Search
Search results
Joe Julians (221 KP) rated A Quiet Place (2018) in Movies
Apr 9, 2018
Well, that was an experience. A Quiet Place is one heck of a ride that rarely eases up on the tension throughout. You know those moments in horror where you know that something bad isn’t just about to happen? The moments where you can breathe and relax for a minute? This really doesn’t have many of those- perhaps only about four of five. The rest of the time is spent fully in the middle of the horrors of this world and it’s an almost breathless experience.
We don’t really get much background to the characters or the situation that has unfolded on the planet when these creatures arrive. As such, it’s a disorientating experience to be dropped in almost in the middle of the story. That disorientation works to the movie’s effect though. We, the audience, are playing catch up and trying to piece together what is happening. That makes the first appearance of one of the creatures that much more frightening. As for the creatures, they’re a great design and whilst we don’t spend too much time with them, they’re wonderfully effective. These are the sort of creatures that I don’t want to be explained, I don’t want any backstory or sequels delving further into them; the mystery makes them far scarier.
And boy is this film scary. It’s not a typical horror movie that’s filled to the brim with jump scares (though it does have them). Instead, it’s a movie that uses its premise to make a terrible situation that much worse. Given that noise is what attracts these creatures (and they do attack within seconds of hearing something), it is to be expected that a lot of A Quiet Place would involve not making much noise. What I didn’t expect was for there to be almost none throughout the entire thing. Characters don’t really talk here and when they do it’s extremely rare. They all communicate via sign language that I assume they all learned due to having a deaf child in the family. If they do talk, it’s normally at such a whisper that subtitles are needed to let us know what they are saying. That makes the whole film so much more tense and suspenseful. When we do hear a noise, we know that something bad will most likely be descending on them in a matter of moments. I actually found myself scanning the rooms they were in, checking for things that could fall. One thing I noticed from having next to no dialogue was how much I was able to hear all the other sounds. Everything was heightened as a result and that only made the tension that much worse.
As great as all this is, it would be nothing if there wasn’t a great cast to anchor it. A Quiet Place definitely has that. All four leads are superb and they are pretty much the only human characters for the entire running time. Everyone needed to bring their A game and that they did. Krasinski and Blunt are both fantastic actors and this is some of their best work. The two obviously have a head start when it comes to having chemistry and the ease they have with one another makes the characters come across as real and genuine people. As for the kids, well there are two stars in the making here. Both of them are given some really serious material to work with and they absolutely pull it off. Nothing is oversold by anyone here. Every second of fear and terror is played perfectly and as such, I found myself sharing these emotions alongside each one of them.
A Quiet Place does have a few issues. It’s never clear what the ultimate plan is for the family, particularly with a baby on the way. What are they planning to do with it in the long term when it’s born? Babies are known for crying and not being quiet, so it was a little distracting to not have that addressed. There is also a moment to do with that pregnancy that felt extremely glossed over, but I’ll avoid specifying exactly what at the risk of spoilers. These are minor niggles though. This is a great movie that is a blast to watch. I do have a feeling that there are some that may find the ending to be a little frustrating, for me though, I thought it was perfect.
Oh, and as for John Krasinski who was on starring and directing duties, this is a great project for him that he comes out of brilliantly on both counts. This could be the film that throws him into A-list movie status and whether it’s in front or behind the camera, I’m eager to see what he does next.
We don’t really get much background to the characters or the situation that has unfolded on the planet when these creatures arrive. As such, it’s a disorientating experience to be dropped in almost in the middle of the story. That disorientation works to the movie’s effect though. We, the audience, are playing catch up and trying to piece together what is happening. That makes the first appearance of one of the creatures that much more frightening. As for the creatures, they’re a great design and whilst we don’t spend too much time with them, they’re wonderfully effective. These are the sort of creatures that I don’t want to be explained, I don’t want any backstory or sequels delving further into them; the mystery makes them far scarier.
And boy is this film scary. It’s not a typical horror movie that’s filled to the brim with jump scares (though it does have them). Instead, it’s a movie that uses its premise to make a terrible situation that much worse. Given that noise is what attracts these creatures (and they do attack within seconds of hearing something), it is to be expected that a lot of A Quiet Place would involve not making much noise. What I didn’t expect was for there to be almost none throughout the entire thing. Characters don’t really talk here and when they do it’s extremely rare. They all communicate via sign language that I assume they all learned due to having a deaf child in the family. If they do talk, it’s normally at such a whisper that subtitles are needed to let us know what they are saying. That makes the whole film so much more tense and suspenseful. When we do hear a noise, we know that something bad will most likely be descending on them in a matter of moments. I actually found myself scanning the rooms they were in, checking for things that could fall. One thing I noticed from having next to no dialogue was how much I was able to hear all the other sounds. Everything was heightened as a result and that only made the tension that much worse.
As great as all this is, it would be nothing if there wasn’t a great cast to anchor it. A Quiet Place definitely has that. All four leads are superb and they are pretty much the only human characters for the entire running time. Everyone needed to bring their A game and that they did. Krasinski and Blunt are both fantastic actors and this is some of their best work. The two obviously have a head start when it comes to having chemistry and the ease they have with one another makes the characters come across as real and genuine people. As for the kids, well there are two stars in the making here. Both of them are given some really serious material to work with and they absolutely pull it off. Nothing is oversold by anyone here. Every second of fear and terror is played perfectly and as such, I found myself sharing these emotions alongside each one of them.
A Quiet Place does have a few issues. It’s never clear what the ultimate plan is for the family, particularly with a baby on the way. What are they planning to do with it in the long term when it’s born? Babies are known for crying and not being quiet, so it was a little distracting to not have that addressed. There is also a moment to do with that pregnancy that felt extremely glossed over, but I’ll avoid specifying exactly what at the risk of spoilers. These are minor niggles though. This is a great movie that is a blast to watch. I do have a feeling that there are some that may find the ending to be a little frustrating, for me though, I thought it was perfect.
Oh, and as for John Krasinski who was on starring and directing duties, this is a great project for him that he comes out of brilliantly on both counts. This could be the film that throws him into A-list movie status and whether it’s in front or behind the camera, I’m eager to see what he does next.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Misbehaviour (2020) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
A film guide on how to sit on the fence.
It’s only 50 years ago, but the timeframe of Misbehaviour feels like a very different world. Although only 9 years old in 1970, I remember sitting around the tele with my family to enjoy the regular Eric and Julia Morley ‘cattle market’ of girls parading in national dress and swimsuits. We were not alone. At its peak in the 70’s over 18 million Britons watched the show (not surprising bearing in mind there were only three channels to choose from in 1970… no streaming… no video players… not even smartphones to distract you!)
The background.
“Misbehaviour” tells the story of this eventful 1970 Miss World competition. It was eventful for a number of reasons: the Women’s Lib movement was rising in popularity, and the event was disrupted a flour-bombing group of women in the audience; the compere Bob Hope did an appallingly misjudged and mysoginistic routine that died a death; and, after significant pressure against the apartheid regime in South Africa, the country surprised the world by sending two entrants to the show – one white (Miss South Africa) and one black (Miss Africa South).
The movie charts the events leading up to that night and some of the fallout that resulted from it.
A strong ensemble cast.
“Misbehaviour” has a great cast.
Leading the women are posh-girl Sally Alexander (Keira Knightley) and punk-girl Jo Robinson (Jessie Buckley). I’m normally a big fan of both of these ladies. But here I never felt either of them connected particularly well with their characters. In particular, Buckley (although delivering as a similar maverick in “Wild Rose“) always felt a bit forced and out of place here.
On the event organisation side is Rhys Ifans, almost unrecognisable as Eric Morley, and Keeley Hawes as Julia Morley. Ifans gets the mannerisms of the impresario spot-on (as illustrated by some real-life footage shown at the end of the film). Also splendid is funny-man Miles Jupp as their “fixer” Clive.
Less successful for me was Greg Kinnear as Bob Hope. Hope clearly has such an unusual moon-shaped face that it’s difficult to find anyone to cast as a lookalike.
Just who is exploiting who here?
There’s no question in my mind that the event, in retrospect, is obscenely inappropriate – even though, bizarrely, it still runs to this day. But my biggest problem with the movie is that it never seems to pin its colours to any particular mast. It clearly illustrates the inappropriateness of Hope’s off-colour jokes and the instruction from host Michael Aspel (Charlie Anson), asking the swimsuit models to “show their rear view” to the audience, is gobsmackingly crass.
However, the script then takes a sympathetic view to the candidates from Grenada, South Africa, etc. who are clearly ‘using their bodies’ to get a leg-up to fame and fortune back in their home countries. (Final scenes showing the woman today, clearly affluent and happy, doesn’t help with that!)
As such, the movie sits magnificently on the fence and never reaches a ‘verdict’.
The racial sub-story.
Equally problematic is the really fascinating racial sub-story: this was an event, held in a UK that was racially far less tolerant than it is today, where no black person had EVER won. Indeed, a win was in most peoples’ eyes unthinkable. This was a time when “black lives didn’t matter”. Here we have Miss Grenada (an excellent Gugu Mbatha-Raw) and the utterly captivating Miss Africa South (a debut performance by Loreece Harrison) threatening to turn the tables . There was surely potential to get a lot more value out of this aspect of the story, but it is generally un-mined.
Perhaps a problem here is that there is so much story potential around this one historical event that there is just too much to fit comfortably into one screenplay. The writers Rebecca Frayn and Gaby Chiappe end up just giving a few bursts on the liquidizer and getting a slightly grey mush.
Nostalgia – it’s not what it used to be.
All this is not to say the movie was a write off. It’s a perfectly pleasant watch and for those (like me) of a certain age, the throwback fashions, vehicles and attitudes deliver a burst of nostalgia for the flawed but rose-coloured days of my first decade on the planet.
But it all feels like a bit of a missed opportunity to properly tackle either one of the two key issues highlighted in the script. As a female-led project (the director is Philippa Lowthorpe) I really wanted this to be good. But I’m afraid for me it’s all a bit “meh”.
If asked “would you like to watch that again?”… I would probably, politely, show my rear view and decline.
The background.
“Misbehaviour” tells the story of this eventful 1970 Miss World competition. It was eventful for a number of reasons: the Women’s Lib movement was rising in popularity, and the event was disrupted a flour-bombing group of women in the audience; the compere Bob Hope did an appallingly misjudged and mysoginistic routine that died a death; and, after significant pressure against the apartheid regime in South Africa, the country surprised the world by sending two entrants to the show – one white (Miss South Africa) and one black (Miss Africa South).
The movie charts the events leading up to that night and some of the fallout that resulted from it.
A strong ensemble cast.
“Misbehaviour” has a great cast.
Leading the women are posh-girl Sally Alexander (Keira Knightley) and punk-girl Jo Robinson (Jessie Buckley). I’m normally a big fan of both of these ladies. But here I never felt either of them connected particularly well with their characters. In particular, Buckley (although delivering as a similar maverick in “Wild Rose“) always felt a bit forced and out of place here.
On the event organisation side is Rhys Ifans, almost unrecognisable as Eric Morley, and Keeley Hawes as Julia Morley. Ifans gets the mannerisms of the impresario spot-on (as illustrated by some real-life footage shown at the end of the film). Also splendid is funny-man Miles Jupp as their “fixer” Clive.
Less successful for me was Greg Kinnear as Bob Hope. Hope clearly has such an unusual moon-shaped face that it’s difficult to find anyone to cast as a lookalike.
Just who is exploiting who here?
There’s no question in my mind that the event, in retrospect, is obscenely inappropriate – even though, bizarrely, it still runs to this day. But my biggest problem with the movie is that it never seems to pin its colours to any particular mast. It clearly illustrates the inappropriateness of Hope’s off-colour jokes and the instruction from host Michael Aspel (Charlie Anson), asking the swimsuit models to “show their rear view” to the audience, is gobsmackingly crass.
However, the script then takes a sympathetic view to the candidates from Grenada, South Africa, etc. who are clearly ‘using their bodies’ to get a leg-up to fame and fortune back in their home countries. (Final scenes showing the woman today, clearly affluent and happy, doesn’t help with that!)
As such, the movie sits magnificently on the fence and never reaches a ‘verdict’.
The racial sub-story.
Equally problematic is the really fascinating racial sub-story: this was an event, held in a UK that was racially far less tolerant than it is today, where no black person had EVER won. Indeed, a win was in most peoples’ eyes unthinkable. This was a time when “black lives didn’t matter”. Here we have Miss Grenada (an excellent Gugu Mbatha-Raw) and the utterly captivating Miss Africa South (a debut performance by Loreece Harrison) threatening to turn the tables . There was surely potential to get a lot more value out of this aspect of the story, but it is generally un-mined.
Perhaps a problem here is that there is so much story potential around this one historical event that there is just too much to fit comfortably into one screenplay. The writers Rebecca Frayn and Gaby Chiappe end up just giving a few bursts on the liquidizer and getting a slightly grey mush.
Nostalgia – it’s not what it used to be.
All this is not to say the movie was a write off. It’s a perfectly pleasant watch and for those (like me) of a certain age, the throwback fashions, vehicles and attitudes deliver a burst of nostalgia for the flawed but rose-coloured days of my first decade on the planet.
But it all feels like a bit of a missed opportunity to properly tackle either one of the two key issues highlighted in the script. As a female-led project (the director is Philippa Lowthorpe) I really wanted this to be good. But I’m afraid for me it’s all a bit “meh”.
If asked “would you like to watch that again?”… I would probably, politely, show my rear view and decline.
BackToTheMovies (56 KP) rated For Love or Money (2019) in Movies
Jul 2, 2019
Featuring a wonderful British cast including Samantha Barks, Robert Kazinsky, Tony Way and Anna Chancellor we have the utterly hilarious For Love Or Money.
Our film follows Mark, a man set to inherit £20m on a secret business deal. Little does he know that Connie, a girl he was in love with for many years in high school also knows. A gold digger who hatches a plan to marry Mark to inherit half of his fortune. What Connie doesn’t know however is that quite early on Mark realises what is going on and puts a plan into action.
Labelled as an unromantic comedy this couldn’t ring truer. We have this gold digger hellbent on getting Mark’s fortune. On the flip side, we have Mark who is putting Connie through hell as punishment for her awful actions. The movie never takes itself too seriously and it’s hilarious watching Mark prank Connie at every turn. Every single member of this cast is on point throughout. The plot smoothly flows by with British cheeky charm and whilst sometimes pushes boundaries, it never gets too carried away.
Whilst the whole film does revolve around the pranks and the revenge plot there is another arc. A more subtle and emotional arc that takes place as the film draws to an end. Not the best film to watch for me personally, freshly out of a recent relationship but the film hits home in the more sensitive departments. How far someone would go for money Vs how far someone would go for love. This constant battle between the two contrasting beliefs is endearing to watch.
I can see For Love Or Money being a surprise comedy instalment for 2019. It’s sneaking under the radar. It’s shot beautifully and has a charm that has been rarely replicated in British comedies for many years. One minute you’re laughing, the next you’re welling up. It’s a rollercoaster ride that’s well worth the watch!
Our film follows Mark, a man set to inherit £20m on a secret business deal. Little does he know that Connie, a girl he was in love with for many years in high school also knows. A gold digger who hatches a plan to marry Mark to inherit half of his fortune. What Connie doesn’t know however is that quite early on Mark realises what is going on and puts a plan into action.
Labelled as an unromantic comedy this couldn’t ring truer. We have this gold digger hellbent on getting Mark’s fortune. On the flip side, we have Mark who is putting Connie through hell as punishment for her awful actions. The movie never takes itself too seriously and it’s hilarious watching Mark prank Connie at every turn. Every single member of this cast is on point throughout. The plot smoothly flows by with British cheeky charm and whilst sometimes pushes boundaries, it never gets too carried away.
Whilst the whole film does revolve around the pranks and the revenge plot there is another arc. A more subtle and emotional arc that takes place as the film draws to an end. Not the best film to watch for me personally, freshly out of a recent relationship but the film hits home in the more sensitive departments. How far someone would go for money Vs how far someone would go for love. This constant battle between the two contrasting beliefs is endearing to watch.
I can see For Love Or Money being a surprise comedy instalment for 2019. It’s sneaking under the radar. It’s shot beautifully and has a charm that has been rarely replicated in British comedies for many years. One minute you’re laughing, the next you’re welling up. It’s a rollercoaster ride that’s well worth the watch!
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated Curse of Chucky (2013) in Movies
Dec 6, 2019
A horror franchise this many movies in should be on its arse at this point, but the Child's Play series still manages to be entertaining with it's sixth entry.
After the silliness if Bride and Seed, Curse of Chucky steps back in to horror territory a bit more.
The majority of the film takes place in a creepy old house, as Chucky stalks an entirely new set of victims.
The characters this time around aren't hugely likable, except for Nica (played by Fiona Dourif, Brad Dourif's daughter). Not only is she likable and realistic final girl type, but she pretty badass as well. She is also wheelchair bound, which is a refreshing direction to take in this kind of film, and her disability adds a whole new dynamic to the Chucky series and just makes her more badass.
The plot itself is straightforward slasher material, but the last 20 minutes or so, really hammer home the movies connections to the original film, and the rest of the series. The ret con of Charles Lee Ray's origins and work a treat, and learning about more about him is an unexpected highlight.
The Chucky doll this time around looks weird. Really unsettling actually. There's a semi twist halfway through that actually has something to do with the way Chucky looks, and he's still pretty horrible looking.
The effects are mostly passable - there's a kill quite early on involving a car, that boasts some genuinely impressive practical effects, but it does mean towards CGI after that. Not always a bad thing mind, but there's one shit in particular of Chucky walking down a staircase... It's could have been so so good, but the obvious CGI is horrible...bleughh.
Other than that though, Don Mancini throws some decent camera work at us (the title card is an early highlight) and he successfully makes Curse of Chucky into a decent little horror movie.
After the silliness if Bride and Seed, Curse of Chucky steps back in to horror territory a bit more.
The majority of the film takes place in a creepy old house, as Chucky stalks an entirely new set of victims.
The characters this time around aren't hugely likable, except for Nica (played by Fiona Dourif, Brad Dourif's daughter). Not only is she likable and realistic final girl type, but she pretty badass as well. She is also wheelchair bound, which is a refreshing direction to take in this kind of film, and her disability adds a whole new dynamic to the Chucky series and just makes her more badass.
The plot itself is straightforward slasher material, but the last 20 minutes or so, really hammer home the movies connections to the original film, and the rest of the series. The ret con of Charles Lee Ray's origins and work a treat, and learning about more about him is an unexpected highlight.
The Chucky doll this time around looks weird. Really unsettling actually. There's a semi twist halfway through that actually has something to do with the way Chucky looks, and he's still pretty horrible looking.
The effects are mostly passable - there's a kill quite early on involving a car, that boasts some genuinely impressive practical effects, but it does mean towards CGI after that. Not always a bad thing mind, but there's one shit in particular of Chucky walking down a staircase... It's could have been so so good, but the obvious CGI is horrible...bleughh.
Other than that though, Don Mancini throws some decent camera work at us (the title card is an early highlight) and he successfully makes Curse of Chucky into a decent little horror movie.
Kelly Knows (95 KP) rated The House of Doors in Books
Jun 28, 2019
Worlds of Horror
Wow, what a fantastic book. I am still surprised this story has not been optioned for a movie adaptation. House of Doors is a unique tale with a simple concept, the age old question of man meets aliens and how that first contact would go down. What if we were tested? Brutally? Would we measure up? This book answers those questions and more in terrifying fashion. Brian Lumley spins a rich tale of daring and adventure, with a new even more terrifying world behind each door the characters open. The illustrative text will illuminate wondrous monsters in your mind and fill your head to the brim with images of strange worlds twisted by alien machinery, born of the desires and fears within us all. The alien species in this story is unlike anything you've seen before. The characters are witty and engaging. Even the ones you hate are written so well you can't help but question your instinct to despise them. My personal favorite aspects of this book are the world designs. No spoilers, you'll just have to find out what I mean, but it is seriously awesome. Also bringing a lot to this fast paced thrill ride is the main character, Spencer Gill. A wry, clever man with more to him than meets the eye, Spencer Gill reminds me of the Indiana Jones/Jack Ryan, kind of heroes I grew up admiring. All of the characters involved have their moments to shine, whether it be a bright light or a darker moment. Even the sinister alien Thone get a role in the narrative in an unlikely writing style that pays off the investment, with interest. This is the kind of book that gets you into reading books, and if you like it, there is a pretty good sequel as well. Sci-fi and horror clash spectacularly as humanity finds out if they measure up, and the terrible consequences that will occur if they don't.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood (2019) in Movies
Aug 28, 2020 (Updated Aug 28, 2020)
A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood is genuinely wonderful.
Like any good drama, it if course has its somber moments, but the overall atmosphere is so heart warming, it honestly feels like a lovely hug, but one of those lovely hugs that makes you cry because life is hard sometimes.
Growing up in the UK, I never watched Mr Rogers, but was always aware of him, and just how much he meant to a massive number of people. This film is less a biopic, and concentrates firmly one one point of Fred Rogers life, namely when he met Tom Junod (presented here as fictional character Lloyd Vogel), a journalist writing for Esquire and profiling Mr Rogers for a piece on American Heroes.
Lloyd is a cynical person, who doesn't hold much love for his fellow man. This begins to change as he spends more time with Fred, a man who truly sees the good in everyone.
At the same time, Lloyd's estranged father is trying to reconnect with him, forcing him to relive past trauma as he struggles to forgive.
It's all very emotionally charged, but wrapped up neatly in Oscar-baiting packaging.
Tom Hanks as Mr Rogers, and Matthew Rhys as Lloyd are nothing short of excellent. Their chemistry is thoroughly believable. Tom Hanks is at the top of his game here, just as much as he has ever been.
The supporting cast are great as well, especially Susan Kelechi Watson and Chris Cooper.
ABDITN also looks fantastic. The contrast of real life drama to dream like sequences within Mr Rogers' show is an inspired choice by director Marielle Heller, and the use of model cars and cities as segues is effective.
The original score by her brother Nate Heller is just downright pleasant.
Overall, A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood is a decent drama about the importance of family, and what it means to love others, whilst remaining a well written love letter to Feed Rogers himself. It's just a really swell movie, definitely check it out.
Like any good drama, it if course has its somber moments, but the overall atmosphere is so heart warming, it honestly feels like a lovely hug, but one of those lovely hugs that makes you cry because life is hard sometimes.
Growing up in the UK, I never watched Mr Rogers, but was always aware of him, and just how much he meant to a massive number of people. This film is less a biopic, and concentrates firmly one one point of Fred Rogers life, namely when he met Tom Junod (presented here as fictional character Lloyd Vogel), a journalist writing for Esquire and profiling Mr Rogers for a piece on American Heroes.
Lloyd is a cynical person, who doesn't hold much love for his fellow man. This begins to change as he spends more time with Fred, a man who truly sees the good in everyone.
At the same time, Lloyd's estranged father is trying to reconnect with him, forcing him to relive past trauma as he struggles to forgive.
It's all very emotionally charged, but wrapped up neatly in Oscar-baiting packaging.
Tom Hanks as Mr Rogers, and Matthew Rhys as Lloyd are nothing short of excellent. Their chemistry is thoroughly believable. Tom Hanks is at the top of his game here, just as much as he has ever been.
The supporting cast are great as well, especially Susan Kelechi Watson and Chris Cooper.
ABDITN also looks fantastic. The contrast of real life drama to dream like sequences within Mr Rogers' show is an inspired choice by director Marielle Heller, and the use of model cars and cities as segues is effective.
The original score by her brother Nate Heller is just downright pleasant.
Overall, A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood is a decent drama about the importance of family, and what it means to love others, whilst remaining a well written love letter to Feed Rogers himself. It's just a really swell movie, definitely check it out.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated The Upside (2019) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Not the 5* French classic, but a fun and moving movie nonetheless.
So, the movie-going audience for this film will divide into two categories:
Category A: those that have seen the original 2011 French classic “The Intouchables” that this is based on, and;
Category B: those that haven’t.
2011 is just before I started “One Mann’s Movies”, but “The Intouchables” would have got 5* from me, no problem.
This movie joins a list of standout European movies – for example, “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”; “Let The Right One In”; “Sleepless Night”; etc. – that have had Hollywood “makeovers” that don’t match up to the originals. And this is no exception. However, it’s still been well made and deserves respect as a standalone piece of movie-making.
The Plot
Based on a true story, Phillip Lacasse (Bryan Cranston) is left both paraplegic and widowed by a string of bad luck. Not that money can buy you everything, but his care arrangements are substantially helped by him being a multi-millionaire (“Not rich enough to buy The Yankees; Rich enough to buy The Mets”). This is from success in investments and writing about such investments.
Depressed, cranky and with a “DNR” that his diligent PA Yvonne (Nicole Kidman) seems unable to comply with, Phillip lashes out at anyone and everyone and so dispatches his carers with monotonous regularity. Dell Scott (Kevin Hart) is on parole, with the requirement to seek work. Due to a mix-up, he finds himself in the employ of Phillip: with the suspicion that he’s been hired because he is the very worst candidate imaginable, and thus the most likely to let Phillip shuffle off this mortal coil. But the two men’s antipathy to each other slowly thaws as they teach each other new tricks.
Pin left in the grenade
Those who have seen “The Intouchables” will fondly remember the first 5 minutes of that film: a flash-forward to a manic police car-chase featuring our protagonists (there played by François Cluzet and Omar Sy). It drops like a comedy hand-grenade to open the film. Unfortunately, you can’t help but feel a bit let down by the same re-creation in “The Upside”. It has all the same content but none of the heart.
After that rocky start, the film continues to rather stutter along. Part of the reason for this I think is Kevin Hart. It’s not that he’s particularly bad in the role: it’s just that he IS Kevin Hart, and I was constantly thinking “there’s that comedian playing that role”.
However, once the story gets into its swing, giving Cranston more of a chance to shine (which he does), then the film started to motor and my reservations about Hart started to wane. Some of these story set pieces – such as the one about the art work – are punch-the-air funny in their own right. Cranston’s timing in delivering his punchlines is immaculate.
This IS what actors do
There seems to have been some furore about the casting of Bryan Cranston as the role of the disabled millionaire instead of a disabled actor. Lord save us! He’s an actor! That’s what actors do for a living: pretend to be people they’re not! It’s also worth pointing out that François Cluzet was an able-bodied actor as well.
As already mentioned, Bryan Cranston excels in the role. Phillip goes through such a wide range of emotions from despair to pure joy and back again that you can’t help but be impressed by the performance.
On the female side of the cast, it’s really nice to see Nicole Kidman in such a quiet and understated role and it’s nicely done; Aja Naomi King does a nice job as Dell’s protective ex-girlfriend Latrice; and there’s a nice female cameo as well, which I won’t spoil since I wasn’t expecting to see her in the film.
Final Thoughts
As a standalone film it has some laugh-out-loud moments, some feelgood highs and some moments of real pathos. The audience I saw this with was small, but there was still a buzz in the room and sporadic applause as the end titles came up: God only knows that’s unusual for a film!
The director is “Limitless” and “Divergent” director Neil Burger, and it’s a perfectly fun and innocent night out at the flicks that I commend to the house in this month of celluloid awards heavyweights.
Category A: those that have seen the original 2011 French classic “The Intouchables” that this is based on, and;
Category B: those that haven’t.
2011 is just before I started “One Mann’s Movies”, but “The Intouchables” would have got 5* from me, no problem.
This movie joins a list of standout European movies – for example, “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”; “Let The Right One In”; “Sleepless Night”; etc. – that have had Hollywood “makeovers” that don’t match up to the originals. And this is no exception. However, it’s still been well made and deserves respect as a standalone piece of movie-making.
The Plot
Based on a true story, Phillip Lacasse (Bryan Cranston) is left both paraplegic and widowed by a string of bad luck. Not that money can buy you everything, but his care arrangements are substantially helped by him being a multi-millionaire (“Not rich enough to buy The Yankees; Rich enough to buy The Mets”). This is from success in investments and writing about such investments.
Depressed, cranky and with a “DNR” that his diligent PA Yvonne (Nicole Kidman) seems unable to comply with, Phillip lashes out at anyone and everyone and so dispatches his carers with monotonous regularity. Dell Scott (Kevin Hart) is on parole, with the requirement to seek work. Due to a mix-up, he finds himself in the employ of Phillip: with the suspicion that he’s been hired because he is the very worst candidate imaginable, and thus the most likely to let Phillip shuffle off this mortal coil. But the two men’s antipathy to each other slowly thaws as they teach each other new tricks.
Pin left in the grenade
Those who have seen “The Intouchables” will fondly remember the first 5 minutes of that film: a flash-forward to a manic police car-chase featuring our protagonists (there played by François Cluzet and Omar Sy). It drops like a comedy hand-grenade to open the film. Unfortunately, you can’t help but feel a bit let down by the same re-creation in “The Upside”. It has all the same content but none of the heart.
After that rocky start, the film continues to rather stutter along. Part of the reason for this I think is Kevin Hart. It’s not that he’s particularly bad in the role: it’s just that he IS Kevin Hart, and I was constantly thinking “there’s that comedian playing that role”.
However, once the story gets into its swing, giving Cranston more of a chance to shine (which he does), then the film started to motor and my reservations about Hart started to wane. Some of these story set pieces – such as the one about the art work – are punch-the-air funny in their own right. Cranston’s timing in delivering his punchlines is immaculate.
This IS what actors do
There seems to have been some furore about the casting of Bryan Cranston as the role of the disabled millionaire instead of a disabled actor. Lord save us! He’s an actor! That’s what actors do for a living: pretend to be people they’re not! It’s also worth pointing out that François Cluzet was an able-bodied actor as well.
As already mentioned, Bryan Cranston excels in the role. Phillip goes through such a wide range of emotions from despair to pure joy and back again that you can’t help but be impressed by the performance.
On the female side of the cast, it’s really nice to see Nicole Kidman in such a quiet and understated role and it’s nicely done; Aja Naomi King does a nice job as Dell’s protective ex-girlfriend Latrice; and there’s a nice female cameo as well, which I won’t spoil since I wasn’t expecting to see her in the film.
Final Thoughts
As a standalone film it has some laugh-out-loud moments, some feelgood highs and some moments of real pathos. The audience I saw this with was small, but there was still a buzz in the room and sporadic applause as the end titles came up: God only knows that’s unusual for a film!
The director is “Limitless” and “Divergent” director Neil Burger, and it’s a perfectly fun and innocent night out at the flicks that I commend to the house in this month of celluloid awards heavyweights.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Spielberg (2017) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
On making Drew Barrymore cry.
“Spielberg” is an HBO-produced documentary by documentarian Susan Lacy. You’ll never guess who the subject is?!
Steven Spielberg is a product of one of the most surprising revolutions in Hollywood in the late 70’s: one of a set of wunderkind directors alongside such luminaries as George Lucas, Francis Ford Coppola, John Milius, Brian De Palma and Martin Scorcese. These men (only men, it should be noted!) were ready to cock a snook at Hollywood’s traditional studio system to break rules (case in point, Star Wars’ lack of opening credits) and move cinema into the format that would last to this day.
As this excellent documentary makes clear, Spielberg was one of the least rebellious of the movie-brats. Even though (astoundingly) he blagged himself a production office at Universal (after hiding during the Tram Tour toilet stop!), his path to the top was through hard graft on multiple Universal TV shows, after recognition of his talents by Universal exec Sidney Sheinberg who speaks in the film.
Before we get to that stage of his life, we cover his childhood back-story as a reluctant Jew living in a non-Jewish neighbourhood, driven to fill his time with tormenting his sisters and movie-making with a Super 8 camera. Scenes of home videos, photos and his early attempts at special effects are all fascinating. The impact of his Bohemian mother Leah and workaholic father Arnold, and particularly the very surprising relationship breakdown that happened between them, go a long way to explain the constant return to ‘father issues’ in many of his films such as “E.T.”, “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”, “Hook” and “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade”.
The majority of the film though settles down into a roughly chronological review of the highlights of his movie career, with particular emphasis justly being placed on some of the key watershed moments in that career. Most of his films get at least a mention, but “Jaws”, “E.T.”, “Schindler’s List”, “The Color Purple”, “Jurassic Park”, “Munich” and “Empire of the Sun” get more focus. It is such a wonderful trip down my cinematic memory lane. I also forget just what cinematic majesty and craftsmanship is present in these films: I just hope that at some point this will get a Blu-Ray or DVD release so it can be properly appreciated (rather than viewing it on a tiny airplane screen which is how I watched this): the combination of film clips in here is breathtaking.
As might be expected for a documentary about the great director, there is plenty of ‘behind the camera’ footage on show, some of which is fascinating. Spielberg could always get the very best performances out of the youngsters on set, from Cary Guffey (“Toys!!”) in “Close Encounters” to a heartbreaking scene where he reduces the young Drew Barrymore to howls of emotion in “E.T.”. A master at work.
All of the movie scenes are accompanied by new interview footage from Spielberg himself, as well as warm platitudes from many of the luminaries he has worked with in the past. Directors involved include many of the the directors referenced above, as well as those modern directors influenced by him such as J.J. Abrams; his go-to cinematographers Vilmos Zsigmond and Janusz Kaminski; his ‘go-to’ composer John Williams; and stars including his go-to ‘everyman’ Richard Dreyfuss, Tom Cruise, Harrison Ford, Bob Balaban, Tom Hanks, Opray Winfrey, Leonardo DiCaprio, Christian Bale, Dustin Hoffman and James Brolin. Some of these comments are useful and insightful; some are just fairly meaningless sound bites that add nothing to the film. What all the comments are though is almost all uniformly positive.
And that’s my only criticism of the film. Like me, Susan Lacy is clearly a big fan. It is probably quite hard to find anyone who isn’t…. but perhaps Ms Lacy should have tried a bit harder! There is only limited focus on his big comedy flop of 1979, “1941”, and no mention at all of his lowest WW grossing film “Always”. And there are only a few contributors – notably film critic Janet Maslin – who are willing to stick their head above the parapet and prod into Spielberg’s weaknesses; ostensibly his tendency to veer to the sentimental and away from harder issues: the omitted “Color Purple” ‘mirror scene’ being a case in point.
This is a recommended watch for Spielberg fans. On the eve of the launch of his latest – “Ready Player One”, a film that I am personally dubious about from the trailer – it’s a great insight into the life and works of the great man. It could though have cut a slightly harder and more critical edge.
Steven Spielberg is a product of one of the most surprising revolutions in Hollywood in the late 70’s: one of a set of wunderkind directors alongside such luminaries as George Lucas, Francis Ford Coppola, John Milius, Brian De Palma and Martin Scorcese. These men (only men, it should be noted!) were ready to cock a snook at Hollywood’s traditional studio system to break rules (case in point, Star Wars’ lack of opening credits) and move cinema into the format that would last to this day.
As this excellent documentary makes clear, Spielberg was one of the least rebellious of the movie-brats. Even though (astoundingly) he blagged himself a production office at Universal (after hiding during the Tram Tour toilet stop!), his path to the top was through hard graft on multiple Universal TV shows, after recognition of his talents by Universal exec Sidney Sheinberg who speaks in the film.
Before we get to that stage of his life, we cover his childhood back-story as a reluctant Jew living in a non-Jewish neighbourhood, driven to fill his time with tormenting his sisters and movie-making with a Super 8 camera. Scenes of home videos, photos and his early attempts at special effects are all fascinating. The impact of his Bohemian mother Leah and workaholic father Arnold, and particularly the very surprising relationship breakdown that happened between them, go a long way to explain the constant return to ‘father issues’ in many of his films such as “E.T.”, “Close Encounters of the Third Kind”, “Hook” and “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade”.
The majority of the film though settles down into a roughly chronological review of the highlights of his movie career, with particular emphasis justly being placed on some of the key watershed moments in that career. Most of his films get at least a mention, but “Jaws”, “E.T.”, “Schindler’s List”, “The Color Purple”, “Jurassic Park”, “Munich” and “Empire of the Sun” get more focus. It is such a wonderful trip down my cinematic memory lane. I also forget just what cinematic majesty and craftsmanship is present in these films: I just hope that at some point this will get a Blu-Ray or DVD release so it can be properly appreciated (rather than viewing it on a tiny airplane screen which is how I watched this): the combination of film clips in here is breathtaking.
As might be expected for a documentary about the great director, there is plenty of ‘behind the camera’ footage on show, some of which is fascinating. Spielberg could always get the very best performances out of the youngsters on set, from Cary Guffey (“Toys!!”) in “Close Encounters” to a heartbreaking scene where he reduces the young Drew Barrymore to howls of emotion in “E.T.”. A master at work.
All of the movie scenes are accompanied by new interview footage from Spielberg himself, as well as warm platitudes from many of the luminaries he has worked with in the past. Directors involved include many of the the directors referenced above, as well as those modern directors influenced by him such as J.J. Abrams; his go-to cinematographers Vilmos Zsigmond and Janusz Kaminski; his ‘go-to’ composer John Williams; and stars including his go-to ‘everyman’ Richard Dreyfuss, Tom Cruise, Harrison Ford, Bob Balaban, Tom Hanks, Opray Winfrey, Leonardo DiCaprio, Christian Bale, Dustin Hoffman and James Brolin. Some of these comments are useful and insightful; some are just fairly meaningless sound bites that add nothing to the film. What all the comments are though is almost all uniformly positive.
And that’s my only criticism of the film. Like me, Susan Lacy is clearly a big fan. It is probably quite hard to find anyone who isn’t…. but perhaps Ms Lacy should have tried a bit harder! There is only limited focus on his big comedy flop of 1979, “1941”, and no mention at all of his lowest WW grossing film “Always”. And there are only a few contributors – notably film critic Janet Maslin – who are willing to stick their head above the parapet and prod into Spielberg’s weaknesses; ostensibly his tendency to veer to the sentimental and away from harder issues: the omitted “Color Purple” ‘mirror scene’ being a case in point.
This is a recommended watch for Spielberg fans. On the eve of the launch of his latest – “Ready Player One”, a film that I am personally dubious about from the trailer – it’s a great insight into the life and works of the great man. It could though have cut a slightly harder and more critical edge.
Neon's Nerd Nexus (360 KP) rated The Lion King (2019) in Movies
Jul 19, 2019 (Updated Jul 19, 2019)
If this is where the monarchy is headed Count me out!
Lion king 2019 is by far the worst of the Disney live action remakes & while newcomers/children will certainly love it many of the people that hold the original close to their hearts will leave wishing they had just stayed home with the far superior predecessor instead. Aladdin & The Lion King are two of the greatest animated feature films of all time & as I experienced them both in cinema on release they are very special to me. Now i loved the Aladdin remake & im not one for comparing these to the animated features but while I was watching this all i could think about was how much better the original is. While it looks absolutely gorgeous (until anything starts to move) the animation at times is so unnatural especially when animals are walking slowly that its constantly distracting & kills the illusion of these creatures being real. Voice work is bland/mediocre & delivered with almost no enthusiasm at all like the cast were more concerned with sounding different to the original than giving the characters charm & personality. Voices also dont feel connected to the characters like your watching a nature documentary thats been dubbed over. While Aladdin did its own thing & changed up the movie Lion King is practically & infuriatingly a scene for scene remake which would be ok if it had the charm, colour, grand scale, imagination, excitement, thrill, humour & emotional impact of the original but it doesnt. Songs are butchered/dull with seemingly no energy or spectacle to them at all feeling significantly toned down/grounded rather than fun & toe tapping (they have also ruined 'Be Prepared'). So whats new? theres new humour & yup you guessed it its really bad with awkward timing & dragged out jokes that just fall flat. I wanted so bad to love this movie but not even a scense of nostalgia kicked in either because the film is just soulless, unenthusiastic, boring, bland, lacking in excitement & magic. Kids will no doubt love it but for me its this years biggest let down. If it were a silent film with an epic score over the top it might of at least been unique/watchable & helped be bearable but as it is I just cant recomend seeing it. A big fat cash grab.
LeftSideCut (3776 KP) rated The Cabin in the Woods (2012) in Movies
Dec 29, 2019 (Updated Jan 22, 2020)
I absolutely love The Cabin in the Woods. It's masquerades as a straight up horror flick but with a ridiculous curve ball thrown in(no spoilers here, but seriously, watch it already!), that manages to subvert everything you would expect from a standard slasher type horror.
The cast are all great - Kristen Connolly, Chris Hemsworth, Anna Hutchison, Fran Kranz, and Jesse Williams - all play typically heightened stereotypes of the kind of run of the mill teenage cannon fodder you usually find within the genre, and with the film's tongue firmly in cheek, it hard to not like any of them.
Then you also have Richard Jenkins and Bradley Whitford providing the majority of the comic relief, and the two of them together are pretty funny, and seem to be having a ball filming.
The narrative of The Cabin in the Woods is the secret ingredient here though. It's fun, it's different, and when the aforementioned twist arrives, it shifts heard pretty quickly, providing one if the most absurd and memorable final acts I've seen in a horror movie.
The gore and violence on display is truly astonishing, and it's nice to see that the effects teams on board used a lot of practical effects to achieve a lot of this, with digital effects used only when necessary. The costume designs for a certain aspect of the film are fantastic as well (still trying to avoid spoilers).
I can't for the life of me see why anyone who likes horror wouldn't get a kick out of The Cabin in the Woods. It tries to do something different, and in my opinion pulls it off with flying bloody colours, and is easily one of my favourite horrors out there.
The cast are all great - Kristen Connolly, Chris Hemsworth, Anna Hutchison, Fran Kranz, and Jesse Williams - all play typically heightened stereotypes of the kind of run of the mill teenage cannon fodder you usually find within the genre, and with the film's tongue firmly in cheek, it hard to not like any of them.
Then you also have Richard Jenkins and Bradley Whitford providing the majority of the comic relief, and the two of them together are pretty funny, and seem to be having a ball filming.
The narrative of The Cabin in the Woods is the secret ingredient here though. It's fun, it's different, and when the aforementioned twist arrives, it shifts heard pretty quickly, providing one if the most absurd and memorable final acts I've seen in a horror movie.
The gore and violence on display is truly astonishing, and it's nice to see that the effects teams on board used a lot of practical effects to achieve a lot of this, with digital effects used only when necessary. The costume designs for a certain aspect of the film are fantastic as well (still trying to avoid spoilers).
I can't for the life of me see why anyone who likes horror wouldn't get a kick out of The Cabin in the Woods. It tries to do something different, and in my opinion pulls it off with flying bloody colours, and is easily one of my favourite horrors out there.