure. But it's a book that I feel like Leno was meant to be write. Her way of eviscerating rape culture, misogyny, and more is so adept, so searing. It is a call to arms to those who are not believed, who are ignored and mocked, who are the ones who see their lives ruined when the attackers run free.
In this way, You Must Not Miss is a strong, complex book tackling a tough topic. It may be difficult for some that this topic is underneath the magical world of Near, but I liked how that was what Magpie needed to deal with all that happened to her. Beware, this book is brutal at times (and yes, there's a trigger warning for rape/sexual assault). But it's beautifully written, too. It's complicated, much like its subject matter and its protagonist, who is still trying to figure herself out, as well. It's a different read, but if you're willing to give it a try, I think you'll be glad you did. 4 stars.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Kim Possible (2019) in Movies
Nov 7, 2019
My name is Emma, and I still love Kim Possible. It's great fun and I will fight anyone who says it isn't. That is if we're talking about the animated series... that is gold, the live action film is not even tin foil.
I love Disney TV movies but I really wish they'd stick to originals or property that was already live action... stop remaking things that really don't need it.
Let's address the casting first.
Sean Giambrone as Ron was a solid bit of casting, the right amount of awkward and bumbling, the only thing is that for anyone who watches The Goldbergs he might just be a little too recognisable, but then I doubt many people will watch both of these things. Michael P. Northey as Mr Barkin, he was good, I was generally impressed... but in a world where we have Patrick Warburton why would we not cast Patrick Warburton? Patton Oswalt does evil genius voice fantastically and as Professor Demeantor he was a great pick. Getting a narrow pass, and it's the very finest of passess, Todd Stashwick. I enjoy him when he pops up in shows but he's no Drakken. He was also done wrong by the make-up department.
Everyone else? That's a no. Possibly the worst casting was on the Possible family themselves. I adore Alyson Hannigan but her Mrs. Dr. P. was no bueno. Same goes for Mr. Dr. P. After seeing them on screen I kind of assumed the story was going to revolve around them having been kidnapped and replaced by Bebes with extra nice programming. Jim and Tim were devoid of any of the character their cartoon counterparts had. And then there's Kim, I'm not sure there would have been anyone I'd have been happy with in this role but they've managed to create something very odd in this casting. Live action Kim acts physically like the cartoon does and yet somehow the personality didn't make the crossover with it.
The idea to take Kim down from the inside is one we've seen before with Eric the synthodrone who was used to further the Little Diablo world domination plan. It's a good narative and the twist we're given here isn't a bad one but the execution feels off.
The film turns the Kim Possible formula into a women kicking ass story but they do it really badly. Mrs. Dr. P. and Nana P. are brought on board and then just used as padding and left to be inept in a corner, it's a poor use of characters and a poor use of source material.
Of course the most important part is did they do Rufus right On the whole he wasn't bad and he certainly got his normal opportunity to come to the rescue so I'm going to say good job on that.
What you should do
Don't call her, don't beep her, if you want to watch Kim Possible then watch the series, this film needs to be forgotten in the depths of Disney+.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
The ability to fly through the air like I'm a cartoon character.
I love Disney TV movies but I really wish they'd stick to originals or property that was already live action... stop remaking things that really don't need it.
Let's address the casting first.
Sean Giambrone as Ron was a solid bit of casting, the right amount of awkward and bumbling, the only thing is that for anyone who watches The Goldbergs he might just be a little too recognisable, but then I doubt many people will watch both of these things. Michael P. Northey as Mr Barkin, he was good, I was generally impressed... but in a world where we have Patrick Warburton why would we not cast Patrick Warburton? Patton Oswalt does evil genius voice fantastically and as Professor Demeantor he was a great pick. Getting a narrow pass, and it's the very finest of passess, Todd Stashwick. I enjoy him when he pops up in shows but he's no Drakken. He was also done wrong by the make-up department.
Everyone else? That's a no. Possibly the worst casting was on the Possible family themselves. I adore Alyson Hannigan but her Mrs. Dr. P. was no bueno. Same goes for Mr. Dr. P. After seeing them on screen I kind of assumed the story was going to revolve around them having been kidnapped and replaced by Bebes with extra nice programming. Jim and Tim were devoid of any of the character their cartoon counterparts had. And then there's Kim, I'm not sure there would have been anyone I'd have been happy with in this role but they've managed to create something very odd in this casting. Live action Kim acts physically like the cartoon does and yet somehow the personality didn't make the crossover with it.
The idea to take Kim down from the inside is one we've seen before with Eric the synthodrone who was used to further the Little Diablo world domination plan. It's a good narative and the twist we're given here isn't a bad one but the execution feels off.
The film turns the Kim Possible formula into a women kicking ass story but they do it really badly. Mrs. Dr. P. and Nana P. are brought on board and then just used as padding and left to be inept in a corner, it's a poor use of characters and a poor use of source material.
Of course the most important part is did they do Rufus right On the whole he wasn't bad and he certainly got his normal opportunity to come to the rescue so I'm going to say good job on that.
What you should do
Don't call her, don't beep her, if you want to watch Kim Possible then watch the series, this film needs to be forgotten in the depths of Disney+.
Movie thing you wish you could take home
The ability to fly through the air like I'm a cartoon character.
Britt Daniel recommended Face to Face by The Kinks in Music (curated)
Alan Tudyk recommended Grown Man by Loudon Wainwright, III in Music (curated)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Cruella (2021) in Movies
Jun 26, 2021
Until going back to the cinema this year I'd not watched a trailer or read any reviews of Cruella. When I finally saw it on the big screen, I was excited... but also terrified of the Disney live action antics.
Estella is a young aspiring designer with a wild side and an even wilder hairstyle. Making friends with a ragtag duo in London, she sets up in the shadows of a high profile department store that sets her down a path with a dark future.
Of all the live action films recently this has definitely given me some hope (which I'm sure I'll regret saying at some point). It starts the set-up of what we know Cruella to be. Origin story, villain, you know I'm in. And I loved the way that she wasn't inherently evil, it was the circumstances around her that created it by twisting her wild side.
My two favourite Emmas in one movie, it's a dream. Let's start with the lead, Emma Stone. It must have been amazing fun doing this role, at least it looked like that was the case and she could really let loose. You see Estella's spark of creativity, the embers of the young Cruella inside her even as an adult, and the blazing fire as the evil starts to peek through. I loved how they managed to get some nods in to the animated movie, and how she managed to capture them perfectly. If you asked me to cast someone in this role, I'm not sure I could have come up with someone better.
Emma Thompson was a surprise to me, it wasn't until the trailer that I realised she was in this. The instant I saw her I knew that I was going to love her. The Baroness is a force to be reckoned with and you can see the influence that she has. Ruthless and driven, every scene felt right.
Henchmen next, and of course I'm using "henchmen" in its loosest terms for Jasper and Horace. Another perfect vision of what's to come. Joel Fry as Jasper makes for an interesting take on the story, and while I can see why it's there, and I generally enjoy Fry's acting, I did not love Jasper quite as much as everyone around him. Particularly as he was paired with Paul Walter Hauser. Hauser is a great actor, if a little typecast in the slightly bumbling characters. His take on Horace is my favourite thing about this whole film. As a double act with Wink it was glorious and understated humour. I'd happily sit through a film entirely of them just being them.
I can't really talk Cruella without talking costume design. If this doesn't win all the awards then quite frankly it's complete insanity. Everything design-wise in this was amazing as far as I'm concerned. Cruella's hair changes and dresses blew me away. Eccentric, flamboyant, and just the right amount of crazy.
I'm not sure how I feel about the possibility of a sequel, but I really enjoyed this one. Everything from the film itself, to the posters, it ticked all the boxes.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/06/cruella-movie-review.html
Estella is a young aspiring designer with a wild side and an even wilder hairstyle. Making friends with a ragtag duo in London, she sets up in the shadows of a high profile department store that sets her down a path with a dark future.
Of all the live action films recently this has definitely given me some hope (which I'm sure I'll regret saying at some point). It starts the set-up of what we know Cruella to be. Origin story, villain, you know I'm in. And I loved the way that she wasn't inherently evil, it was the circumstances around her that created it by twisting her wild side.
My two favourite Emmas in one movie, it's a dream. Let's start with the lead, Emma Stone. It must have been amazing fun doing this role, at least it looked like that was the case and she could really let loose. You see Estella's spark of creativity, the embers of the young Cruella inside her even as an adult, and the blazing fire as the evil starts to peek through. I loved how they managed to get some nods in to the animated movie, and how she managed to capture them perfectly. If you asked me to cast someone in this role, I'm not sure I could have come up with someone better.
Emma Thompson was a surprise to me, it wasn't until the trailer that I realised she was in this. The instant I saw her I knew that I was going to love her. The Baroness is a force to be reckoned with and you can see the influence that she has. Ruthless and driven, every scene felt right.
Henchmen next, and of course I'm using "henchmen" in its loosest terms for Jasper and Horace. Another perfect vision of what's to come. Joel Fry as Jasper makes for an interesting take on the story, and while I can see why it's there, and I generally enjoy Fry's acting, I did not love Jasper quite as much as everyone around him. Particularly as he was paired with Paul Walter Hauser. Hauser is a great actor, if a little typecast in the slightly bumbling characters. His take on Horace is my favourite thing about this whole film. As a double act with Wink it was glorious and understated humour. I'd happily sit through a film entirely of them just being them.
I can't really talk Cruella without talking costume design. If this doesn't win all the awards then quite frankly it's complete insanity. Everything design-wise in this was amazing as far as I'm concerned. Cruella's hair changes and dresses blew me away. Eccentric, flamboyant, and just the right amount of crazy.
I'm not sure how I feel about the possibility of a sequel, but I really enjoyed this one. Everything from the film itself, to the posters, it ticked all the boxes.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/06/cruella-movie-review.html
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Murder on the Orient Express (2017) in Movies
Jul 11, 2019
Murder on the Orient Express is a mystery drama directed by, and starring, Kenneth Branagh and is based on the 1934 Agatha Christie novel of the same name. The film brings in a spectacular cast alongside Branagh, including Penelope Cruz, Willem Dafoe, Judi Dench, Johnny Depp, Josh Gad, Michelle Pfeiffer and Daisy Ridley. Also part of the main cast, while not well known, but equally as talented, are Tom Bateman, Derek Jacobi, Leslie Odom Jr. and Lucy Boynton.
For those unfamiliar with the novel, or the 1974 and 2001 adaptations, Murder tells the story of, well… a murder. On a train. It’s really a lot more than that. Branagh portrays Hercule Poirot, a famed Belgian detective who is looking forward to some time off. But during his travels, a most unfortunate thing happens. Two things actually. Someone is murdered aboard the train he is traveling on, the Orient Express (naturally). And the murderer would’ve gotten away free and clear had storm not caused an avalanche, which thanks to a derailed engine, caused the train to become stuck and the body to be discovered. Poirot’s friend, Bouc (Bateman), runs the train and requested that Poirot solve the mystery before the police arrive in fear of someone innocent being accused, and to save himself from a heyday with his father. Can Poirot find out who is the killer between the star-studded cast?
I’ve read the novel. Seen both adaptations. This film blows those earlier adaptations out of the water. There is no contest here. Now clearly, nothing can beat the book. But Murder is about as great a film you can get in the murky land of Hollywood these days. As mentioned, Branagh directed and starred in the film, which he shot on 65 mm. The last time he did this was with Hamlet in 1996. It looked good then, and it looks even better now. With eye-popping visuals throughout the entirety of the film, and a masterful soundtrack that seamlessly blended with the tones and themes of each scene, the film is a modern masterpiece.
It wasn’t without its faults. (Most) every film has them. And there are a lot of people who are upset with Branagh’s portrayal of Poirot, particularly the representation of his eccentric facial hair. I am not one of those people. I believe it, along with other amazing moments, lent a bit of humor to the movie to break up what should otherwise be, and is, a serious whodunit mystery. Also, I felt they changed a few things in the adaptation that didn’t necessarily need to be changed.
I found it hard to sit and write about the film though. Given the nature of a great mystery, I can’t tell you too much about it without risk of giving out crucial details to the plot and outcome. So I will leave you with this, boys, girls, and everything in between and beyond… with a great and talented cast (bravo to Michelle Pfeiffer in particular) who nailed home their characters, to great visuals, and a great score, this movie is definitely one you want to catch.
For those unfamiliar with the novel, or the 1974 and 2001 adaptations, Murder tells the story of, well… a murder. On a train. It’s really a lot more than that. Branagh portrays Hercule Poirot, a famed Belgian detective who is looking forward to some time off. But during his travels, a most unfortunate thing happens. Two things actually. Someone is murdered aboard the train he is traveling on, the Orient Express (naturally). And the murderer would’ve gotten away free and clear had storm not caused an avalanche, which thanks to a derailed engine, caused the train to become stuck and the body to be discovered. Poirot’s friend, Bouc (Bateman), runs the train and requested that Poirot solve the mystery before the police arrive in fear of someone innocent being accused, and to save himself from a heyday with his father. Can Poirot find out who is the killer between the star-studded cast?
I’ve read the novel. Seen both adaptations. This film blows those earlier adaptations out of the water. There is no contest here. Now clearly, nothing can beat the book. But Murder is about as great a film you can get in the murky land of Hollywood these days. As mentioned, Branagh directed and starred in the film, which he shot on 65 mm. The last time he did this was with Hamlet in 1996. It looked good then, and it looks even better now. With eye-popping visuals throughout the entirety of the film, and a masterful soundtrack that seamlessly blended with the tones and themes of each scene, the film is a modern masterpiece.
It wasn’t without its faults. (Most) every film has them. And there are a lot of people who are upset with Branagh’s portrayal of Poirot, particularly the representation of his eccentric facial hair. I am not one of those people. I believe it, along with other amazing moments, lent a bit of humor to the movie to break up what should otherwise be, and is, a serious whodunit mystery. Also, I felt they changed a few things in the adaptation that didn’t necessarily need to be changed.
I found it hard to sit and write about the film though. Given the nature of a great mystery, I can’t tell you too much about it without risk of giving out crucial details to the plot and outcome. So I will leave you with this, boys, girls, and everything in between and beyond… with a great and talented cast (bravo to Michelle Pfeiffer in particular) who nailed home their characters, to great visuals, and a great score, this movie is definitely one you want to catch.
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Moulin Rouge! (2001) in Movies
Apr 15, 2020
In My "ALL TIME TOP 10"
If one would look at the BankofMarquis "All Time Top 10" film list, you will see such stalwarts as THE GODFATHER, SINGIN' IN THE RAIN and CITIZEN KANE. It also would contain a "more modern" film that doesn't, necessarily, find itself on these types of lists - Baz Luhrman's MOULIN ROUGE from 2001.
Yes...it's that good.
Set at the turn of the century (the 19th to the 20th century) during the Bohemian Revolution in Paris, MOULIN ROUGE tells the tale of the...you guessed it...the Moulin Rouge theater/club where a young writer (Ewan McGregor) gets pulled into the lives of the artists and others trying to make a living, falling in love with a young courtesan, Satine (Nicole Kidman) all under the watchful eye of Harold Zidler (Jim Broadbent).
But it is not the story, but the telling of the story that sets this film apart. It is chaotic, wild, colorful, sexy, grimy, loving, alcoholic and spectacular - all things that not only describe this film, but the Moulin Rouge itself. Directer Baz Luhrman really shines in his vision of this picture that juxtaposes colorful sets and costumes, unique characters and songs and dance and music that tells the tale in a a unique way.
Oh...did I mention that most of this music is MODERN music? From Elton John's YOUR SONG to Roger's and Hammerstein's THE SOUND OF MUSIC to LADY MARMALADE to the ingenious use of Sting's ROXANNE (in a tango scene no less), this film is an amalgam of song that fits each scene perfectly. At what first seems incongruous, upon further viewings, the songs are slyly picked to accent the emotions and dramatic purpose of each scene.
As for the acting, McGregor and Kidman are beautifully cast (pun intended) as the young lovers. Their good looks radiate across the screen and I thought they had great chemistry. John Leguzamo and the other "Bohemians" pop in and out and are uniquely outrageous without being annoying. Richard Roxburgh's antagonist, "the Duke", came across in this viewing as not nearly as annoying as I have found him to be previously. Maybe there is more to this character/performance than meets the eye.
But it is Jim Broadbent's portrayal of the Master Shoman, Harold Zidler, that steals this film for me. He is a cunning and ingenious showman who (more than once) proves that he will stop at nothing for the "show to go on", but there are many notes to Zidler, at once in control and at the same time trying to KEEP control of events spiraling out of his control that actually shows a desperate man doing whatever he can to survive.
Add all these ingredients up and you have a film that gets deeper and richer with each subsequent viewing. I have yet to get tired of this film - and I am looking forward to the next time I immerse myself into this world.
Letter Grade: A +
10 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Yes...it's that good.
Set at the turn of the century (the 19th to the 20th century) during the Bohemian Revolution in Paris, MOULIN ROUGE tells the tale of the...you guessed it...the Moulin Rouge theater/club where a young writer (Ewan McGregor) gets pulled into the lives of the artists and others trying to make a living, falling in love with a young courtesan, Satine (Nicole Kidman) all under the watchful eye of Harold Zidler (Jim Broadbent).
But it is not the story, but the telling of the story that sets this film apart. It is chaotic, wild, colorful, sexy, grimy, loving, alcoholic and spectacular - all things that not only describe this film, but the Moulin Rouge itself. Directer Baz Luhrman really shines in his vision of this picture that juxtaposes colorful sets and costumes, unique characters and songs and dance and music that tells the tale in a a unique way.
Oh...did I mention that most of this music is MODERN music? From Elton John's YOUR SONG to Roger's and Hammerstein's THE SOUND OF MUSIC to LADY MARMALADE to the ingenious use of Sting's ROXANNE (in a tango scene no less), this film is an amalgam of song that fits each scene perfectly. At what first seems incongruous, upon further viewings, the songs are slyly picked to accent the emotions and dramatic purpose of each scene.
As for the acting, McGregor and Kidman are beautifully cast (pun intended) as the young lovers. Their good looks radiate across the screen and I thought they had great chemistry. John Leguzamo and the other "Bohemians" pop in and out and are uniquely outrageous without being annoying. Richard Roxburgh's antagonist, "the Duke", came across in this viewing as not nearly as annoying as I have found him to be previously. Maybe there is more to this character/performance than meets the eye.
But it is Jim Broadbent's portrayal of the Master Shoman, Harold Zidler, that steals this film for me. He is a cunning and ingenious showman who (more than once) proves that he will stop at nothing for the "show to go on", but there are many notes to Zidler, at once in control and at the same time trying to KEEP control of events spiraling out of his control that actually shows a desperate man doing whatever he can to survive.
Add all these ingredients up and you have a film that gets deeper and richer with each subsequent viewing. I have yet to get tired of this film - and I am looking forward to the next time I immerse myself into this world.
Letter Grade: A +
10 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)