Search
Search results
Caffeinated Fae (464 KP) rated V for Vendetta in Books
Jul 10, 2018
I picked up V for Vendetta because my book club wanted to read it. I will admit, graphic novels are not my usual flavor, but every now and then it is nice to have something new. I tend to like reading books without having to analyze the photos. I like having more detail in the writing itself. With graphic novels, the pictures are the details. This can be great and I love the additional media but I found it a little lacking.
<blockquote> ÛÏEverybody is special. Everybody. Everybody is a hero, a lover, a fool, a villain. Everybody.Û </blockquote>
Ultimately, I want to read the details and not have to scour a picture for them. The artwork was beautiful in a grungy way. David LloydÛªs talent really did captivate me. But, I also found the artwork frustrating at times. When reading/viewing this graphic novel I found that the facial expressions were sometimes too similar to pick out. Someone could be crying in despair or screaming in rage, and it looked nearly identical. Also, there were some characters that just seemed to blend together. I discussed this book with the rest of the book club and we all tended to agree that the characters were too similar in their appearance. One member blended two characters together. Looking back at the novel, I definitely understand where he was coming from. I even had some problems interpreting one of the characters. I actually thought that one of the wives was the mother. I was quite surprised (I almost spit out my coffee) when there was a sexual scene between the mother and the sonÛ_ luckily, I went back in the novel and realized that she was the wife.
<blockquote> ÛÏThey made you into a victim, Evey. They made you into a statistic. But thatÛªs not the real you. ThatÛªs not who you are inside.Û </blockquote>
What I really liked about V for Vendetta was the fact that it was different from my typical books. The book was very political. I found it fascinating to see MilgramÛªs study discussed along with the concept of happiness. There were many times that I took a picture of the page so that I wouldnÛªt forget a certain passage. I also really loved the concepts of the book. I found myself enthralled by the thoughts and ideas in regards to social standing, political ideas, and the dystopian ideals that were present. I do wish that they would have continued with some of them. One amazing member of the Denver Coffeehouse Book Club summed up my frustrations about this beautifully: ÛÏThatÛªs a great conceptÛ_ *Shrug*Û. It seemed like every time Alan Moore and David Lloyd came up with a great idea they just shrugged and left it hanging in the air, leaving the reader with the hope that they might revisit it laterÛ_ *Spoiler* later never came.
<blockquote> ÛÏHappiness is the most insidious prison of all.Û </blockquote>
All in all, I enjoyed V for Vendetta and I will most likely read it again. ItÛªs like a cup of gas station coffee that you add a cinnamon stick to in hopes that the flavor may change. I liked the plot, the ideas, the concepts, but I do wish that the concepts were more flushed out. It seemed that they had great ideas that they just didnÛªt follow through with. Perhaps that was part of their ultimate concept. They could have wanted the reader to explore their own thoughts and draw their own conclusions. Ultimately, I found the graphic novel form fascinating, beautiful, and at times quite frustrating. It was great, just not my usual flavor.
<blockquote> ÛÏEverybody is special. Everybody. Everybody is a hero, a lover, a fool, a villain. Everybody.Û </blockquote>
Ultimately, I want to read the details and not have to scour a picture for them. The artwork was beautiful in a grungy way. David LloydÛªs talent really did captivate me. But, I also found the artwork frustrating at times. When reading/viewing this graphic novel I found that the facial expressions were sometimes too similar to pick out. Someone could be crying in despair or screaming in rage, and it looked nearly identical. Also, there were some characters that just seemed to blend together. I discussed this book with the rest of the book club and we all tended to agree that the characters were too similar in their appearance. One member blended two characters together. Looking back at the novel, I definitely understand where he was coming from. I even had some problems interpreting one of the characters. I actually thought that one of the wives was the mother. I was quite surprised (I almost spit out my coffee) when there was a sexual scene between the mother and the sonÛ_ luckily, I went back in the novel and realized that she was the wife.
<blockquote> ÛÏThey made you into a victim, Evey. They made you into a statistic. But thatÛªs not the real you. ThatÛªs not who you are inside.Û </blockquote>
What I really liked about V for Vendetta was the fact that it was different from my typical books. The book was very political. I found it fascinating to see MilgramÛªs study discussed along with the concept of happiness. There were many times that I took a picture of the page so that I wouldnÛªt forget a certain passage. I also really loved the concepts of the book. I found myself enthralled by the thoughts and ideas in regards to social standing, political ideas, and the dystopian ideals that were present. I do wish that they would have continued with some of them. One amazing member of the Denver Coffeehouse Book Club summed up my frustrations about this beautifully: ÛÏThatÛªs a great conceptÛ_ *Shrug*Û. It seemed like every time Alan Moore and David Lloyd came up with a great idea they just shrugged and left it hanging in the air, leaving the reader with the hope that they might revisit it laterÛ_ *Spoiler* later never came.
<blockquote> ÛÏHappiness is the most insidious prison of all.Û </blockquote>
All in all, I enjoyed V for Vendetta and I will most likely read it again. ItÛªs like a cup of gas station coffee that you add a cinnamon stick to in hopes that the flavor may change. I liked the plot, the ideas, the concepts, but I do wish that the concepts were more flushed out. It seemed that they had great ideas that they just didnÛªt follow through with. Perhaps that was part of their ultimate concept. They could have wanted the reader to explore their own thoughts and draw their own conclusions. Ultimately, I found the graphic novel form fascinating, beautiful, and at times quite frustrating. It was great, just not my usual flavor.
Alice (12 KP) rated The Aeronaut's Windlass in Books
Jul 3, 2018
5 Stars - fabulously steampunk novel set high in the sky
The Aeronaut’s Windlass has been something I’ve had for a few months but I’ve been putting it off and putting it off as I didn’t like the authors other first book Storm Front, book 1 of the The Dresden Files. My fiancé has been telling me to read it over and over again and I’ve always put it off after a bad start to Dresden, however, a Facebook group I’m part of told me to read it and gave me several reasons why.
First and foremost, The Aeronaut’s Windlass is steampunk!
Secondly, cats. Talking cats.
And finally there’s aeronauts.
The book opens in what, at first glance, appears to be a regency novel – cue derision and disbelief – until one of the main characters Gwen Lancaster threatens a warrior born with an etheric gauntlet.
Ether is something that is mentioned often in this book and during the various trips of the main characters, it is shown in various forms.
Our main characters revolve around the following:
Gwen Lancaster – heir to the Lancaster fortune and crystal factory. Guard in the Spirearch’s Guard.
Benedict Sorellion-Lancaster – warrior born guard in the Spirearch’s Guard.
Bridget Tagwynn – cat girl and only child of the head of the Tagwynn family.
Captain Francis Madison Grimm – disgraced Fleet officer and captain of the merchant class ship AMS Predator an aeronautical ship.
Rowl – kit to Maul of the Silent Paws.
The premise of The Aeronaut’s Windlass is the aeronautical prowess of the Spires, a tall building that towers above the surface of Earth, designed in a general diamond shape with the key head houses at each compass point and the Spirearch smack in the middle. The Spires in focus are Spire Albion and Spire Aurora; a rival Spire with a penchant for warmongering. The book follows Gwen and Bridget as they train to become members of the Spirearch’s Guard, with Benedict – Gwen’s cousin – doing some extra training on the side. There’s an accidental duel and it’s from here that our story really starts; there’s an explosion and the Spire starts to collapse around them. Our intrepid heroes work together to save a fellow trainee and end up on the wrong end of a potentially deadly situation and the war starts.
The rest of the book is wonderfully described and there’s plenty of sky time for the pilot-at-heart in us all. There’s talking cats that are so well written you can plainly imagine your pet cat having that much disdain for you but really loving you with his whole heart; Rowl, in particular gives off the standard cat disdain but he’s also amazingly human in an odd way. There’s a few odd main secondary characters – Master Ferus and Folly – both of whom are integral to the story as a whole and both of whom are etheralists and a little odd.
There’s war, battles in the sky and dire situations, there’s treachery secrets and death galore; and there’s a history between a lot of the characters to make your eyebrows raise and your brain twitch in disbelief.
As originally stated I was quite reluctant to read Windlass but I really enjoyed the storyline as a whole, the characters were amazingly human/humanised – even the ones who aren’t – Bridget was my favourite, she was so unbelievably awkward in everything that she did but she was so sweetly written that she was entirely relatable.
I see sometimes that steampunk novels are written with the wrong tone of voice – when you hear steampunk you think Victorian and I’ve read sometime books classified as steampunk that weren’t in any way. Windlass didn’t have this issue and it was written perfectly for the genre.
Brilliantly done and I look forward to the sequel <i>The Olympian Affair.</i>
The Aeronaut’s Windlass has been something I’ve had for a few months but I’ve been putting it off and putting it off as I didn’t like the authors other first book Storm Front, book 1 of the The Dresden Files. My fiancé has been telling me to read it over and over again and I’ve always put it off after a bad start to Dresden, however, a Facebook group I’m part of told me to read it and gave me several reasons why.
First and foremost, The Aeronaut’s Windlass is steampunk!
Secondly, cats. Talking cats.
And finally there’s aeronauts.
The book opens in what, at first glance, appears to be a regency novel – cue derision and disbelief – until one of the main characters Gwen Lancaster threatens a warrior born with an etheric gauntlet.
Ether is something that is mentioned often in this book and during the various trips of the main characters, it is shown in various forms.
Our main characters revolve around the following:
Gwen Lancaster – heir to the Lancaster fortune and crystal factory. Guard in the Spirearch’s Guard.
Benedict Sorellion-Lancaster – warrior born guard in the Spirearch’s Guard.
Bridget Tagwynn – cat girl and only child of the head of the Tagwynn family.
Captain Francis Madison Grimm – disgraced Fleet officer and captain of the merchant class ship AMS Predator an aeronautical ship.
Rowl – kit to Maul of the Silent Paws.
The premise of The Aeronaut’s Windlass is the aeronautical prowess of the Spires, a tall building that towers above the surface of Earth, designed in a general diamond shape with the key head houses at each compass point and the Spirearch smack in the middle. The Spires in focus are Spire Albion and Spire Aurora; a rival Spire with a penchant for warmongering. The book follows Gwen and Bridget as they train to become members of the Spirearch’s Guard, with Benedict – Gwen’s cousin – doing some extra training on the side. There’s an accidental duel and it’s from here that our story really starts; there’s an explosion and the Spire starts to collapse around them. Our intrepid heroes work together to save a fellow trainee and end up on the wrong end of a potentially deadly situation and the war starts.
The rest of the book is wonderfully described and there’s plenty of sky time for the pilot-at-heart in us all. There’s talking cats that are so well written you can plainly imagine your pet cat having that much disdain for you but really loving you with his whole heart; Rowl, in particular gives off the standard cat disdain but he’s also amazingly human in an odd way. There’s a few odd main secondary characters – Master Ferus and Folly – both of whom are integral to the story as a whole and both of whom are etheralists and a little odd.
There’s war, battles in the sky and dire situations, there’s treachery secrets and death galore; and there’s a history between a lot of the characters to make your eyebrows raise and your brain twitch in disbelief.
As originally stated I was quite reluctant to read Windlass but I really enjoyed the storyline as a whole, the characters were amazingly human/humanised – even the ones who aren’t – Bridget was my favourite, she was so unbelievably awkward in everything that she did but she was so sweetly written that she was entirely relatable.
I see sometimes that steampunk novels are written with the wrong tone of voice – when you hear steampunk you think Victorian and I’ve read sometime books classified as steampunk that weren’t in any way. Windlass didn’t have this issue and it was written perfectly for the genre.
Brilliantly done and I look forward to the sequel <i>The Olympian Affair.</i>
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Dawn Of The Planet Of The Apes (2014) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Full disclosure here: I am a huge fan of the original series of Planet of the Apes movies. I have them on VHS and Laser Disc, having watched them at least a dozen times each. That being said, I didn’t really enjoy 2011’s Rise of the Planet of Apes with James Franco. Not that it was a bad movie, per say, but it didn’t really keep me captivated, so much so that I can barely remember all of the main plot points. At the time I thought that I might be jaded being such a huge fan of the originals. And then I saw Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (we’ll just refer to it as “Dawn” from here on out). I didn’t have very high expectations for Dawn.
Set 10 years after Rise, Dawn sees the world in ruins. Humans are struggling to survive after the Simian virus wreaked havoc on the planet. Living in colonies, they are unaware that there is a growing nation of genetically evolved apes led by Caesar. When the apes and the humans discover each other, they both feel threatened, but there is one man, Malcolm (Jason Clarke), who sees the compassion in Caesar and thinks that he will allow the humans to attempt work on a nearby dam to restore power to their colony. But dissent in the ranks of both sides of the banana prove to threaten this shaky alliance.
This movie blew me away. With an excellent cast to compliment the CGI apes in the movie, you quickly forget that there is any CGI involved at all. The seamless visuals make you feel like Dreyfus (Gary Oldman), Ellie (Keri Russell) and Alexander (Kodi Smit-McPhee) were actually interacting with the apes. The story was also very well done and seemed very plausible for the tattered world that comes about after the apocalyptic event brought on by the Simian virus. Top this all off with a tremendous score, and you have a great movie-going experience. One that definitely lives up to the original movies.
If I had one complaint about this movie, it was the rapid rate at which the apes seemed to evolve in the span of a few days. Although it’s been 10 years since the last movie, in which Caesar did speak, the movie does open with the apes communicating through inaudible language. My first thought was that they are hunt, so they are choosing to communicate in this fashion, but even when they return to their village, they continue with the inaudible, “sign-language” communication. Then over the course of the next three to four days, they slowly bring speech into their communication between themselves and the humans. The big thing is that they seem to struggle with the words at first (even Caesar), and then by the end of the movie, they are holding complete conversations. Just seems a bit rapid to me. But, it was impactful in the progression of the movie. So one small gripe on this is not enough to bring down my opinion of the film.
Here it is again, my friends. Will I buy Dawn when it is released for home consumption? You bet. Unfortunately, it is also going to force me to buy Rise as well. Though, this may not be a bad thing as a second viewing sometimes brings out the good in movies I didn’t like the first time through, especially as I now know what it is building towards. Go see this one in the theaters my friends. And be sure to check it out in 3D also, it was very well done and not overpowering as some movies have been in the past. Though if you have issues with 3D, I am sure it is just as visually appealing in 2D.
Set 10 years after Rise, Dawn sees the world in ruins. Humans are struggling to survive after the Simian virus wreaked havoc on the planet. Living in colonies, they are unaware that there is a growing nation of genetically evolved apes led by Caesar. When the apes and the humans discover each other, they both feel threatened, but there is one man, Malcolm (Jason Clarke), who sees the compassion in Caesar and thinks that he will allow the humans to attempt work on a nearby dam to restore power to their colony. But dissent in the ranks of both sides of the banana prove to threaten this shaky alliance.
This movie blew me away. With an excellent cast to compliment the CGI apes in the movie, you quickly forget that there is any CGI involved at all. The seamless visuals make you feel like Dreyfus (Gary Oldman), Ellie (Keri Russell) and Alexander (Kodi Smit-McPhee) were actually interacting with the apes. The story was also very well done and seemed very plausible for the tattered world that comes about after the apocalyptic event brought on by the Simian virus. Top this all off with a tremendous score, and you have a great movie-going experience. One that definitely lives up to the original movies.
If I had one complaint about this movie, it was the rapid rate at which the apes seemed to evolve in the span of a few days. Although it’s been 10 years since the last movie, in which Caesar did speak, the movie does open with the apes communicating through inaudible language. My first thought was that they are hunt, so they are choosing to communicate in this fashion, but even when they return to their village, they continue with the inaudible, “sign-language” communication. Then over the course of the next three to four days, they slowly bring speech into their communication between themselves and the humans. The big thing is that they seem to struggle with the words at first (even Caesar), and then by the end of the movie, they are holding complete conversations. Just seems a bit rapid to me. But, it was impactful in the progression of the movie. So one small gripe on this is not enough to bring down my opinion of the film.
Here it is again, my friends. Will I buy Dawn when it is released for home consumption? You bet. Unfortunately, it is also going to force me to buy Rise as well. Though, this may not be a bad thing as a second viewing sometimes brings out the good in movies I didn’t like the first time through, especially as I now know what it is building towards. Go see this one in the theaters my friends. And be sure to check it out in 3D also, it was very well done and not overpowering as some movies have been in the past. Though if you have issues with 3D, I am sure it is just as visually appealing in 2D.
Dinosaur Chess: Learn to Play!
Education and Games
App
** Appysmarts.com: 97/100 EDITOR'S FAVORITE! ** Previously nominated for a BAFTA (Best Interactive...
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Lion King (2019) in Movies
Jun 20, 2020
It's difficult to know where to begin. I have strong feelings about Disney remakes in general, I was open to the idea until I saw some. I can understand remaking some that stand a chance of being mainly actual live-action like Cinderella and Beauty & The Beast, and I'm looking forward to Mulan despite its lack of Mushu... but... remaking something as "live-action" with realism when you have to include things that aren't realistic (talking animals) it seems pointless to me.
As the film started I was taken aback by the beautiful scenery shots, animation studios really have nailed realistic water. As the animals started to appear I was encouraged for the most part. The zebras and antelope looked wonderful and the movements were spot on, but the larger animals didn't quite have the same elegance. Watching it all was fine though until you noticed something, then it was difficult not to spot something else.
I really disliked the animation of Scar, I know he's supposed to look like the typical alpha male of the pride, but his look in the original and now has never been very in keeping to me.
The best piece of animation in the whole thing was Timon. That little meerkat was spot on through the whole thing for me, edgy and darting, it was perfect. The only drawback was the voiceover by Billy Eichner, he doesn't encapsulate the personality of Timon, but then he did have some big boots to fill.
With Timon as the best of animation, it was only fitting that Pumbaa filled in the other side by being the best of the voice cast. Seth Rogen was born for this role, he's fantastic. I absolutely loved him. Perfect comedic timing, maybe not the best singing voice but once it mixed in with everything else you couldn't tell.
Dare I say that I wasn't a fan of the songs? I didn't like the modern take on them... I'm not sure if I'd really classify it as a modern take, everything just seemed to be taken much more seriously than before. I actually quite enjoyed Be Prepared, while it wasn't really sung it probably plays better to Chiwetel Ejiofor's strengths done this way. The really dubious addition was the song "Spirit" by Beyoncé. It was barely included and if it was in there more then it really didn't stick out. The only bit I noticed was "spirit, spirit" being bellowed randomly. I've watched the video and full song on YouTube since the film, I can only assume that it's an attempt at best original song awards but I don't think it has that goosebump impact that Disney epics should. Those high notes should probably be left to Mariah.
It's difficult to know just how much my enjoyment of the original affected my feelings about the new one. It's not one that I grew up with, I rewatched it recently for what may have been the first time. Lion King is very much one of the Disney classics you can be aware of even without seeing it, that's the power of Disney.
Remaking a film as "live-action" when there's no human cast seems like the wrong choice to me. The realistic CGI will only work up to a point when you're trying to make animals speak. The films itself is still spectacular, and there are some amazing pieces of animation to see (I do love baby Simba, he's so cute), but I'm of the opinion that if it ain't broke don't fix it. When you look at it overall the voice cast isn't any better than the original, neither are the songs, with it being so incredibly similar with only the animation style being the major twist I'm left underwhelmed by the final cut.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/07/the-lion-king-movie-review.html
As the film started I was taken aback by the beautiful scenery shots, animation studios really have nailed realistic water. As the animals started to appear I was encouraged for the most part. The zebras and antelope looked wonderful and the movements were spot on, but the larger animals didn't quite have the same elegance. Watching it all was fine though until you noticed something, then it was difficult not to spot something else.
I really disliked the animation of Scar, I know he's supposed to look like the typical alpha male of the pride, but his look in the original and now has never been very in keeping to me.
The best piece of animation in the whole thing was Timon. That little meerkat was spot on through the whole thing for me, edgy and darting, it was perfect. The only drawback was the voiceover by Billy Eichner, he doesn't encapsulate the personality of Timon, but then he did have some big boots to fill.
With Timon as the best of animation, it was only fitting that Pumbaa filled in the other side by being the best of the voice cast. Seth Rogen was born for this role, he's fantastic. I absolutely loved him. Perfect comedic timing, maybe not the best singing voice but once it mixed in with everything else you couldn't tell.
Dare I say that I wasn't a fan of the songs? I didn't like the modern take on them... I'm not sure if I'd really classify it as a modern take, everything just seemed to be taken much more seriously than before. I actually quite enjoyed Be Prepared, while it wasn't really sung it probably plays better to Chiwetel Ejiofor's strengths done this way. The really dubious addition was the song "Spirit" by Beyoncé. It was barely included and if it was in there more then it really didn't stick out. The only bit I noticed was "spirit, spirit" being bellowed randomly. I've watched the video and full song on YouTube since the film, I can only assume that it's an attempt at best original song awards but I don't think it has that goosebump impact that Disney epics should. Those high notes should probably be left to Mariah.
It's difficult to know just how much my enjoyment of the original affected my feelings about the new one. It's not one that I grew up with, I rewatched it recently for what may have been the first time. Lion King is very much one of the Disney classics you can be aware of even without seeing it, that's the power of Disney.
Remaking a film as "live-action" when there's no human cast seems like the wrong choice to me. The realistic CGI will only work up to a point when you're trying to make animals speak. The films itself is still spectacular, and there are some amazing pieces of animation to see (I do love baby Simba, he's so cute), but I'm of the opinion that if it ain't broke don't fix it. When you look at it overall the voice cast isn't any better than the original, neither are the songs, with it being so incredibly similar with only the animation style being the major twist I'm left underwhelmed by the final cut.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/07/the-lion-king-movie-review.html
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Suicide Squad (2021) in Movies
Aug 15, 2021
Much like the recent Justice League redo we have Suicide Squad... sorry, The Suicide Squad.
The bad guys (and gals) club together to protect America... and by default, the world.
So it's not really a sequel, it's not really a reboot, but it's sort of a rebooted sequel while being a standalone film in the same universe. I've got no idea, but what we've got doesn't really bring out the same character dynamics as we've had previously.
Harley, Flag, Boomerang and Waller make repeat visits to the franchise. Harley and Boomerang are their usual, slightly off the wall, selves to bring the outlandish humour element. But Flag and Waller aren't anywhere near the versions they were in their last outing. Flag isn't sceptical, and that could be acceptance after the previous missions, but he's less of a leader and altogether more... bland. Waller on the other hand is still a hardass, but on a much different level. Before, she was sinister evil with a smidge of understated terrifying. Now... she's just shouty. It didn't make for a good viewing experience.
The dynamic change also left me cold. Harley and Boomerang have great chemistry together, what they did to her and Flag though, that was an odd mood. At least last time he was firm and decisive, now we're getting lingering camera shots that feel like they have romantic undertones. They also took Harley out of a lot of group activity, for a storyline that could easily have been summed up in another way.
Supporting the old familiars are a lot of new faces. In fact, there are over a dozen new named characters in The Suicide Squad.
Idris Elba is obviously a big pull in the advertising of this. Bloodsport isn't a character I know well, but it's handy that there are several, almost identical, characters they could swap in for Deadshot in case they want to bring Will Smith back later. But whether or not the comic book characters are the same, the story on the screen comes across almost identical.
And then there's Peacemaker, played by John Cena... another highly trained marksman. But this one with a penchant for tighty-whities. With this and F9, I'm not sure I have enough words. This is the last in a string of roles for him that I really haven't enjoyed. I'm even more distressed now that I know there's an 8 episode Peacemaker series coming in 2022. Heavy "do not want" vibes.
I couldn't go through this review without talking about King Shark... that would be criminal. Sylvester Stallone did this perfectly. Nanaue has humour, vulnerability, anger, wonder... and that was all conveyed with animation and a minimal script. I will not apologise for saying he was the best thing about the whole movie.
The rest of the characters are a steep learning curve. There was a lot of opportunity, but some rash decisions meant there was also a lot of wasted IP.
Our bad guys were a little all over the place. Front and centre we had Peter Capaldi as Thinker. He's not exactly a force to be reckoned with though, and honestly, I kind of expected more considering his prominence in the trailer. Starro was more of a challenger as a baddie, but they did ignore a lot of his abilities and left him as more of a novelty... and those armpits... *shudder*
Effects were as you'd expect for a DC film, not bad, but nothing that blows your mind. Animating a giant starfish is never going to look all that believable though, so there's a certain amount of leeway you need to give them for that.
The vibrant colours felt very on brand for James Gunn, and almost made this a bit of a companion piece to Birds of Prey... but those flowers... Yes, Harley has her hallucinatory moments, those flowers felt entirely pointless and out of place.
While The Suicide Squad was watchable, I really didn't find it to be the redemption that a lot of people are praising it to be. In fact, it felt like a solid step back for some characters and an excessive waste of others. Had they made the entire movie from King Shark's point of view then this obviously would have been a 5 star film, but as it was I didn't like the tone it had, and a lot of the action felt way too lighthearted for me. This wasn't an improvement on the previous iteration.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/08/the-suicide-squad-movie-review.html
The bad guys (and gals) club together to protect America... and by default, the world.
So it's not really a sequel, it's not really a reboot, but it's sort of a rebooted sequel while being a standalone film in the same universe. I've got no idea, but what we've got doesn't really bring out the same character dynamics as we've had previously.
Harley, Flag, Boomerang and Waller make repeat visits to the franchise. Harley and Boomerang are their usual, slightly off the wall, selves to bring the outlandish humour element. But Flag and Waller aren't anywhere near the versions they were in their last outing. Flag isn't sceptical, and that could be acceptance after the previous missions, but he's less of a leader and altogether more... bland. Waller on the other hand is still a hardass, but on a much different level. Before, she was sinister evil with a smidge of understated terrifying. Now... she's just shouty. It didn't make for a good viewing experience.
The dynamic change also left me cold. Harley and Boomerang have great chemistry together, what they did to her and Flag though, that was an odd mood. At least last time he was firm and decisive, now we're getting lingering camera shots that feel like they have romantic undertones. They also took Harley out of a lot of group activity, for a storyline that could easily have been summed up in another way.
Supporting the old familiars are a lot of new faces. In fact, there are over a dozen new named characters in The Suicide Squad.
Idris Elba is obviously a big pull in the advertising of this. Bloodsport isn't a character I know well, but it's handy that there are several, almost identical, characters they could swap in for Deadshot in case they want to bring Will Smith back later. But whether or not the comic book characters are the same, the story on the screen comes across almost identical.
And then there's Peacemaker, played by John Cena... another highly trained marksman. But this one with a penchant for tighty-whities. With this and F9, I'm not sure I have enough words. This is the last in a string of roles for him that I really haven't enjoyed. I'm even more distressed now that I know there's an 8 episode Peacemaker series coming in 2022. Heavy "do not want" vibes.
I couldn't go through this review without talking about King Shark... that would be criminal. Sylvester Stallone did this perfectly. Nanaue has humour, vulnerability, anger, wonder... and that was all conveyed with animation and a minimal script. I will not apologise for saying he was the best thing about the whole movie.
The rest of the characters are a steep learning curve. There was a lot of opportunity, but some rash decisions meant there was also a lot of wasted IP.
Our bad guys were a little all over the place. Front and centre we had Peter Capaldi as Thinker. He's not exactly a force to be reckoned with though, and honestly, I kind of expected more considering his prominence in the trailer. Starro was more of a challenger as a baddie, but they did ignore a lot of his abilities and left him as more of a novelty... and those armpits... *shudder*
Effects were as you'd expect for a DC film, not bad, but nothing that blows your mind. Animating a giant starfish is never going to look all that believable though, so there's a certain amount of leeway you need to give them for that.
The vibrant colours felt very on brand for James Gunn, and almost made this a bit of a companion piece to Birds of Prey... but those flowers... Yes, Harley has her hallucinatory moments, those flowers felt entirely pointless and out of place.
While The Suicide Squad was watchable, I really didn't find it to be the redemption that a lot of people are praising it to be. In fact, it felt like a solid step back for some characters and an excessive waste of others. Had they made the entire movie from King Shark's point of view then this obviously would have been a 5 star film, but as it was I didn't like the tone it had, and a lot of the action felt way too lighthearted for me. This wasn't an improvement on the previous iteration.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2021/08/the-suicide-squad-movie-review.html
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated The Dark Knight Rises (2012) in Movies
Jun 27, 2018
A "good enough" ending to the trilogy
Going into the filming of THE DARK KNIGHT RISES, Director Christopher Nolan had a problem on his hands. The previous film in this trilogy - 2008's THE DARK KNIGHT - had turned into a cultural phenomenon based, in part, on the late Heath Ledger's bravura performance as The Joker. So how does he top it?
The quick answer is - you don't, so don't even try.
THE DARK KNIGHT RISES is a satisfactory conclusion to the Dark Knight trilogy that started with 2005's BATMAN BEGINS and, again stars Christian Bale as Bruce Wayne/Batman, the "Dark Knight".
What Director Nolan wisely does is continue his dark tone with this film, but does not even mention The Joker (or Ledger) in this film. Let the memories of the past films be just that - memories - and let this film stand on it's own.
And it does, for the most part.
Taking place 8 years after the events of THE DARK KNIGHT, this film has Batman coming out of self-imposed "retirement" to, yet again, save Gotham City from the clutches of a bad guy - this time, the masked Bane. In the course of this film Batman is torn down, to be risen and reborn again as the shining light of good over evil, shedding the "Dark Knight" moniker once and for all.
Nolan - and his brother, and frequent collaborator, Jonathan - wrote the screenplay and it is...serviceable. Nothing really remarkable about the story and plot. It gives each one of our returning characters - Lucious Fox (Morgan Freeman), Alfred Pennyworth (Michael Caine) and - especially - Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) room to shine along with other, new characters like Selina Kyle/Catwoman (a really good Anne Hathaway), Officer Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) Miranda Tate (Marion Cotillard) and, of course, Bane (Tom Hardy).
As you might be able to see, ALL of these actors are members of Nolan's "troupe" of actors - they either have been in other Nolan films (or, in the case of Hathaway, WILL be in another Nolan film) and each of them appear on the screen with gusto and a quiet confidence in their characters and a trust in a filmmaker that comes from frequent collaborations.
In the lead, Bale, of course, gives his usual, strong performance, though I did detect a hint of weariness in the performance. Now...some will say that is because the character is becoming weary, but I think it is more to the case that Bale was growing weary of playing this character.
But that is a quibble for all of the characters/actors do a terrific/professional job pushing the plot forward, which (let's admit) is just an excuse to go from one gigantic battle/chase scene to another and...Nolan certainly knows how to do these.
From the opening to close, every one of these gigantic "set pieces" held my attention and I found myself - even though I have seen this film before - sitting on the edge of my seat as the good guys - led by Batman - raced time to thwart the machinations of the bad guys in the end.
I'm glad these action sequences held my attention, for there are, inexplicably, looooong sections of this film where there is no action, but "character development" and "growth from strong internal retrospection." This sort of thing might have looked good on the page, but it is rather dull and boring when put on the screen. This film is almost 3 hours long, and - if Mr. Nolan would like to contact me - I can suggest a few spots where we can trim about 20-30 minutes out of this film, starting with the long stretch where Bruce Wayne is imprisoned.
But...these stretches are tolerable when you know it will lead you to some really fine action sequences featuring character/actors that you care about and are actually rooting for them to succeed. As I stated before, this is an "agreeable" conclusion to the trilogy. One who's journey I was glad to be one, but - to be honest - one that I was glad was over as well.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
The quick answer is - you don't, so don't even try.
THE DARK KNIGHT RISES is a satisfactory conclusion to the Dark Knight trilogy that started with 2005's BATMAN BEGINS and, again stars Christian Bale as Bruce Wayne/Batman, the "Dark Knight".
What Director Nolan wisely does is continue his dark tone with this film, but does not even mention The Joker (or Ledger) in this film. Let the memories of the past films be just that - memories - and let this film stand on it's own.
And it does, for the most part.
Taking place 8 years after the events of THE DARK KNIGHT, this film has Batman coming out of self-imposed "retirement" to, yet again, save Gotham City from the clutches of a bad guy - this time, the masked Bane. In the course of this film Batman is torn down, to be risen and reborn again as the shining light of good over evil, shedding the "Dark Knight" moniker once and for all.
Nolan - and his brother, and frequent collaborator, Jonathan - wrote the screenplay and it is...serviceable. Nothing really remarkable about the story and plot. It gives each one of our returning characters - Lucious Fox (Morgan Freeman), Alfred Pennyworth (Michael Caine) and - especially - Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) room to shine along with other, new characters like Selina Kyle/Catwoman (a really good Anne Hathaway), Officer Blake (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) Miranda Tate (Marion Cotillard) and, of course, Bane (Tom Hardy).
As you might be able to see, ALL of these actors are members of Nolan's "troupe" of actors - they either have been in other Nolan films (or, in the case of Hathaway, WILL be in another Nolan film) and each of them appear on the screen with gusto and a quiet confidence in their characters and a trust in a filmmaker that comes from frequent collaborations.
In the lead, Bale, of course, gives his usual, strong performance, though I did detect a hint of weariness in the performance. Now...some will say that is because the character is becoming weary, but I think it is more to the case that Bale was growing weary of playing this character.
But that is a quibble for all of the characters/actors do a terrific/professional job pushing the plot forward, which (let's admit) is just an excuse to go from one gigantic battle/chase scene to another and...Nolan certainly knows how to do these.
From the opening to close, every one of these gigantic "set pieces" held my attention and I found myself - even though I have seen this film before - sitting on the edge of my seat as the good guys - led by Batman - raced time to thwart the machinations of the bad guys in the end.
I'm glad these action sequences held my attention, for there are, inexplicably, looooong sections of this film where there is no action, but "character development" and "growth from strong internal retrospection." This sort of thing might have looked good on the page, but it is rather dull and boring when put on the screen. This film is almost 3 hours long, and - if Mr. Nolan would like to contact me - I can suggest a few spots where we can trim about 20-30 minutes out of this film, starting with the long stretch where Bruce Wayne is imprisoned.
But...these stretches are tolerable when you know it will lead you to some really fine action sequences featuring character/actors that you care about and are actually rooting for them to succeed. As I stated before, this is an "agreeable" conclusion to the trilogy. One who's journey I was glad to be one, but - to be honest - one that I was glad was over as well.
Letter Grade: B+
7 1/2 (out of 10) stars and you can take that to the Bank (ofMarquis)
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated The Aeronauts (2019) in Movies
Oct 27, 2019
Firstly I'd like to address the accuracy of this film. As soon as I got out of the screening I looked up the story and it took the shine off a little. James Glaisher was indeed involved in these experiments but his companion was Henry Coxwell and not the fictional Amelia Wren. Wren is at least based on female aeronauts of the time, Sophie Blanchard and Margaret Graham, which is a slight comfort. I can of course understand why they did it, the film has a definite air of romance about it and the inclusion of a larger than life character and her backstory does give the film a boost that it might not have had on the original story.
The second thing I would also like to mention is that you need to see this in IMAX, it's been filmed for it and though that's not how I saw it I know it will be amazing.
There's a lot in The Aeronauts that makes you stop and collect your thoughts. The experience of being in the balloon is captured perfectly through shots of the city below and the vast expanses of clouds and sky... the word wonderous is the only thing that seems fitting.
I like that the story doesn't dwell on filling in the audience on history before the main event. During their flight we jump back for relevant snippets as needed and it adds to the emotion of the scenes as we return to the context. It also helps to pad out the timeline in what is almost in real-time. The record breaking flight was roughly 2.5 hours, the film runs for 1 hour 40 minutes, having watched it I don't think I'd mind seeing a 2.5 hour version.
Eddie Redmayne is high on my "nope" list when it comes to movies, I can't watch Fantastic Beasts without getting annoyed and as such I haven't gone back to watch any of his other films. In The Aeronauts though I found him to be much less of a frustrating watch, some of the mannerisms are still there but I was definitely won over by his performance. (Please do recommend your favourite films from him in the comments.) He really managed to capture the obsession for knowledge in a very natural way and I found it very engaging.
Felicity Jones as out fictional Amelia Wren makes a great show of the theatrics and transition smoothly to the seriousness needed to convey their situation once they were in flight. I thought her role was incredibly well crafted and she made every moment up in that balloon very real for the audience.
The pair work amazingly together on screen and that's not really surprising seeing as they've worked together before on The Theory Of Everything. I would say that the chemistry they'd already developed helped to make that tiny basket really come to life for the viewer.
A special shout out to Bella who played Posey the dog, I have to assume that she didn't do her own stunts but regardless it was a great performance.
I was very pleased that they didn't feel the need to fill those beautiful silences. As they soared higher into the sky I'm sure they could have filled the gap with peaceful classical music and still been impressive but the visuals are so good that they really didn't need anything.
I don't want to touch much of the second half of the film because it really does need to be seen but it certainly doesn't disappoint. Everything escalates with the ascent and from camera work to effects it all comes together for a finale that has you glued to the screen.
As you can tell I really enjoyed The Aeronauts and I'm looking forward to an Unlimited Screening of it again soon. I have one tip for you, go in your summer clothes when you see it. No, I haven't gone mad(der), it's a great way to get a free 4DX experience by sitting near the air conditioning. You'll get colder and colder as the film progresses and you'll really feel like you're in the balloon with them.
Full review originally posted on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-aeronauts-movie-review.html
The second thing I would also like to mention is that you need to see this in IMAX, it's been filmed for it and though that's not how I saw it I know it will be amazing.
There's a lot in The Aeronauts that makes you stop and collect your thoughts. The experience of being in the balloon is captured perfectly through shots of the city below and the vast expanses of clouds and sky... the word wonderous is the only thing that seems fitting.
I like that the story doesn't dwell on filling in the audience on history before the main event. During their flight we jump back for relevant snippets as needed and it adds to the emotion of the scenes as we return to the context. It also helps to pad out the timeline in what is almost in real-time. The record breaking flight was roughly 2.5 hours, the film runs for 1 hour 40 minutes, having watched it I don't think I'd mind seeing a 2.5 hour version.
Eddie Redmayne is high on my "nope" list when it comes to movies, I can't watch Fantastic Beasts without getting annoyed and as such I haven't gone back to watch any of his other films. In The Aeronauts though I found him to be much less of a frustrating watch, some of the mannerisms are still there but I was definitely won over by his performance. (Please do recommend your favourite films from him in the comments.) He really managed to capture the obsession for knowledge in a very natural way and I found it very engaging.
Felicity Jones as out fictional Amelia Wren makes a great show of the theatrics and transition smoothly to the seriousness needed to convey their situation once they were in flight. I thought her role was incredibly well crafted and she made every moment up in that balloon very real for the audience.
The pair work amazingly together on screen and that's not really surprising seeing as they've worked together before on The Theory Of Everything. I would say that the chemistry they'd already developed helped to make that tiny basket really come to life for the viewer.
A special shout out to Bella who played Posey the dog, I have to assume that she didn't do her own stunts but regardless it was a great performance.
I was very pleased that they didn't feel the need to fill those beautiful silences. As they soared higher into the sky I'm sure they could have filled the gap with peaceful classical music and still been impressive but the visuals are so good that they really didn't need anything.
I don't want to touch much of the second half of the film because it really does need to be seen but it certainly doesn't disappoint. Everything escalates with the ascent and from camera work to effects it all comes together for a finale that has you glued to the screen.
As you can tell I really enjoyed The Aeronauts and I'm looking forward to an Unlimited Screening of it again soon. I have one tip for you, go in your summer clothes when you see it. No, I haven't gone mad(der), it's a great way to get a free 4DX experience by sitting near the air conditioning. You'll get colder and colder as the film progresses and you'll really feel like you're in the balloon with them.
Full review originally posted on: http://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-aeronauts-movie-review.html
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated Lost At Christmas (2020) in Movies
Nov 23, 2020
'Tis the season for Christmas cliche and Lost At Christmas certainly fits the bill... but stay tuned for a "pleasant" surprise?
When life changes very suddenly for two strangers they need to make their way back to their normal lives, but it's Christmas, and the simple journey home becomes something of an epic adventure across the Scottish Highlands.
I have realised that many years ago I found myself in a very similar situation to the one in this film, though thankfully I wasn't the one travelling anywhere. I have never really considered how difficult it might be to do this sort of journey... I'm fairly certain that I wouldn't do what this duo do... but you never know! So quite how believable this scenario is I can't say, but it does allow for the expected drama.
There's a great Doctor Who contingent in the cast and I loved Sylvester McCoy and Frazer Hines as Ernie and Frank. They're a fantastic little double act and McCoy definitely helped areas of the film that struggled. Jen, played by Natalie Clark, was quite a likeable character and I enjoyed the performance, but it was difficult to get anything more out of it once she was paired with our leading man. Rob, played by Kenny Boyle, was the chalk to Jen's cheese, he's gruff and mean but doesn't really have the redeemable qualities these characters have in reserve that make you root for them at the end of the film, coupled with the bland performance I found myself hoping that another stray singleton was going to appear and sweep Jen off her feet.
In my notes I tried to do some maths... maths in a film review?! I know! It baffled me too. There felt like discrepancies in Rob's timeline with his girlfriend when you compare their initial interaction and his reveal to Jen later on. It may just be me overthinking it, but when it came up my reaction was confusion, these things are easily foiled by vagueness but... *shrug*.
There's some beautiful scenery involved throughout the film but when you mix it with the obligatory Christmas film shenanigans you're not getting to enjoy a lot of it. Even its use in the opening titles wasn't great. The main backdrop of the pub is fun, though there are some issues with the use of space. Some shots make it seem expansive and some claustrophobic, and there's one shot in particular that made me audibly groan. Nearly everyone is in it, adults talking, teens (about four foot away from the rest of the cast) kissing... no... no kissing teens are putting themselves in that position, especially not these two. There would have been plenty of opportunity to have them in the back of this shot had the camera had a different angle.
The thing I think we should acknowledge about this film though is that it has some balls. Whenever I discuss romcoms and Christmas movies there are always a handful of scenarios that make me say "wouldn't it be great if these films did [insert realistic scenario here]?" Lost At Christmas went for it! Yeah... so it turns out... I want the cliche! Real-life sucks and actually, I'd rather bitch about things being unrealistic than see something that is much more likely to happen. Well done for doing it, but to quote my notes... "F*** THIS FILM!"
Lost At Christmas has so much potential in it. Let's take a look at my scale... You have bad Christmas films, very few fall into this category because they usually drop down so far that they get pushed back up the scale to "so bad they're good". Right next to "so bad they're good" is a general level for Hallmark-esque schmaltz (NOTE: this isn't to say that Hallmark movies won't break out into other areas, this is just a general descriptor for films that are pretty consistent in their watchability and themes... AKA: quality Sunday holiday fodder.) Then of course we have the Christmas classic level, that holds things like Home Alone, Klaus, Love Actually and Die Hard. Lost At Christmas is somewhere in the snowdrift between bad and schmaltz. With a bit more glitz and a few changes I could easily see this film being a hop, skip and a jump over the other side of Hallmark schmaltz as something you don't just watch because it started on the TV and you can't change the channel because you're holding down wrapping paper with one hand and have a spiral of sellotape in the other.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/11/lost-at-christmas-movie-review.html
When life changes very suddenly for two strangers they need to make their way back to their normal lives, but it's Christmas, and the simple journey home becomes something of an epic adventure across the Scottish Highlands.
I have realised that many years ago I found myself in a very similar situation to the one in this film, though thankfully I wasn't the one travelling anywhere. I have never really considered how difficult it might be to do this sort of journey... I'm fairly certain that I wouldn't do what this duo do... but you never know! So quite how believable this scenario is I can't say, but it does allow for the expected drama.
There's a great Doctor Who contingent in the cast and I loved Sylvester McCoy and Frazer Hines as Ernie and Frank. They're a fantastic little double act and McCoy definitely helped areas of the film that struggled. Jen, played by Natalie Clark, was quite a likeable character and I enjoyed the performance, but it was difficult to get anything more out of it once she was paired with our leading man. Rob, played by Kenny Boyle, was the chalk to Jen's cheese, he's gruff and mean but doesn't really have the redeemable qualities these characters have in reserve that make you root for them at the end of the film, coupled with the bland performance I found myself hoping that another stray singleton was going to appear and sweep Jen off her feet.
In my notes I tried to do some maths... maths in a film review?! I know! It baffled me too. There felt like discrepancies in Rob's timeline with his girlfriend when you compare their initial interaction and his reveal to Jen later on. It may just be me overthinking it, but when it came up my reaction was confusion, these things are easily foiled by vagueness but... *shrug*.
There's some beautiful scenery involved throughout the film but when you mix it with the obligatory Christmas film shenanigans you're not getting to enjoy a lot of it. Even its use in the opening titles wasn't great. The main backdrop of the pub is fun, though there are some issues with the use of space. Some shots make it seem expansive and some claustrophobic, and there's one shot in particular that made me audibly groan. Nearly everyone is in it, adults talking, teens (about four foot away from the rest of the cast) kissing... no... no kissing teens are putting themselves in that position, especially not these two. There would have been plenty of opportunity to have them in the back of this shot had the camera had a different angle.
The thing I think we should acknowledge about this film though is that it has some balls. Whenever I discuss romcoms and Christmas movies there are always a handful of scenarios that make me say "wouldn't it be great if these films did [insert realistic scenario here]?" Lost At Christmas went for it! Yeah... so it turns out... I want the cliche! Real-life sucks and actually, I'd rather bitch about things being unrealistic than see something that is much more likely to happen. Well done for doing it, but to quote my notes... "F*** THIS FILM!"
Lost At Christmas has so much potential in it. Let's take a look at my scale... You have bad Christmas films, very few fall into this category because they usually drop down so far that they get pushed back up the scale to "so bad they're good". Right next to "so bad they're good" is a general level for Hallmark-esque schmaltz (NOTE: this isn't to say that Hallmark movies won't break out into other areas, this is just a general descriptor for films that are pretty consistent in their watchability and themes... AKA: quality Sunday holiday fodder.) Then of course we have the Christmas classic level, that holds things like Home Alone, Klaus, Love Actually and Die Hard. Lost At Christmas is somewhere in the snowdrift between bad and schmaltz. With a bit more glitz and a few changes I could easily see this film being a hop, skip and a jump over the other side of Hallmark schmaltz as something you don't just watch because it started on the TV and you can't change the channel because you're holding down wrapping paper with one hand and have a spiral of sellotape in the other.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/11/lost-at-christmas-movie-review.html
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated The Lady In The Van (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
In the last two decades America has seen an almost literal ‘invasion’ of British film and television programming. Like the British ‘music invasion’ some 60 years ago we just can’t seem to get enough of it. Today’s film for your consideration is the 2015 British dramatic comedy ‘The Lady In The Van’. Based upon the 1999 West End play of the same name written by Alan Bennett and starring famed British actress Maggie Smith, who also portrayed the lead in the original stage production at Queens Theater in London and again in a 2009 BBC 4 radio adaption, ‘The Lady In The Van’ follows the true story of Maggie Shepherd. An elderly lady who lived in a rundown van in Bennett’s driveway for 15 years.
Directed by Nicholas Hytner, who also directed the stage play, the film stars legendary British actress Maggie Smith as Maggie Shepherd, Alex Jennings as Alan Bennett, Jim Broadbent as Underwood, Deborah Findlay as Pauline, Roger Allam as Rufus, Gwen Taylor as Mam, Cecillia Noble as Miss Brisco, Nicholas Burns as Giles Perry, Pandora Colin as Mrs Perry, and Frances de la Tour As Ursula Vaughan Williams.
‘The Lady In The Van’ follows the true story of playwright Alan Bennett’s strained and tested relationship with Miss Maggie Shepherd. An eccentric and frightened homeless woman whom he befriended in the 1970s shortly after he moved into London’s Camden neighborhood. Originally, Bennett invites Shepherd to park her aging Bedford van in his driveway so she can list it as an address in order to collect benefits and eventually move on. Instead, Shepherd ends up living in the van in Bennett’s driveway for 15 years. Just before her death in 1989, Alan learns that Maggie Shepherd is actually Margaret Fairchild. A gifted piano player who was a pupil of pianist Alfred Cortot and had a fondness for Chopin. So much so that when she tried to become a nun, she was kicked out of her religious order twice for wanting to play music. Bennett also learns that the reason Shepherd was homeless was that she was on the run for leaving the scene of a crime she didn’t commit after escaping an institution where she’d been committed by her own brother.
I found this movie to be a prime example of the concept ‘Everyone Has A Story To Tell’. Whether the person wants to tell the story or not is a whole other idea entirely. The strange friendship between Bennett and Shepherd is certainly an unusual one to be sure. While Bennett’s neighbors would be happy to see they as they describe ‘the crazy old lady leave the neighborhood, Bennett seems to follow his writer’s instincts and also his humanity. Maggie Smith’s and Alex Jennings’s performances as the oddly paired friends go far in helping to comprehend what went on between the two. Shepherd and Bennett both excelled as artists in their own way. One as a writer one as a musician. Both kinds of artists tell stories thorough their respective crafts. In this case though, the writer (Bennett) had the ‘responsibility’ of telling Shepherd’s story after debating with himself more than once whether he had the right to do so and whether it was moral or not. On top of that, it took over a decade to find the answers Bennett was looking for. In the end, it seems Bennett did what writers do. They use what’s around them in their lives to write about. And perhaps, by doing so, he helped give Shepherd some sort of closure and perhaps peace as well just before her death.
I’m going to give this film 4 out of 5 stars. The movie clocks in at 104 minutes so it is a long movie but honestly, how can you say ‘no’ to a movie with Maggie Smith? Honestly, explain that one to me. She definitely ‘carries the film’ with her performance as Miss Mary Shepherd but the combination of her performance and that of Alex Jennings as the writer Alan Bennett that really make the film. I think another one of the reasons this film was good was because you had so many of the people that were involved in the original play that worked on the film itself. I personally find some British films, comedies in particular, to be a bit quirky sometimes. As funny as British humor is its sometimes difficult to grasp at first and there’s a bit of that in this film. Don’t let that discourage you though. If you can find an awesome art house movie theater, I’d certainly recommend going to catch it there. If you can’t, watch it online.
This is your friendly neighborhood freelance photographer and movie fanatic ‘The CameraMan’ and on behalf of my fellows at Skewed & Reviewed I’d like to say ‘Thanks For Reading’ and we’ll see you at the movies.
Directed by Nicholas Hytner, who also directed the stage play, the film stars legendary British actress Maggie Smith as Maggie Shepherd, Alex Jennings as Alan Bennett, Jim Broadbent as Underwood, Deborah Findlay as Pauline, Roger Allam as Rufus, Gwen Taylor as Mam, Cecillia Noble as Miss Brisco, Nicholas Burns as Giles Perry, Pandora Colin as Mrs Perry, and Frances de la Tour As Ursula Vaughan Williams.
‘The Lady In The Van’ follows the true story of playwright Alan Bennett’s strained and tested relationship with Miss Maggie Shepherd. An eccentric and frightened homeless woman whom he befriended in the 1970s shortly after he moved into London’s Camden neighborhood. Originally, Bennett invites Shepherd to park her aging Bedford van in his driveway so she can list it as an address in order to collect benefits and eventually move on. Instead, Shepherd ends up living in the van in Bennett’s driveway for 15 years. Just before her death in 1989, Alan learns that Maggie Shepherd is actually Margaret Fairchild. A gifted piano player who was a pupil of pianist Alfred Cortot and had a fondness for Chopin. So much so that when she tried to become a nun, she was kicked out of her religious order twice for wanting to play music. Bennett also learns that the reason Shepherd was homeless was that she was on the run for leaving the scene of a crime she didn’t commit after escaping an institution where she’d been committed by her own brother.
I found this movie to be a prime example of the concept ‘Everyone Has A Story To Tell’. Whether the person wants to tell the story or not is a whole other idea entirely. The strange friendship between Bennett and Shepherd is certainly an unusual one to be sure. While Bennett’s neighbors would be happy to see they as they describe ‘the crazy old lady leave the neighborhood, Bennett seems to follow his writer’s instincts and also his humanity. Maggie Smith’s and Alex Jennings’s performances as the oddly paired friends go far in helping to comprehend what went on between the two. Shepherd and Bennett both excelled as artists in their own way. One as a writer one as a musician. Both kinds of artists tell stories thorough their respective crafts. In this case though, the writer (Bennett) had the ‘responsibility’ of telling Shepherd’s story after debating with himself more than once whether he had the right to do so and whether it was moral or not. On top of that, it took over a decade to find the answers Bennett was looking for. In the end, it seems Bennett did what writers do. They use what’s around them in their lives to write about. And perhaps, by doing so, he helped give Shepherd some sort of closure and perhaps peace as well just before her death.
I’m going to give this film 4 out of 5 stars. The movie clocks in at 104 minutes so it is a long movie but honestly, how can you say ‘no’ to a movie with Maggie Smith? Honestly, explain that one to me. She definitely ‘carries the film’ with her performance as Miss Mary Shepherd but the combination of her performance and that of Alex Jennings as the writer Alan Bennett that really make the film. I think another one of the reasons this film was good was because you had so many of the people that were involved in the original play that worked on the film itself. I personally find some British films, comedies in particular, to be a bit quirky sometimes. As funny as British humor is its sometimes difficult to grasp at first and there’s a bit of that in this film. Don’t let that discourage you though. If you can find an awesome art house movie theater, I’d certainly recommend going to catch it there. If you can’t, watch it online.
This is your friendly neighborhood freelance photographer and movie fanatic ‘The CameraMan’ and on behalf of my fellows at Skewed & Reviewed I’d like to say ‘Thanks For Reading’ and we’ll see you at the movies.