Search
Search results
BankofMarquis (1832 KP) rated Black Panther: Wakanda Forever (2022) in Movies
Nov 18, 2022
Should have been called WAKANDA MOURNS
The passing of Chadwick Boseman from cancer is a unfortunate and sad thing. The makers of the Black Panther series of films for the MCU had a difficult task to accomplish. How do they pay tribute to their lost lead while also leading the series in a new direction? In the end, they ultimately decided to lean INTO (and not away from) his passing - and your emotional involvement in this film will be predicated on how you react to this, for basing an entire SuperHero Movie on grief and longing for a return to the past is not going to make the “feel good movie of the year”.
Directed and Written (with Joe Robert Cole) by Ryan Coogler (he of the first BLACK PANTHER film), BLACK PANTHER:WAKANDA FOREVER starts on a somber note with the off-screen passing of King T’Chala and the grief and celebration of life for him by his Sister Suri (Letitia Wright) and Mother Queen Ramonda (Angela Basset), both of whom are reprising their roles from previous MCU outings. This is all well and good and Basset, especially, shines in these early parts of the film for she is one of the best actresses working today and she rises above the material (and, if I’m honest, the other actors on the screen) to show actual grief and sorrow on the screen. Some are calling for her to be nominated for an Oscar for this role and she would be a deserved recipient of this.
With that out of the way, it’s time for this film to move on to it’s current adventure and the emergence of a new Black Panther. But, Coogler doesn’t do that, he hangs onto the grief, anger and sorrow that is being felt and this mood permeates the entire film - to, ultimately, it’s detriment.
Newcomer (at least to the MCU) Tenoch Huerta (THE FOREVER PURGE) shows up as Namor, the Sub-Mariner, the villain of the piece and he is formidable enough but with the lack of a Black Panther to battle him, it doesn’t seem like a fair fight. Suri, Okoye (Danai Gurira), M’Baku (Winston Duke) and the Dora Milaje (with Florence Kasumba and Michaela Coel being at the forefront - and they are terrific) all are game at the battles and trying to make it to the forefront. But this Wakandan group needed something.
They needed Chadwick Boseman.
While Angela Bassett was the star power the film needed in the first half of the film, Lupita Nyong’o filled that bill in the 2nd half and it was comforting to see her - and her character, Nakia - back in the MCU.
Unfortunately, the character that didn’t really gel was the catalyst to the conflict, Riri Williams (and her MCU SuperHero alter-ego Ironheart) played by Dominique Thorne. This character felt tacked onto this story and her Superhero origins were not really explained, so one will just need to “go with me here” on this one.
Because their is no real emotional center to the battles, they felt like CGI forces fighting CGI forces and the underwater scenery was “fine” but nothing special.
As stated earlier, this film has a dour, mourning mood to it throughout, making it feel more like a morose DC film than a life-affirming, fun MCU film. So just be prepared for that.
BLACK PANTHER: WAKANDA FOREVER should have been titled BLACK PANTHER: WAKANDA MOURNS and it would have been a more accurate title.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Directed and Written (with Joe Robert Cole) by Ryan Coogler (he of the first BLACK PANTHER film), BLACK PANTHER:WAKANDA FOREVER starts on a somber note with the off-screen passing of King T’Chala and the grief and celebration of life for him by his Sister Suri (Letitia Wright) and Mother Queen Ramonda (Angela Basset), both of whom are reprising their roles from previous MCU outings. This is all well and good and Basset, especially, shines in these early parts of the film for she is one of the best actresses working today and she rises above the material (and, if I’m honest, the other actors on the screen) to show actual grief and sorrow on the screen. Some are calling for her to be nominated for an Oscar for this role and she would be a deserved recipient of this.
With that out of the way, it’s time for this film to move on to it’s current adventure and the emergence of a new Black Panther. But, Coogler doesn’t do that, he hangs onto the grief, anger and sorrow that is being felt and this mood permeates the entire film - to, ultimately, it’s detriment.
Newcomer (at least to the MCU) Tenoch Huerta (THE FOREVER PURGE) shows up as Namor, the Sub-Mariner, the villain of the piece and he is formidable enough but with the lack of a Black Panther to battle him, it doesn’t seem like a fair fight. Suri, Okoye (Danai Gurira), M’Baku (Winston Duke) and the Dora Milaje (with Florence Kasumba and Michaela Coel being at the forefront - and they are terrific) all are game at the battles and trying to make it to the forefront. But this Wakandan group needed something.
They needed Chadwick Boseman.
While Angela Bassett was the star power the film needed in the first half of the film, Lupita Nyong’o filled that bill in the 2nd half and it was comforting to see her - and her character, Nakia - back in the MCU.
Unfortunately, the character that didn’t really gel was the catalyst to the conflict, Riri Williams (and her MCU SuperHero alter-ego Ironheart) played by Dominique Thorne. This character felt tacked onto this story and her Superhero origins were not really explained, so one will just need to “go with me here” on this one.
Because their is no real emotional center to the battles, they felt like CGI forces fighting CGI forces and the underwater scenery was “fine” but nothing special.
As stated earlier, this film has a dour, mourning mood to it throughout, making it feel more like a morose DC film than a life-affirming, fun MCU film. So just be prepared for that.
BLACK PANTHER: WAKANDA FOREVER should have been titled BLACK PANTHER: WAKANDA MOURNS and it would have been a more accurate title.
Letter Grade: B
7 stars (out of 10) and you can take that to the Bank(ofMarquis)
Kristy H (1252 KP) rated An Unwanted Guest in Books
Mar 11, 2019
Eerie read with a rather tidy ending
Mitchell's Inn is a lovely lodge far away from the hustle and bustle of it all--there's no wifi, just a relaxing setting, good food, and comfortable rooms. But this particular weekend, things go awry when a bad storm hits, covering the Inn in ice and knocking out the power: there's no phone service or the ability for anyone to leave the premises. Then, by morning, one of the guests is dead. It could be an accident, but no one can say for sure. And when the second guest dies, it's certain: they are trapped with a murderer. There's no power, no contact with the world, and someone is slowly killing them off. Is someone else next and how do the remaining guests stay safe?
"It feels like they're playing at something, some sort of parlor game, or murder mystery evening, with the lights out. Only no one's having fun."
Believe it or not, I've never read a book by Shari Lapena, but I was drawn to this one due to the Agatha Christie comparisons, as I'm a sucker for anything similar to Christie. And this one definitely had some likenesses, with the guests trapped in the Inn, limiting our pool of suspects (and victims). Weirdly enough, my brain kept occasionally going to the movie Clue too - silly, I know, but something about the setting!
This book draws you in from the beginning; the first death happens fairly quickly. There are a lot of characters to keep track of: most are in pairs, and I found myself flipping back a page or two trying to remember who was attached to whom for a while. The narration style is in very short paragraphs, each from the perspective of a different guest. This gives you a bit of whiplash feel at times, as you never really get to fully immerse yourself in anyone's point of view. Still, while I did feel things slowed slightly after the first death, for the most part it keeps things moving fairly quickly and lets you see things from a variety of sides.
Lapena is also very descriptive and sets the scene well. It's easy to picture this lovely Inn--which quickly turns dark and disastrous. The book is actually creepy and eerie at times; I won't go into detail as to why, to avoid spoilers, but I definitely found myself a little spooked. In fact, I was surprised the guests were so calm in the beginning, what with a dead woman and no power! (Don't worry, it won't last.) The novel allows you to think how you'd feel in that particular situation. It certainly doesn't encourage you to go vacation at a remote Inn anytime soon.
I was certainly completely perplexed at whodunnit, so kudos to Lapena for that. With such a limited cast of characters (and getting slimmer every moment), that's quite a feat. I thought the ending was a bit tidy and I was left feeling oddly letdown; I'm not sure I can even explain why.
Overall, I enjoyed this one even I didn't wildly love it. It does have a bit of a Christie feel to it, and it kept me guessing. The scene setting is excellent, and I liked the eerie, trapped sense I felt while reading. It wraps up a tad neatly, but I'd still recommend it.
"It feels like they're playing at something, some sort of parlor game, or murder mystery evening, with the lights out. Only no one's having fun."
Believe it or not, I've never read a book by Shari Lapena, but I was drawn to this one due to the Agatha Christie comparisons, as I'm a sucker for anything similar to Christie. And this one definitely had some likenesses, with the guests trapped in the Inn, limiting our pool of suspects (and victims). Weirdly enough, my brain kept occasionally going to the movie Clue too - silly, I know, but something about the setting!
This book draws you in from the beginning; the first death happens fairly quickly. There are a lot of characters to keep track of: most are in pairs, and I found myself flipping back a page or two trying to remember who was attached to whom for a while. The narration style is in very short paragraphs, each from the perspective of a different guest. This gives you a bit of whiplash feel at times, as you never really get to fully immerse yourself in anyone's point of view. Still, while I did feel things slowed slightly after the first death, for the most part it keeps things moving fairly quickly and lets you see things from a variety of sides.
Lapena is also very descriptive and sets the scene well. It's easy to picture this lovely Inn--which quickly turns dark and disastrous. The book is actually creepy and eerie at times; I won't go into detail as to why, to avoid spoilers, but I definitely found myself a little spooked. In fact, I was surprised the guests were so calm in the beginning, what with a dead woman and no power! (Don't worry, it won't last.) The novel allows you to think how you'd feel in that particular situation. It certainly doesn't encourage you to go vacation at a remote Inn anytime soon.
I was certainly completely perplexed at whodunnit, so kudos to Lapena for that. With such a limited cast of characters (and getting slimmer every moment), that's quite a feat. I thought the ending was a bit tidy and I was left feeling oddly letdown; I'm not sure I can even explain why.
Overall, I enjoyed this one even I didn't wildly love it. It does have a bit of a Christie feel to it, and it kept me guessing. The scene setting is excellent, and I liked the eerie, trapped sense I felt while reading. It wraps up a tad neatly, but I'd still recommend it.
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Black Mirror: Bandersnatch (2018) in Movies
Mar 3, 2020
Over a year on from this novelty being the first fully interactive film released by Netflix there is still no evidence of a similarly user controlled show out there. The streaming service had promised, after scooping a primetime Emmy for outstanding TV movie, that it was commissioning many more like it. But as of January 2020 they are nowhere to be seen.
Could it be that without the context of being a Black Mirror mind game, wrapped in Charlie Brooker’s clever if flimsy script, that it would just feel too intrusive and unnecessary for a mainstream drama audience? Not to mention the extra cost and hassle of filming multiple scenarios on a production. It’s fine as a distracting experiment, but would we want to have choices as a normal part of watching something?
Especially when looking back on Bandersnatch and realising that without this gimmick it is probably one of the weaker entries under the banner of Black Mirror quality. I can see how it would work well in children’s programming, as a way of keeping young audiences engaged. But beyond that, why not just play an actual video game, if an immersive interactive story that you control is what you want?
Fionn Whitehead of Dunkirk fame, does a fine job as 80s teen computer geek Stefan, as does the versatile yet under-used Will Poulter, in roles that in a straight drama would feel massively under-written. The impressive thing is how smooth the whole experience is. And you do feel increasingly uncomfortable the more you begin to influence Stefan, choosing more and more sinister actions simply out of a dark curiosity of where that will take him, and you!
The idea of reaching a dead end and having to go back to relive a moment, whilst cleverly woven in here to reflect a “choose your own adventure” book, does become a fault and a bit annoying. Something of a cheat! What would be truly impressive would be to branch the story in ways that never allow you to go back, but still results in the story making sense. Although the logistics of that script boggles the mind.
I do like the idea of no two people ever watching the same film, sort of. I also hate it. Because a good film has enough ambiguity to encourage debate anyway, and knowing everyone has watched the same story as you feels like a shared experience. No matter how interesting it might be in theory, you can’t escape the fact that Xbox and Playstation have this covered, especially as VR gaming becomes more common.
And that is the ultimate failing of Bandersnatch, in that you can’t really talk about the story in any other way than to wonder which ending you got? Apparently, it has five possible outcomes. By the time I had gone over it and found three, I was pretty much done with it. My curiosity certainly didn’t extend to going back and discovering the consequences of every possible choice.
Would I still recommend it? Well, yes. Anyone that hasn’t tried it probably should, at least have a go, to be able to say been there, done that. Would I like to see interaction as a part of my favourite shows? Definitely not.
Could it be that without the context of being a Black Mirror mind game, wrapped in Charlie Brooker’s clever if flimsy script, that it would just feel too intrusive and unnecessary for a mainstream drama audience? Not to mention the extra cost and hassle of filming multiple scenarios on a production. It’s fine as a distracting experiment, but would we want to have choices as a normal part of watching something?
Especially when looking back on Bandersnatch and realising that without this gimmick it is probably one of the weaker entries under the banner of Black Mirror quality. I can see how it would work well in children’s programming, as a way of keeping young audiences engaged. But beyond that, why not just play an actual video game, if an immersive interactive story that you control is what you want?
Fionn Whitehead of Dunkirk fame, does a fine job as 80s teen computer geek Stefan, as does the versatile yet under-used Will Poulter, in roles that in a straight drama would feel massively under-written. The impressive thing is how smooth the whole experience is. And you do feel increasingly uncomfortable the more you begin to influence Stefan, choosing more and more sinister actions simply out of a dark curiosity of where that will take him, and you!
The idea of reaching a dead end and having to go back to relive a moment, whilst cleverly woven in here to reflect a “choose your own adventure” book, does become a fault and a bit annoying. Something of a cheat! What would be truly impressive would be to branch the story in ways that never allow you to go back, but still results in the story making sense. Although the logistics of that script boggles the mind.
I do like the idea of no two people ever watching the same film, sort of. I also hate it. Because a good film has enough ambiguity to encourage debate anyway, and knowing everyone has watched the same story as you feels like a shared experience. No matter how interesting it might be in theory, you can’t escape the fact that Xbox and Playstation have this covered, especially as VR gaming becomes more common.
And that is the ultimate failing of Bandersnatch, in that you can’t really talk about the story in any other way than to wonder which ending you got? Apparently, it has five possible outcomes. By the time I had gone over it and found three, I was pretty much done with it. My curiosity certainly didn’t extend to going back and discovering the consequences of every possible choice.
Would I still recommend it? Well, yes. Anyone that hasn’t tried it probably should, at least have a go, to be able to say been there, done that. Would I like to see interaction as a part of my favourite shows? Definitely not.
Emma @ The Movies (1786 KP) rated An American Pickle (2020) in Movies
Aug 22, 2020
I'm not the biggest fan of Seth Rogen, his type of humour doesn't always gel with mine, but I saw a trailer that looked amusing so I figured it was something a little different to try.
Herschel and his wife Sarah get to America with hope and the dream of making the Greenbaum family a successful one. Herschel's plan is scuppered when he falls into a pickle vat at his job and isn't discovered for 100 years. The future is a very different place. Reunited with his great grandson Ben he starts to adjust to the new crazy way of life... with just a few bumps along the way.
So... I didn't hate it. It's a comedy that didn't raise many laughs, in me or the others in the screening. There were things that made me smile but I never broke the silence. It felt like a script problem rather than the acting, Rogen can deliver comedy well even if I don't find it funny.
Rogen's performances throughout were good. I couldn't help but watch for the continuity with his two roles, and apart from the frustrating shots needed to hide doubles it was all well done. He even got me with a bit of emotion which caught me by surprise... but that was something else that worked against the comedy, it felt much more like drama.
I enjoyed the different styles of the old country and modern America, the sets and costumes were well thought out and I really enjoyed the hipster joke about Herschel's clothes. But, I had an issue with the filming choice to separate the two eras. You may know from previous rants that I dislike odd aspect ratios, and ugh, why?! The film starts with "old timey" hand drawn style titles and it's shot in 1:33 (according to IMDb), when we hit modern times it reverts to a full screen size. I don't feel like there would have been anything to recover this for me but it would have been... more satisfying?... if they'd stuck to a theme. Go all out, small ratio, muted colours, grainy footage. They use the old photos a few times later in the film and some proper tie in might have been good. There's also a lot of technology based content to emphasise the differences, and that's perfectly logical but there was a lot of it. News footage popped up everywhere, TVs, computers, devices or the characters actually in it. It felt a little odd and a tad excessive.
Early on I noticed a lot of music, when Herschel meets the real world after being pickled I got a heavy Avengers/Cap vibe which almost instantly changed to something very weird and out of place. Almost as suddenly I stopped noticing the music at all, if it was still there it blended a lot better with the scenes... I'll just have to shrug my shoulders on that one.
Everything about An American Pickle is up and down, an odd but interesting story idea, a lack of laughs for a comedy, some great use of atmosphere to illustrate Ben's mood... but that all comes together (or rather it doesn't) into something that left me feeling a little pickled myself.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/08/an-american-pickle-movie-review.html
Herschel and his wife Sarah get to America with hope and the dream of making the Greenbaum family a successful one. Herschel's plan is scuppered when he falls into a pickle vat at his job and isn't discovered for 100 years. The future is a very different place. Reunited with his great grandson Ben he starts to adjust to the new crazy way of life... with just a few bumps along the way.
So... I didn't hate it. It's a comedy that didn't raise many laughs, in me or the others in the screening. There were things that made me smile but I never broke the silence. It felt like a script problem rather than the acting, Rogen can deliver comedy well even if I don't find it funny.
Rogen's performances throughout were good. I couldn't help but watch for the continuity with his two roles, and apart from the frustrating shots needed to hide doubles it was all well done. He even got me with a bit of emotion which caught me by surprise... but that was something else that worked against the comedy, it felt much more like drama.
I enjoyed the different styles of the old country and modern America, the sets and costumes were well thought out and I really enjoyed the hipster joke about Herschel's clothes. But, I had an issue with the filming choice to separate the two eras. You may know from previous rants that I dislike odd aspect ratios, and ugh, why?! The film starts with "old timey" hand drawn style titles and it's shot in 1:33 (according to IMDb), when we hit modern times it reverts to a full screen size. I don't feel like there would have been anything to recover this for me but it would have been... more satisfying?... if they'd stuck to a theme. Go all out, small ratio, muted colours, grainy footage. They use the old photos a few times later in the film and some proper tie in might have been good. There's also a lot of technology based content to emphasise the differences, and that's perfectly logical but there was a lot of it. News footage popped up everywhere, TVs, computers, devices or the characters actually in it. It felt a little odd and a tad excessive.
Early on I noticed a lot of music, when Herschel meets the real world after being pickled I got a heavy Avengers/Cap vibe which almost instantly changed to something very weird and out of place. Almost as suddenly I stopped noticing the music at all, if it was still there it blended a lot better with the scenes... I'll just have to shrug my shoulders on that one.
Everything about An American Pickle is up and down, an odd but interesting story idea, a lack of laughs for a comedy, some great use of atmosphere to illustrate Ben's mood... but that all comes together (or rather it doesn't) into something that left me feeling a little pickled myself.
Originally posted on: https://emmaatthemovies.blogspot.com/2020/08/an-american-pickle-movie-review.html
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Black Panther (2018) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Black Ops.
There was a joke on the internet the other day that made me laugh and laugh. Virtually the only white people in “Black Panther” are the Hobbit/LOTR stars Martin Freeman and Andy Serkis…. they are the Tolkein white guys! It’s actually getting to feel quite isolating as an ‘average white guy’ at the movies! After a plethora of #SheDo films about empowered women, now comes the first black-centred Marvel film… stuffed full of powerful women too!
The setting is the hidden African kingdom of Wakanda, where due to an abundance of a an all-powerful mineral called McGuffinite… so, sorry, Vibranium… the leaders have made their city a technological marvel and developed all sorts of ad tech to help the people keep their goats well and weave their baskets better (there are a few odd scenes in this film!). T’Challa (Chadwick Boseman) succeeds his father T’Chaka (John Kani) to become the king and adopt the role of The Black Panther, being bestowed superhero powers by drinking a glass of Ribena.
But it emerges that T’Chaka has a dark secret in the form of Eric Killmonger (Michael B Jordan, “Creed“) who is determined to muscle in on the king-stuff. ‘It never rains but it pours’, and the whole of Wakanda’s secrets are in danger of being exposed by the antics of the vicious South African mercenary Ulysses Klaue (Andy Serkis, “War For The Planet Of The Apes“), trying to get his hands on vibranium to sell on to CIA operative Everett Ross (Martin Freeman, “The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies“, “The World’s End“).
After “Thor: Ragnarok“, this is back to the more seriously-played end of the superhero spectrum: there are a few jokes but it’s not overtly played for comedy. Holding the film together are some sterling performances from the ensemble cast with Michael B Jordan very good as the villain of the piece. Adding to the significant black girl power in the film are Angela Bassett (“London Has Fallen“) as the queen mother; Danai Gurira (“Wonder Woman“) as the leader of the Dora Milaje: the all-female king’s guard; and Lupita Nyong’o (“12 Years a Slave“, “Star Wars: The Force Awakens“) as the spy and love interest Nakia. But the star performance for me, and one I found absolutely spot-on as a role model for young people, was Letitia Wright (“The Commuter“) as Shuri, the king’s chief scientist. She is absolutely radiant, adding beauty, rude gestures and energy to every scene she is in.
Man of the moment Daniel Kaluuya (“Get Out“) also adds to his movie-cred as a conflicted courtier.
On the white side of the shop Andy Serkis has enormous fun as Klaue and I really wanted to see more of his character than I did. Martin Freeman feels rather lightweight and under-used, and I couldn’t quite get past his dodgy American accent.
In terms of storyline, the film is a hotch-potch of plots from multiple other films, with “The Lion King” featuring strongly (but almost in reverse!). But that’s no crime, when the Shakespearean-style narrative is good, and interpolating the strongly emotional story into the Marvel universe works well.
Where I felt a little uncomfortable is the element of racism – that is, racism *against* white people – reflected in the story. If there was a movie plot centred (basically) on the topic of whites killing blacks and taking control of every black-controlled country in the world (yes, I know, I’m British and we have historically been there!) then there would be justified uproar, and the film would be shunned.
In the technical department, I had real problems with some of the effects employed. Starting with a dodgy ‘aircraft’ shadow, things nose-dive with an astonishingly poor waterfall scene with Forest Whitaker (“Rogue One“, “Arrival“) as Zuri, green-screened against some Disneyworld cascades and hundreds of cut and pasted tribesmen randomly inserted onto the cliffs. Almost matching that is a studio-set scene in a jungle clearing, where if feels they could hardly have bothered to take the plants out of their pots. Think “Daktari” quality (kids, ask your parents/grandparents).
But overall, the film, directed by Ryan Coogler (“Creed“), is a high-energy and uniquely different take on Marvel that absolutely pays off. And it is without doubt an important movie in moving the black agenda forward into properly mainstream cinema.
The setting is the hidden African kingdom of Wakanda, where due to an abundance of a an all-powerful mineral called McGuffinite… so, sorry, Vibranium… the leaders have made their city a technological marvel and developed all sorts of ad tech to help the people keep their goats well and weave their baskets better (there are a few odd scenes in this film!). T’Challa (Chadwick Boseman) succeeds his father T’Chaka (John Kani) to become the king and adopt the role of The Black Panther, being bestowed superhero powers by drinking a glass of Ribena.
But it emerges that T’Chaka has a dark secret in the form of Eric Killmonger (Michael B Jordan, “Creed“) who is determined to muscle in on the king-stuff. ‘It never rains but it pours’, and the whole of Wakanda’s secrets are in danger of being exposed by the antics of the vicious South African mercenary Ulysses Klaue (Andy Serkis, “War For The Planet Of The Apes“), trying to get his hands on vibranium to sell on to CIA operative Everett Ross (Martin Freeman, “The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies“, “The World’s End“).
After “Thor: Ragnarok“, this is back to the more seriously-played end of the superhero spectrum: there are a few jokes but it’s not overtly played for comedy. Holding the film together are some sterling performances from the ensemble cast with Michael B Jordan very good as the villain of the piece. Adding to the significant black girl power in the film are Angela Bassett (“London Has Fallen“) as the queen mother; Danai Gurira (“Wonder Woman“) as the leader of the Dora Milaje: the all-female king’s guard; and Lupita Nyong’o (“12 Years a Slave“, “Star Wars: The Force Awakens“) as the spy and love interest Nakia. But the star performance for me, and one I found absolutely spot-on as a role model for young people, was Letitia Wright (“The Commuter“) as Shuri, the king’s chief scientist. She is absolutely radiant, adding beauty, rude gestures and energy to every scene she is in.
Man of the moment Daniel Kaluuya (“Get Out“) also adds to his movie-cred as a conflicted courtier.
On the white side of the shop Andy Serkis has enormous fun as Klaue and I really wanted to see more of his character than I did. Martin Freeman feels rather lightweight and under-used, and I couldn’t quite get past his dodgy American accent.
In terms of storyline, the film is a hotch-potch of plots from multiple other films, with “The Lion King” featuring strongly (but almost in reverse!). But that’s no crime, when the Shakespearean-style narrative is good, and interpolating the strongly emotional story into the Marvel universe works well.
Where I felt a little uncomfortable is the element of racism – that is, racism *against* white people – reflected in the story. If there was a movie plot centred (basically) on the topic of whites killing blacks and taking control of every black-controlled country in the world (yes, I know, I’m British and we have historically been there!) then there would be justified uproar, and the film would be shunned.
In the technical department, I had real problems with some of the effects employed. Starting with a dodgy ‘aircraft’ shadow, things nose-dive with an astonishingly poor waterfall scene with Forest Whitaker (“Rogue One“, “Arrival“) as Zuri, green-screened against some Disneyworld cascades and hundreds of cut and pasted tribesmen randomly inserted onto the cliffs. Almost matching that is a studio-set scene in a jungle clearing, where if feels they could hardly have bothered to take the plants out of their pots. Think “Daktari” quality (kids, ask your parents/grandparents).
But overall, the film, directed by Ryan Coogler (“Creed“), is a high-energy and uniquely different take on Marvel that absolutely pays off. And it is without doubt an important movie in moving the black agenda forward into properly mainstream cinema.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated A Star Is Born (2018) in Movies
Sep 28, 2021
Dullsville Arizona.
It’s unusual for the illustrious Mrs. Movie-Man and I to disagree over our opinion of a movie. Sure, she doesn’t like some genres like horror and sci-fi that I do, and I will often go to them alone. But in the main if we sit there together then we tend to have the same general view as to whether we liked it or not. (I guess that’s why we’ve been such a good match for nearly 40 years!). Not so though with this film.
The story has been filmed three times before: in 1937 (with Janet Gaynor and Fredric March); 1954 (with Judy Garland and James Mason) and 1976 (with Barbra Streisand and Kris Kristofferson). In all of these films the story has been the same: an alcoholic and over-the-hill actor (or with Kris Kristofferson, rock star) finds a young talented ingenue to love and develop into a superstar.
The modern day remake is a little different in that Jackson Maine, our older star (now played by Bradley Cooper), is a stadium-filling mega-rock-star, recognised and idolised in every bar he goes into…. and he frequents a LOT of bars. Maine mixes the cocktail with drugs in this version meaning that as one star is ascending, his seems destined to be heading into a black hole.
At its heart, this is a good story of having self-confidence in your own abilities, no matter how people around you try to put you down. Gaga’s Ally is one such person; a waitress who is constantly being told, especially by her blue-collar dad and his boozy friends, that although she has a great voice she’s “never going to make it” because of the way she looks. In chilled fashion she meets Jackson Maine, who hears her sing and thinks she might be on the edge of glory. Not worried about her big nose, he appreciates she was born that way: in fact he likes her so much he wants to poke her face. (Sorry… couldn’t resist it).
I appreciate from the IMDB rating that I am probably in a minority here. (At the time of writing this – pre-general release – it is a ridiculously high – and I suspect artificially pumped up – 8.8). But for me, I found the whole thing a dull affair. I can’t remember the last time I went to a film when I actively looked at my watch… but 1 hour 45 into this, I did (it had another 30 minutes to run).
For one thing, I just didn’t believe Bradley Cooper as the rock star character. He just came across as totally false and unbelievable to me. I had more resonance with Gaga’s Ally. Even though she is a novice actor (and it showed at times) in general I thought she did a creditable job. But given these two factors together, there are long and indulgent exchanges between the pair that seemed to me to go on in–ter–min–ably. Best actor in the film for me was Sam Elliott as Jackson’s brother Bobby. The mellowing of the brothers is a scene that I found genuinely touching.
I’d also like a glance at the original script, since there are some passages (the “boyfriend/husband” lines is a case in point) where it felt like one of them made an script mistake and, instead of Cooper (as director) shouting “cut”, they kept it going as some sort of half-arsed improv.
What is impressive is that they got to film at live concerts (including at Glastonbury), although most of this footage is of the hand-held nausea-inducing variety. There is zero doubt that Gaga can belt out a song better than anyone. But I didn’t get that same feeling about Bradley Cooper’s singing: like a lot of this film (with Cooper as co-producer, co-screenwriter AND director) it felt to me like a self-indulgent piece of casting.
I know music is extremely subjective, and “country” isnt really my think anyway. But the songs by Gaga and Lukas Nelson were – “Shallow” aside – for me rather forgetable.
Overall, in a couple of years that have brought us some great musicals – “La La Land“; “Sing Street“; “The Greatest Showman” – here’s a film about the music industry that did nothing for me I’m afraid.
But with my new user-rating system (this is the first post on the new web site) you have a chance to have YOUR say, so vote away!
The story has been filmed three times before: in 1937 (with Janet Gaynor and Fredric March); 1954 (with Judy Garland and James Mason) and 1976 (with Barbra Streisand and Kris Kristofferson). In all of these films the story has been the same: an alcoholic and over-the-hill actor (or with Kris Kristofferson, rock star) finds a young talented ingenue to love and develop into a superstar.
The modern day remake is a little different in that Jackson Maine, our older star (now played by Bradley Cooper), is a stadium-filling mega-rock-star, recognised and idolised in every bar he goes into…. and he frequents a LOT of bars. Maine mixes the cocktail with drugs in this version meaning that as one star is ascending, his seems destined to be heading into a black hole.
At its heart, this is a good story of having self-confidence in your own abilities, no matter how people around you try to put you down. Gaga’s Ally is one such person; a waitress who is constantly being told, especially by her blue-collar dad and his boozy friends, that although she has a great voice she’s “never going to make it” because of the way she looks. In chilled fashion she meets Jackson Maine, who hears her sing and thinks she might be on the edge of glory. Not worried about her big nose, he appreciates she was born that way: in fact he likes her so much he wants to poke her face. (Sorry… couldn’t resist it).
I appreciate from the IMDB rating that I am probably in a minority here. (At the time of writing this – pre-general release – it is a ridiculously high – and I suspect artificially pumped up – 8.8). But for me, I found the whole thing a dull affair. I can’t remember the last time I went to a film when I actively looked at my watch… but 1 hour 45 into this, I did (it had another 30 minutes to run).
For one thing, I just didn’t believe Bradley Cooper as the rock star character. He just came across as totally false and unbelievable to me. I had more resonance with Gaga’s Ally. Even though she is a novice actor (and it showed at times) in general I thought she did a creditable job. But given these two factors together, there are long and indulgent exchanges between the pair that seemed to me to go on in–ter–min–ably. Best actor in the film for me was Sam Elliott as Jackson’s brother Bobby. The mellowing of the brothers is a scene that I found genuinely touching.
I’d also like a glance at the original script, since there are some passages (the “boyfriend/husband” lines is a case in point) where it felt like one of them made an script mistake and, instead of Cooper (as director) shouting “cut”, they kept it going as some sort of half-arsed improv.
What is impressive is that they got to film at live concerts (including at Glastonbury), although most of this footage is of the hand-held nausea-inducing variety. There is zero doubt that Gaga can belt out a song better than anyone. But I didn’t get that same feeling about Bradley Cooper’s singing: like a lot of this film (with Cooper as co-producer, co-screenwriter AND director) it felt to me like a self-indulgent piece of casting.
I know music is extremely subjective, and “country” isnt really my think anyway. But the songs by Gaga and Lukas Nelson were – “Shallow” aside – for me rather forgetable.
Overall, in a couple of years that have brought us some great musicals – “La La Land“; “Sing Street“; “The Greatest Showman” – here’s a film about the music industry that did nothing for me I’m afraid.
But with my new user-rating system (this is the first post on the new web site) you have a chance to have YOUR say, so vote away!
Movie Metropolis (309 KP) rated Justice League (2017) in Movies
Jun 10, 2019
Hoorah, it's not a total dud
The entire production of Justice League has been enveloped in the tragedy surrounding director Zack Snyder’s sudden departure from the project in March this year.
After losing his daughter, Autumn, to suicide, the DC regular decided to hand over the reins of his passion project to Avengers director Joss Whedon so that he could spend time with his family. Whedon came on board and decided to undertake costly reshoots in order to get the film finished on time.
In that respect, it’s a miracle we’ve even got a Justice League movie in the first place. What’s even more of a miracle is that it turns out to be not rubbish – unfortunately that’s probably the biggest compliment I can give this frequently entertaining but messy outing for our favourite selection of DC Comic superheroes.
Fuelled by his restored faith in humanity and inspired by Superman’s (Henry Cavill) act of selflessness, Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck) enlists newfound ally Diana Prince (Gal Gadot) to face an even greater threat. Together, Batman and Wonder Woman work quickly to recruit a team to stand against their newly awakened enemy, Steppenwolf. Despite the formation of an unprecedented league of heroes — Batman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman (Jason Momoa), Cyborg (Ray Fisher) and the Flash (Ezra Miller) – it may be too late to save the planet from an assault of catastrophic proportions.
This year’s Wonder Woman proved that the DC Universe can be at least a passable alternative to the might of Marvel and Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice was an entertaining, if entirely forgettable mash up of the two titular heroes. Justice League sits somewhere in between – it’s not as much of an ordeal as BvS, but it’s also not as interesting as Wonder Woman. The less said about Suicide Squad, the better.
Acting wise, it’s a good start for the League. Ben Affleck is a cracking Bruce Wayne, but his Batman is lacking the gritty humanity of Christian Bale’s turn as the caped crusader. Ezra Miller, Jason Momoa and Ray Fisher all perform well with the former in particular being a highlight, but their rushed introductions do them no favours. However, the standout once again is the wonderful Gal Gadot. Her selfless Diana Prince really is magnificent and her increased screen-time in Justice League when compared to Batman v Superman is more than welcome.
Justice League is a film with a bit of an identity crisis as it frequently feels like a mishmash of scenes put together to make a film.
The main villain, Steppenwolf, voiced well by Ciarán Hinds is less successful. Masked behind walls of at-times poor CGI, his threat never feels truly realised and poor Hinds is wasted in a role reminiscent of the dreadful work 20th Century Fox did on Oscar Issac in X-Men: Apocalypse. He gets some good lines however, and makes for a decent, if unremarkable antagonist.
Amy Adams and Diane Lane are once again side-lined in their roles as Lois Lane and Martha Kent respectively. These incredible actresses really are wasted in roles that have little-to-no outcome to the plot. And this is a problem that has blighted the DCEU from the get-go. The calibre of actors used in these films is frankly, astounding and each one of them deserves better than the overly expositional and cringe worthy dialogue they continue to be lumped with.
The final act, like so many films before it, is a mess of ugly CGI that spoils a very decent middle section that has some truly poignant moments. The return of Superman (that isn’t a spoiler if you’ve been following the marketing for Justice League) is handled well and the moment he is reunited with his mother is touching and well-acted.
Justice League is a film with a bit of an identity crisis as it frequently feels like a mishmash of scenes put together to make a film. It’s also painfully obvious where Snyder’s very ‘operatic’ filming style is replaced with Joss Whedon’s trademark wit and this doesn’t sit well all of the time. It’s clear that a turbulent production has created a film that’s biggest merit is that it even managed to exist in the first place, and that’s a real shame. Entertaining? Yes. But entertainment can’t mask a film that reeks of mediocrity.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/11/19/justice-league-review/
After losing his daughter, Autumn, to suicide, the DC regular decided to hand over the reins of his passion project to Avengers director Joss Whedon so that he could spend time with his family. Whedon came on board and decided to undertake costly reshoots in order to get the film finished on time.
In that respect, it’s a miracle we’ve even got a Justice League movie in the first place. What’s even more of a miracle is that it turns out to be not rubbish – unfortunately that’s probably the biggest compliment I can give this frequently entertaining but messy outing for our favourite selection of DC Comic superheroes.
Fuelled by his restored faith in humanity and inspired by Superman’s (Henry Cavill) act of selflessness, Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck) enlists newfound ally Diana Prince (Gal Gadot) to face an even greater threat. Together, Batman and Wonder Woman work quickly to recruit a team to stand against their newly awakened enemy, Steppenwolf. Despite the formation of an unprecedented league of heroes — Batman, Wonder Woman, Aquaman (Jason Momoa), Cyborg (Ray Fisher) and the Flash (Ezra Miller) – it may be too late to save the planet from an assault of catastrophic proportions.
This year’s Wonder Woman proved that the DC Universe can be at least a passable alternative to the might of Marvel and Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice was an entertaining, if entirely forgettable mash up of the two titular heroes. Justice League sits somewhere in between – it’s not as much of an ordeal as BvS, but it’s also not as interesting as Wonder Woman. The less said about Suicide Squad, the better.
Acting wise, it’s a good start for the League. Ben Affleck is a cracking Bruce Wayne, but his Batman is lacking the gritty humanity of Christian Bale’s turn as the caped crusader. Ezra Miller, Jason Momoa and Ray Fisher all perform well with the former in particular being a highlight, but their rushed introductions do them no favours. However, the standout once again is the wonderful Gal Gadot. Her selfless Diana Prince really is magnificent and her increased screen-time in Justice League when compared to Batman v Superman is more than welcome.
Justice League is a film with a bit of an identity crisis as it frequently feels like a mishmash of scenes put together to make a film.
The main villain, Steppenwolf, voiced well by Ciarán Hinds is less successful. Masked behind walls of at-times poor CGI, his threat never feels truly realised and poor Hinds is wasted in a role reminiscent of the dreadful work 20th Century Fox did on Oscar Issac in X-Men: Apocalypse. He gets some good lines however, and makes for a decent, if unremarkable antagonist.
Amy Adams and Diane Lane are once again side-lined in their roles as Lois Lane and Martha Kent respectively. These incredible actresses really are wasted in roles that have little-to-no outcome to the plot. And this is a problem that has blighted the DCEU from the get-go. The calibre of actors used in these films is frankly, astounding and each one of them deserves better than the overly expositional and cringe worthy dialogue they continue to be lumped with.
The final act, like so many films before it, is a mess of ugly CGI that spoils a very decent middle section that has some truly poignant moments. The return of Superman (that isn’t a spoiler if you’ve been following the marketing for Justice League) is handled well and the moment he is reunited with his mother is touching and well-acted.
Justice League is a film with a bit of an identity crisis as it frequently feels like a mishmash of scenes put together to make a film. It’s also painfully obvious where Snyder’s very ‘operatic’ filming style is replaced with Joss Whedon’s trademark wit and this doesn’t sit well all of the time. It’s clear that a turbulent production has created a film that’s biggest merit is that it even managed to exist in the first place, and that’s a real shame. Entertaining? Yes. But entertainment can’t mask a film that reeks of mediocrity.
https://moviemetropolis.net/2017/11/19/justice-league-review/
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated Jack the Giant Slayer (2013) in Movies
Aug 7, 2019
The timeless children’s tale of Jack and the Beanstalk gets a high-tech update in the new film Jack the Giant Slayer. Directed by Bryan Singer, the new version mixes in special effects with romance, action, and humor to provide a refreshing update of a fairytale that should appeal to adults and children alike. Nicholas Hoult stars as Jack, a simple farmer who’s raised by his uncle after the passing of his father. As a boy, Jack enjoyed the tales of long ago, especially those of the time when giants came down from the sky and attacked the earth before being thwarted by King Eric and his magical crown.
One day while in town to sell a cart and horse and earn much-needed funds for his uncle, Jack has a chance encounter with Princess Isabelle, (Eleanor Tomlinson), which leaves Jack’s starstruck. Unbeknownst to Jack and Isabelle, there is a dastardly plot afoot as the evil Count Roderick (Stanley Tucci), plots to rule the land once he has married Isabelle. The fact that the Princess has no interest in marrying Roderick is of little interest to the King (Ian McShane), as he is anxious to provide continuity for his kingdom following the loss of his wife. While Isabelle pleads her case with her father, Jack ends up in possession of beans which, he’s told, are magical.
Upon seeing what Jack has returned with, his uncle storms off into the night hoping to sell some of Jack’s remaining family possessions in order to make the money Jack had failed to acquire. While alone, Jack again encounters the Princess, who has decided to run away rather than be forced into a marriage she does not want. As if on cue, one of the magic beans that Jack had obtained earlier becomes wet in the rain storm and whisks the cottage and Princess into the heavens high above. The King and his men send a group of guards, under the leadership of Elmont (Ewan McGregor), to ascend the beanstalk and return the Princess. Jack and Roderick also accompany the soldiers, each with their own agenda.
Upon scaling the massive stalk, the group soon discovers that they are in the realm of giants long thought to be the stuff of legends. Complications arise which forces Jack to take command of the very perilous situation and soon finds himself battling not just to save the Princess but also for the very survival of the kingdom and surrounding world.
The film has some nice moments and while the CGI stuff may be a bit childish to some, it is important to remember that this is a fairytale and as such you are not going to see a lot of character depth and intricate plot twists. Instead, the film relies on a very likable cast made up of matinée quality villains and bad guys and some very nice visual effects to convey its simple but effective formula. Hoult follows up his leading role in “Warm Bodies” effectively and with several high-profile projects in the near future, seems poised to be a leading man to keep an eye on. The supporting cast does a very good job, especially McGregor and McShane who bring a gleeful energy to their roles as does Tucci as a villain who has everything short of the twirling mustache and black hat.
The 3-D offered some very good moments in the film and really enhanced some of the battle scenes in the film. Parents with younger children may want to note that there are some elements that may be frightening to very young children but for the most part this is a kid’s film. That being said, I was surprised how much I enjoyed the movie. It’s certainly better than I expected and was, in my opinion, the best live-action retelling of fairytale in recent memory. We did get a chance to review the film in the IMAX format which certainly allowed for the impressive visuals of the film to have an even greater impact. If you’ve ever been a fan of the story then you definitely will want to take a trip up the beanstalk for this nostalgic, yet highly enjoyable, interpretation of the beloved classic.
One day while in town to sell a cart and horse and earn much-needed funds for his uncle, Jack has a chance encounter with Princess Isabelle, (Eleanor Tomlinson), which leaves Jack’s starstruck. Unbeknownst to Jack and Isabelle, there is a dastardly plot afoot as the evil Count Roderick (Stanley Tucci), plots to rule the land once he has married Isabelle. The fact that the Princess has no interest in marrying Roderick is of little interest to the King (Ian McShane), as he is anxious to provide continuity for his kingdom following the loss of his wife. While Isabelle pleads her case with her father, Jack ends up in possession of beans which, he’s told, are magical.
Upon seeing what Jack has returned with, his uncle storms off into the night hoping to sell some of Jack’s remaining family possessions in order to make the money Jack had failed to acquire. While alone, Jack again encounters the Princess, who has decided to run away rather than be forced into a marriage she does not want. As if on cue, one of the magic beans that Jack had obtained earlier becomes wet in the rain storm and whisks the cottage and Princess into the heavens high above. The King and his men send a group of guards, under the leadership of Elmont (Ewan McGregor), to ascend the beanstalk and return the Princess. Jack and Roderick also accompany the soldiers, each with their own agenda.
Upon scaling the massive stalk, the group soon discovers that they are in the realm of giants long thought to be the stuff of legends. Complications arise which forces Jack to take command of the very perilous situation and soon finds himself battling not just to save the Princess but also for the very survival of the kingdom and surrounding world.
The film has some nice moments and while the CGI stuff may be a bit childish to some, it is important to remember that this is a fairytale and as such you are not going to see a lot of character depth and intricate plot twists. Instead, the film relies on a very likable cast made up of matinée quality villains and bad guys and some very nice visual effects to convey its simple but effective formula. Hoult follows up his leading role in “Warm Bodies” effectively and with several high-profile projects in the near future, seems poised to be a leading man to keep an eye on. The supporting cast does a very good job, especially McGregor and McShane who bring a gleeful energy to their roles as does Tucci as a villain who has everything short of the twirling mustache and black hat.
The 3-D offered some very good moments in the film and really enhanced some of the battle scenes in the film. Parents with younger children may want to note that there are some elements that may be frightening to very young children but for the most part this is a kid’s film. That being said, I was surprised how much I enjoyed the movie. It’s certainly better than I expected and was, in my opinion, the best live-action retelling of fairytale in recent memory. We did get a chance to review the film in the IMAX format which certainly allowed for the impressive visuals of the film to have an even greater impact. If you’ve ever been a fan of the story then you definitely will want to take a trip up the beanstalk for this nostalgic, yet highly enjoyable, interpretation of the beloved classic.
Bob Mann (459 KP) rated Jackie (2016) in Movies
Sep 29, 2021
Spoiler! Her husband gets shot.
“Jackie” tells the story of the spiralling grief, loss and anger of Jackie Kennedy driven by the assassination of JFK in Dallas in November 1963. Hopping backwards and forwards in flashback, the film centres on the first interview given by Jackie (Natalie Portman, “Black Swan”) to a ‘Time’ journalist (Billy Crudup, “Watchmen”, “Spotlight”).
Through this interview we flashback to see Jackie as the young First Lady engaged in recording a TV special for a tour of the White House: nervous, unsure of herself and with a ‘baby girl’ voice. This contrasts with her demeanour in the interview which – although subject to emotional outburst and grief – is assured, confident and above all extremely assertive. We live the film through Jackie’s eyes as she experiences the arrival in Dallas, the traumatic events of November 22nd in Dealey Plaza, the return home to Washington and the complicated arrangement of the President’s funeral.
This is an acting tour de force for Natalie Portman, who is astonishingly emotional as the grief-stricken ex-first lady. She nails this role utterly and completely. Having already won the Golden Globe for an actress in a dramatic role, you would be a foolish man to bet against her not taking the Oscar. (I know I said just the other week that I though Emma Stone should get it for “La La Land” – as another Golden Globe winner, for the Comedy/Musical category – and a large part of my heart would still really like to see Stone win it…. But excellent as that performance was, this is a far more challenging role.)
In a key supporting role is Peter Sarsgaard (“The Magnificent Seven”) as Bobby Kennedy (although his lookalike is not one of the best: that accolade I would give to Gaspard Koenig, in an un-speaking role, as the young Ted Kennedy).
Also providing interesting support as Jackie’s priest is John Hurt (“Alien”, “Dr Who”) and, as Jackie’s close friend, the artist Bill Walton, is Richard E Grant (“Withnail and I”, who as he grows older is looking more and more like Geoffrey Rush – I was sure it was him!).
Director Pablo Larraín (whose previous work I am not familiar with) automatically assumes that EVERYONE has the background history to understand the narrative without further explanation: perhaps as this happened 54 years ago, this is a bit of a presumption for younger viewers? Naturally for people of my advanced years, these events are as burned into our collective psyches as the images in the Zapruder film.
While the film focuses predominantly, and brilliantly, on Jackie’s mental state, the film does gently question (via an outburst from Bobby) as to what JFK actually achieved in his all too short presidency – ‘Will he be remembered for resolving the Cuban missile crisis: something he originally created?’ rants Bobby. In reality, JFK is remembered in history for this assassination and the lost potential for what he might have done. I would have liked the script to have delved a little bit further into that collective soul-searching.
This is a very sombre movie in tone, from the bleak opening, with a soundtrack of sonorous strings, to the bleak weather-swept scenes at Arlington cemetery. The cinematography (by Stéphane Fontaine, “Rust and Bone”) cleverly contrasts between the vibrant hues of Jackie’s “Camelot” to the washed-out blueish tones of the post-assassination events. If you don’t feel depressed going into this film, you probably will be coming out! But the journey is a satisfying one nonetheless, and the script by Noah Oppenheim – in a SIGNIFICANT departure from his previous teen-flick screenplays for “Allegiant” and “The Maze Runner” – is both tight and thought-provoking.
Overall, a recommended watch which comes with a prediction: “And the Oscar goes to… Natalie Portman”.
Finally, note that for those of a squeamish disposition, there is a very graphic depiction of the assassination from Jackie’s point-of-view…. but this is not until nearly the end of the film, so you are reasonably safe until then!
Also as a final general whinge, could directors PLEASE place an embargo on the logos of more than two production companies coming up at the start of a film? This has about six of them and is farcical, aping the (very amusing) parody in “Family Guy” (as shown here).
Through this interview we flashback to see Jackie as the young First Lady engaged in recording a TV special for a tour of the White House: nervous, unsure of herself and with a ‘baby girl’ voice. This contrasts with her demeanour in the interview which – although subject to emotional outburst and grief – is assured, confident and above all extremely assertive. We live the film through Jackie’s eyes as she experiences the arrival in Dallas, the traumatic events of November 22nd in Dealey Plaza, the return home to Washington and the complicated arrangement of the President’s funeral.
This is an acting tour de force for Natalie Portman, who is astonishingly emotional as the grief-stricken ex-first lady. She nails this role utterly and completely. Having already won the Golden Globe for an actress in a dramatic role, you would be a foolish man to bet against her not taking the Oscar. (I know I said just the other week that I though Emma Stone should get it for “La La Land” – as another Golden Globe winner, for the Comedy/Musical category – and a large part of my heart would still really like to see Stone win it…. But excellent as that performance was, this is a far more challenging role.)
In a key supporting role is Peter Sarsgaard (“The Magnificent Seven”) as Bobby Kennedy (although his lookalike is not one of the best: that accolade I would give to Gaspard Koenig, in an un-speaking role, as the young Ted Kennedy).
Also providing interesting support as Jackie’s priest is John Hurt (“Alien”, “Dr Who”) and, as Jackie’s close friend, the artist Bill Walton, is Richard E Grant (“Withnail and I”, who as he grows older is looking more and more like Geoffrey Rush – I was sure it was him!).
Director Pablo Larraín (whose previous work I am not familiar with) automatically assumes that EVERYONE has the background history to understand the narrative without further explanation: perhaps as this happened 54 years ago, this is a bit of a presumption for younger viewers? Naturally for people of my advanced years, these events are as burned into our collective psyches as the images in the Zapruder film.
While the film focuses predominantly, and brilliantly, on Jackie’s mental state, the film does gently question (via an outburst from Bobby) as to what JFK actually achieved in his all too short presidency – ‘Will he be remembered for resolving the Cuban missile crisis: something he originally created?’ rants Bobby. In reality, JFK is remembered in history for this assassination and the lost potential for what he might have done. I would have liked the script to have delved a little bit further into that collective soul-searching.
This is a very sombre movie in tone, from the bleak opening, with a soundtrack of sonorous strings, to the bleak weather-swept scenes at Arlington cemetery. The cinematography (by Stéphane Fontaine, “Rust and Bone”) cleverly contrasts between the vibrant hues of Jackie’s “Camelot” to the washed-out blueish tones of the post-assassination events. If you don’t feel depressed going into this film, you probably will be coming out! But the journey is a satisfying one nonetheless, and the script by Noah Oppenheim – in a SIGNIFICANT departure from his previous teen-flick screenplays for “Allegiant” and “The Maze Runner” – is both tight and thought-provoking.
Overall, a recommended watch which comes with a prediction: “And the Oscar goes to… Natalie Portman”.
Finally, note that for those of a squeamish disposition, there is a very graphic depiction of the assassination from Jackie’s point-of-view…. but this is not until nearly the end of the film, so you are reasonably safe until then!
Also as a final general whinge, could directors PLEASE place an embargo on the logos of more than two production companies coming up at the start of a film? This has about six of them and is farcical, aping the (very amusing) parody in “Family Guy” (as shown here).
Alison Pink (7 KP) rated Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close in Books
Jan 15, 2018
I have never been a big fan of history. There have been events in history which have captured my attention...the Holocaust, JFK's assassination, the Civil Rights movement, the Beatles. I think my issue with history is just that, its history. I had no connection to it. All of that changed on September 11, 2001, my generation's version of the day that will live in infamy. Like most everyone who was old enough to remember, I remember that day like it were yesterday...where I was when I heard, what it was like to watch those massive building collapse, the fear, the uncertainty, the need to have those I loved close to me, how I knew it was real but just not being able to comprehend that I was watching the news & not some movie. I didn't have a personal connection with losing someone that day thank God.
Jonathan Safran Foer's book gave me that personal connection. While I know it is fiction, it felt SO incredibly real. His writing was very heartfelt...funny, depressing, hopeful, and heartbreaking all at once. It tells the story of Oskar Schell who lost his father on that horrible day. It tells the tale of the aftermath for those left behind, those who still today stuggle to get a handle on wrapping their minds around their loved one being gone, even though there is nothing to put closure to their loss.
Oskar spends months a searching for an explanation to a key he found at the bottom of a vase in his father's closet after he died. He embarks on the search hoping to feel close to his dad, if only for a little while longer. That search leads him all through New York and into the homes of a very eclectic group of people who are all dealing with some kind of tragedy. In the end, what he finds surprises Oskar, but also manages to pull him back to his mother and deal with his anger at the same time.
I'm not sure what I was expecting, but this book was a pleasant surprise. I laughed & cried, often times all from just one page of text. The story is accompanied by photos that just add to the personal nature of the story. I don't do this often if ever really, but I think this is a book I will read more than once.
Jonathan Safran Foer's book gave me that personal connection. While I know it is fiction, it felt SO incredibly real. His writing was very heartfelt...funny, depressing, hopeful, and heartbreaking all at once. It tells the story of Oskar Schell who lost his father on that horrible day. It tells the tale of the aftermath for those left behind, those who still today stuggle to get a handle on wrapping their minds around their loved one being gone, even though there is nothing to put closure to their loss.
Oskar spends months a searching for an explanation to a key he found at the bottom of a vase in his father's closet after he died. He embarks on the search hoping to feel close to his dad, if only for a little while longer. That search leads him all through New York and into the homes of a very eclectic group of people who are all dealing with some kind of tragedy. In the end, what he finds surprises Oskar, but also manages to pull him back to his mother and deal with his anger at the same time.
I'm not sure what I was expecting, but this book was a pleasant surprise. I laughed & cried, often times all from just one page of text. The story is accompanied by photos that just add to the personal nature of the story. I don't do this often if ever really, but I think this is a book I will read more than once.